172 
APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE 
Appendix, No. 8, 
No. 19, of 1859. 
No. 19, of 1859. 
No. 46, of 1859. 
No. 46, of 1859. 
No. 40, of 1859. 
No. 46, of 1859. 
Q. 2.—Was any reply received from the Foreign Office to Lieutenant Colonel Hamerton’s 
letter to Lord Clarendon, dated lOtli November 1856, wherein he states what the late 
Syud Sfieed’s intentions had been prior to his death regarding the succession. 
A.—Yes; a reply was received from Her Majesty’s Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, 
dated 31st March 1857, together with a letter from Her Majesty Queen Victoria to his 
highness Prince Majeed bin Saeed. Copies of both these letters are annexed, marked C. 
and D. respectively. 
Q. 3.—In Colonel Hamerton’s letter just referred to, after stating that Syud Saeed had 
regarded Syud Majeed in the place of his second son Klialed, since the death of the latter in 
18^54, he observes, “ But it is now difficult to perceive what turn affairs may take.” What 
meaning do you attach to this remark? 
A.—1 think that it may have had reference to the late Imam not having left any 
written will of his intentions regarding the future position of his different sons, and also to 
the conduct of Syud Barghash and the El-Harth tribe of Arabs. The only member of the 
late Imam’s family who was with him at the time of his death was Syud Barghash, and as 
he cherished ambitious designs, he no doubt destroyed any documents left by his father. 
The ship of war “ Victoria,” on board of which the death of the late Imam occurred, and 
the “ Artemise”, which was in company, anchored about 5 p.m., five miles south of the 
harbour, and about midnight Syud Barghash secretly landed, before it was known that his 
father’s death had occurred on board, and endeavoured to obtain possession of the Fort of 
Zanzibar. The Belooch Jemadar in command refused to admit him. He then secretly 
purchased arms and ammunition, and endeavoured to collect a party to aid him in seizin^ 
the government; but on the following morning, when the death of the Imam became 
known, the people hailed Syud Majeed as their Sultan. The El-Harth tribe, which had 
always been disaffected towards the Imam’s family, showed signs of rebellion, and the 
wealthiest chief of the tribe, by name Abdallah bin Salim, called on Lieutenant Colonel 
Hamerton, and asked him what they should do, as the island was without a ruler. 
Lieutenant Colonel Hamerton told him that if he attempted to disturb the peace, his head 
would fall within 24 hours, and turned him out of the Consulate. The expression quoted 
in the question may probably have referred to these circumstances which had occurred just 
before. 
Q. 4.—Syud Saeed’s intentions with regard to his sons Khaledand Thoweynee are clearly 
stated in his own letter to Lord Aberdeen, dated 23rd July 1844. Was any reply to that 
letter received by his late highness from the British Government? 
A.—No reply exists in the recoids of the Consulate. 
Q. 5.—Syud Hilal informed you that Syud Saeed had notified to the other foreign 
Governments in alliance with him, his intention to divide his dominions between the Prince 
Thoweynee and Khaled. Are you aware whether any replies were received to the notifi 
cation, and what was ihe tenor of them? 
A. I really do not know whether the notification was made to any other Government. 
The French Government had no Consul or Agent accredited to the late Imam prior 
to 1846. 
Q. 6.—Syud Majeed’s promotion to the position which the late Syud Saeed had intended 
for Syud Khaled rests at present on the testimony of Colonel Hamerton as to what his 
highness’s intentions were prior to his death, and on your own statement that the succession 
of Majeed to Khaled y/as proclaimed, after the decease of the latter, in open durbar. Are 
voll aware whether Syud Saeed notified this appointment to any of the foreign Governments ? 
t)o any native records exist attesting it as the act of the late sovereign? 
A. I am not aware whether the appointment was notified to any foreign Governments. 
I believe no native documents or records exist on this or almost any other subject, or, if 
any such do exist, that no person about his highness Syud Majeed knows where to find them. 
Q. 7.—You prove satisfactorily that primogeniture has generally been disregarded in the 
succession to the sovereignty of Oman, but you speak of the late Syud Saeed as having 
been elected” to the exclusion of his elder brother. Who elected him ? If elected, then 
his predecessor did not nominate him. Are you aware how Saeed’s predecessors attained 
the sovereignty ? The only instance which you adduce of any of the Imaums having 
exercised the right of nominating a successor is that of Syud Saeed. Do you know of any 
other instance ? 
Syud Hilal’s account of the mode of succession, as reported by you, is as follows :— 
Might, coupled with election by the tribe, is the only right;” and again, d’he one who 
had most influence with the tribe was elected.” If such had been the rule hitherto, on what 
ground could Syud Saeed abolish it, and introduce a new mode of succession? 
A.—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. I do not think there was ever 
any regular form of voting in practice amongst the Arabs of Oman. The father of Syud 
Saeed succeeded in 1803 to the sovereignty to tue exclusion of his two elder brothers ; and 
the grandfather of Syud Saeed, by name Ahmed bin Saeed, divided his dominions during 
his own life, having appointed his son Kees to be chief of Sohar, and his seventh and 
youngest son Mahomed to be chief of Suik. 
The late Imam evidently considered that he possessed the right to dispose of his 
dominions as he pleased, from having, during his own life, 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. 
Q. 8.—You state that Ahmed bin Saeed, grandfather of Syud Saeed, had, during his 
lifetime 
,'4'E 
mi