"مُلخّص المراسلات المتعلّقة بشؤون زنزبار من ١٨٥٦ إلى ١٨٧٢." أعدّه النقيب ب. د. هندرسون، الملحق بالإدارة الخارجية" [ظ‎‎٩‎٥] (١١٤/٣٠)

Arbitration of Govemmeiit of India.
"Although the tenor of the late Syed Saeed/s official communication to Lord Aberdeen,
in 1844. is not absolutely conclusive that he comtemplated dividing his empire by constitut
ing- Zanzibar and its African dependencies a separate kingdom under the sovereignty of his
second son Khaled, and although there is still less certain ground for inferring that on the
death of Khaled he purposed carrying out the same intention in behalf of his fourth son
Majid, nevertheless, I am of opinion that the evidence on that side outweighs the argument
on the other, that His late Highness, in his arrangements, actually made, or prospectively
designed, had nothing more in view than to allot subordinate governorships to one or more of
his sons under the paramount Sovereign of Oman.
" Thus much conceded, however, the question arises whether the late Syed Saeed, in
conformity with pre-existing usage, possessed the riijht of dividing his dominions, or of dispos
ing of them at will. Syed Majid, during one of the Rev. Mr. Badger's official interviews
with him, attempted at first to maintain that he had ; but on being requested to adduce one
single corroborative instance in the past history of the rulers of Oman, or to explain how it
fell out, if such was the recognised law on the subject, that the succession in the existing
dynasty had so often been diverted from the direct line, and the supreme power successfully
usurped. His Highness at once abandoned the argument as untenable, admitting that the
sovereignty of Oman had hitherto depended on election, the principal tribes generally choosing
the candidate who was either most beloved by them, or who possessed the greatest power to
enforce his pretensions. His Highnesses testimony in this respect is in exact accordance with
the account given by Syed Hilal, as reported by Colonel Rigby, of the mode of succession to
the sovereignty of Oman: f Might, coupled with election by the tribes, is the only right.'
And asain, 'The one who had most influence with the tribes was elected/
" Colonel Rigby seemingly admits the same > for in explaining his former use of the
word 'election/ as applied to the succession of the late Syed Saeed, he says—'By the terra
' election/ I mean that he was proclaimed and accepted as their ruler by the Arabs of Oman,
to the exclusion of bis elder brother/ And further on—'The late Imam evidently considered
that he possessed the right to dispose of his dominions as he pleased, from having, during
his lifetime, disinherited his eldest son Hilal. But if the succe:*sor thus nominated were not
acceptable to the people, I think they would refuse to accept him/ And a^ain—'I think if
a ruler of Oman were to appoint as his successor a person who was not acceptable to the Arab
tribes and chiefs, that they would refuse to acknowledge him, and elect as their ruler a person
who was more popular with them/
" These admissions, however, are somewhat qualified by two or three examples adduced
by the way in support of the opposite view. First, the case of Syed Hilal, just mentioned;
but that instance proves nothing, even supposing that his being disinherited implied his ex
clusion from the succession, since, if the succession was ultimately by election, his father at
best could only have nominated him to the sovereignty, and his confirmation in that dignity
would have depended on the temper of the tribes.
" The next case is that of Ahmed bin Saeed, grandfather of the late Syed Saeed, and the
first of the reigning dynasty, who, according to Colonel Rigby, ' divided his dominions during
his own life, having appointed his son Kees to be chief of Sohar, and his seventh and youngest
son to be chief of Sink/ Although it is true that in after years, owing to the incessant struggles
for the sovereignty, and the fierce strife of parties in Oman, the two small provinces above-
named did eventually attain a nominal independence, nevertheless it is highly improbable, from
the peculiar circumstances of his own accession to the supreme power, that Ahmed's original
concession either contemplated or sanctioned their detachment from the paramount state.
r lhey were most probably granted as appanages, but held on feudal tenure, their " syuds," or
lords, being bound to render military aid to the suzerain whenever called upon to do so.
" In another place, replying to a query whether the tribes of Oman, to whom the late
Syed Saeed owed his election to the sovereignty, and who had co-operated with him in the
extension and consolidation of the African dependencies of the kingdom, might not justly
claim a voice in the disposal of those territories, Colonel Rigby writes—' The late
linam succeeded in establishing his power over the east coast of Africa chiefly through
the mutual jealousies and dissensions of the petty chiefs, who frequently sent envoys to
iUu >cat to solicit his interference. I do not think that it would ever occur to any Arabs
in Oman that they had any voice in the succession to the government of the African posses-
sions on the ground supposed; 1 think they were regarded as being at the absolute disposal
ut tie Imam; and the fact that all the property of the State, such as ships of war, arms, &c.,
\\ere considered as the private estate of the Imam, strengthens this opinion/
*1 ^VI 118 ^ re P^ ^' ia ^ ^ ie m utual jealousies of the native petty chiefs were undoubtedly
u\ai e o jy the late Syed Saeed to extend his conquests in Eastern Africa; but it is equally
certain that he acquired the sovereignty over Zanzibar, Pemba, and Mombasa, as also over