'Précis of correspondence regarding the affairs of the Persian Gulf, 1801-1853' [‎125r] (249/344)

Part VI—Chap. XLVI-
229
CHAPTER XIVI.
BRITISH PROTECTION OF THE IMAM OF MA SKAT AGAIXST
ATTACKS FROM THE CHIEF OF SOIIAR AND THE
JOASMI CHIEF SiLTAA BIN SAGGAR,
1839—1850.
418. To what extent the dynasty of Seyyid Said bin Sultan owes its very
existence to the protection of the British is proved among other facts by their
friendly intervention in the feuds between the Chief of Sohar and the Imaum.
It will* not be therefore out of place to trace from the beginning our relations
with the Chief of Sohar.
419. It was in the year 1730, that the Persians were driven out of Oman
by Ahmed bin Said, then Governor of Sohar, who in consequence became the
first Imam of Maskat. In 1797, his second son Said Saltan succeeded to the
Imaumship, to the exclusion of the elder son and rightful heir. In 1804, as we
have seen, on the death ol Said, an attempt was made to usurp the Government
from his sons, which failed and when Sait bin Beder was murdered, the Chief
of Sohar was deprived of his patrimony. In 1830, Syud Bamud bin Azau
bin Ghez, taking advantage of the Imaum's absence at Zanzibar, and of
the confusion which followed the treacherous seizure of feyud IJillal already
alluded to, succeeded in regaining Sohar his paternal inheritance. On the
Imaum's return, he attacked Sohar, but being unable to reduce it made terms
with Svud Hamud, who agreed to pay tribute to His Highness and to restore
the districts of Shinas and G bulla I, on condition of being allowed to retain
possession of the districts of Khizza, Khalura, Mackies and Sohar. In the
following year however the Imaum again attacked Sohar, and owing to the
treachery of some of his allies was again defeated and compelled to make peace
with the Chief, nearly on the same terms, as in the preceding year.
420. In x832, Syud Haraud, taking advantage of the disorders created by
the seizure of the Imaum's son and nephew by the Chief ot Burka, and
the Imaum's absence at Zanzibar, in conjunction with the Chief of Soweick
prepared to attack Rustak and other inland places in the Imaum's territory,
but as already stated their plans were frustrated by our sending a naval
force to Maskat to support the Imaum's authority. In 1834, the Chief of
Sohar having possessed himself of Rustak and threatened other places we
asain interfered, and proceeded to the length of informing him " that if ^ by
further aggressions he placed himself in a position of actual hostilities against
the dominions of His Highness the Imaum, he would by so doing incur the
penalty of being considered as an enemy of the British Government." He
nevertheless, notwithstanding this warning, surprised and partially gained
possession of the town ot Soweick, but was in the end driven out with some
loss. At this period our Resident reported £< that the popularity and influence
of the Chief of Sohar now appeared to be continually increasing in the
Province of Oman, while the imbecile conduct and want of energy of the son
and nephew of the Imaum daily diminished their authority." ^ His Highness
the Imaum having returned to Maskat attempted to recover his lost influence
and powers. But so great was his necessity, that he imprudently invited the
piratical Arab tribes to aid him, and also entered into an agreement with the
Wahabi A^ent Syud bin Mutluk to assist him in the expulsion of Syud
Hamud from the places he had during his absence seized.^ The combined
forces accordingly invested Sohar by sea and by land, but His Highness the
Imaum having ascertained that it was the intention of the Wahabi Agent,
when Sohar fell, to garrison it on account of his ^Master, the Imaum
considered that this would be a greater evil, than allowing it to be retained
by his rebellious kinsman, and therefore suddenly abandoned his allies and
the seige of Sohar, and returned to Zanzibar. Captain Hamerton in allusion
to these events observes: * " During the
• Letter,dated tiie 5tb eeptembe* 1814. attention of the Imaum was
2 o 2