156 
APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE 
Appendix, No, 8. Zanzibar, desiring him to pay to bearer the balance of the Musaadeh ; ” that is, tlie aid 
or subsidy granted by Syud Majeed to his brother Thoweynee. The other contains the 
original order drawn up in Syud Majeed’s own writing, authorising the said Luddah to 
pay his brother d'howeynee every year ‘‘ a subsidy” of 40,000 crowns. 
12. All the arguments adduced or adducible in favour of Syud Majeed’s claims are, I 
believe, fully and fairly stated in the foregoing summary. They are based on the follow 
ing grounds, viz. :— 
1. The will, or rather wishes, of his late Highness Syud Saeed. 
2. His recognition by foreign powers. 
3. His virtual recognition by his rival brother Syud Thoweynee of Muscat. 
4. His election as their Sovereign by the chiefs of Zanzibar and its African 
dependencies. 
I shall now proceed to make a few remarks under these several heads. 
13. Although the tenor of the late Syud Saeed’s official communication to Lord 
Aberdeen, in 1844, is not absolutely conclusive that he contemplated dividing his empire 
by constituting 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 Majeed ; nevertheless, I am of opinion that the evidence on that 
PwaerapV? 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 subor 
dinate governorships to one or more of his'sons under the paramount Sovereio-n of 
Oman. 
f Colonel Rigby’s 
letter, No. 46 of 
1859. 
$ Appendix B, reply 
to Query 7. 
§ Appendix B, reply 
to Query 11. 
14. Thus much conceded however, the question arises whether the late Syud Saeed, in 
conformity with pre-existing usage, possessed the right of dividing his dominions, or of 
disposing of them at will. Syud Majeed, 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 
m the existing dynasty had so often been diverted from the direct line, and the supreme 
power successfully usurped, his Higliness at once abandoned the argument as untenable 
admitting that the sovereignty of Oman had hitherto depended on election, the princinal 
tribes generally choosing the candidate who was either most beloved by them or who 
possessed the greatest power to enforce his pretensions. His Highness's testimony in this 
respect IS m exact accordance with the account given by Syud Hilal, as reported by 
Colonel Rigby, of the mode of succession to the sovereignty of Oman; “ Mio-ht, coupled 
with election by the tribes, is the only right.” And again, The one who had most 
influence with the tribes was elected.”! 
15. Colonel Rigby seemingly admits the same; for in explaining his former use of the 
word “ election,” as applied to the succession of the late Syud Saeed, he says, “ By the 
term ‘ election,’ I mean that he was proclaimed and accepted as their ruler by the Arabs 
of ^ Oman, to the exclusion of his 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 successor 
thus nominated were not acceptable to the people, I think they would refuse to accept 
him. ! And again,—" 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.§ 
16. Tlmsr. admissions, however, are somewhat qualified by two or three examples 
adduced by the way in support of the opposite view. First, the case of Syud Hilal, 
just mentioned ; but that instance proves nothing, even supposing that his being dis- 
inlierited implied his exclusion from the succession, since, if the succession was ultimately 
by election, his father at best could only have nominated him to the sovereio’nty, and 
his confirmation in that dignity would have depended on the temper of the tribes. 
of Ahmed bin Saeed, grandfather of the late Syud Saeed, 
and the ist 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 
ij Appendix B, reply his seventh and youngest son to be chief of Suik.”[| Although it is true that in after 
to Query 7. years, owing to the incessant strugles for the sovereignty, and the fierce strife of parties 
in Oman, the two small provinces above-named did eventually attain a nominal inde 
pendence, 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 detatchment from the paramount state. They 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. 
1 In another place, replying to a query whether the tribes of Oman, to whom the 
late hyud 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 
Imaum