V 
ON SLAVE TRADE (EAST COAST OF AFRICA). 
189 
no formal instrument declaratory of the precise nature of the grant. Under these circum 
stances 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 adminis 
tration 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 ascer 
tained, 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 considera 
tion, 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 advan 
tages derivable from his position as viceroy ; and that no opposition could safely be or 
ganised against this array of circumstances by those who really favoured the pretensions 
0.116. A A 3 of 
Appendix, No. 8