V
ON SLAVE TRADE (EAST COAST OF AFRICA).
189
no formal instrument declaratory of the precise nature of the grant. Under these circumstances
no decision can be based on the alleged recognition by Syud Thoweynee of his
brother’s claim.
9. The 2nd and 3rd grounds being thus briefly disposed of, the 1st ground (the will
or wishes of the late Syud Saeed) is presented for consideration. Two questions naturally
arise: 1st. Did the late Imam clearly manifest his wishes? 2ndly. Would the wishes
of the late Imam, if ascertained, constitute a valid title to the succession ? To the first
of these questions the Honourable the Governor in Council would reply that Syud Saeed
did not clearly manifest his wishes, but that there was considerable ground for the inference
that they were in accordance with the claims of Syud Majeed. It stands clear upon the
evidence, that the late Imam did indicate in his will that on his death his dominions
should be divided ; that the Arabian portion should be assigned to Syud 'fhoweynee, and
the African portion to Syud Khaled ; that he entrusted during his own life the administration
of the respective portions to the sons thus named ; that on Syud Khaled’s death
he placed Syud Majeed in authority over the African dominions ; that he led the British
Agent, Colonel Hamerton, with whom he had long been on terms of friendly intercourse,
to believe that he intended the arrangement to remain in force after his own death. The
proof of the late Imam’s wishes is inadequate, but there are very strong presumptions
in favour of the conclusion that, if the claim of Syud Majeed were established on other
grounds, the British Government would recognise the claim which had the sympathy and
support of Syud Saeed.
10. Next, with respect to the question of whether the wishes of the late Imam, if
ascertained, could confer a valid title to the succession. The Honourable the Governor in
Council considers it to have been clearly shown by Brigadier Coghlan that succession
in the Imam’s family has in practice, as generally in Arab chiefships, been regulated by
election. The wishes of the late Imam, though they might very naturally exercise a
material influence on the opinions of the various chiefs and tribes, could not therefore,
from any inherent authority of their own, determine the succession. They might influence
the election, and they might still more lend an appearance of legitimacy to pretensions
which really owed their success to other causes of a less respectable character, to force or
intrigue ; but it cannot be doubted that, if the will of the sovereign was in Muscat and
Zanzibar decisive as to the succession, there must have been instruments producible
which would have put the fact beyond all doubt. In the absence, then, of all satisfactory
proof, the Honourable the Governor in Council fully concurs with Brigadier Coghlan in
considering that the will or wishes of the late Imam cannot be regarded, even if ascertained,
as authoritatively decisive of the dispute. They would in all probability have
exercised a material influence on the election, and that is all.
11. The last ground, then, on which Syud Majeed bases his claim remains for consideration,
that he was elected by the chiefs and tribes in the late Imam’s African dominions
to be their ruler. The Honourable the Governor in Council considers it to have been
satisfactorily shown that in the Imam’s family the succession is determined by election.
The question then is, was Syud Majeed elected? On this point there can be no doubt.
No opposition appears ever to have been manifested in Zanzibar or Africa until some
years after Syud Majeed had commenced his rule, and then the opposition might more
correctly be termed disaffection to the existing ruler, excited by the intrigues of a rival
claimant. That Syud Thoweynee should have commenced these intrigues was but natural,
but the Honourable the Governor in Council is of opinion that the conclusion cannot be
resisted, that Syud Majeed was elected to the sovereignty without a murmur from those
included within the limits of his government, and that he would have continued to rule
without protest or resistance but for the acts of those who were not included within the
limits of his rule.
12. But an important point is presented for consideration at this period of the discussion.
Had the chiefs and tribes of the African dominions, which were conquered dependencies
of Muscat, a right to elect their own sovereign without reference to the desires of the
chiefs in Oman ? On this point the Honourable the Governor in Council has no difficulty
in concurring with Brigadier Coghlan in opinion that the enhanced importance of the
African dominions, both in their political and commercial aspects, an importance far
surpassing that of Muscat, invested the chiefs of those young and vigorous settlements
with a right of exercising a potential voice in the selection of their ruler. The late Imam,
by whose courage and administrative ability the dominions had been consolidated and
raised to their present prosperity, virtually relieved Zanzibar of its dependent character
by making it the seat of government ; and he still further indicated, his views on this
point by his desire, after making the administrations distinct during his life, to continue
the arrangement after his death, in favour at least of Syud Khaled, if not of Syud Majeed.
13. The Honourable the Governor in Council then holds that Zanzibar had the right
of choosing its own ruler, and that it chose Syud Majeed. But another complication is at
this point presented for solution. It may be fairly contended by Syud Thoweynee that the
election of Syud Majeed was, stripped of all its accidents, a mere exhibition of force ; that
Syud Majeed was on the spot when the throne became vacant; that he had all the advantages
derivable from his position as viceroy ; and that no opposition could safely be organised
against this array of circumstances by those who really favoured the pretensions
0.116. A A 3 of
Appendix, No. 8
