Page 303 - Gulf Precis (III)_Neat

5

CHAPTER II.

ORDERS OF THE COURT OF DIRECTORS YROIT PAYMENT
OF FINES DIRECT TO THE SUFFERERS, 1852—1854.

28. In their despatch No. 121, dated 3rd December 1852, the Court of
Directors observed :—
“ The practice of paying the money received as compensation for piracies, homicides, or
other injuries direct to the injured persons instead of paying it to the Chiefs is both just
and expedient, and we learn with regret from paragraph 6 of Lieutenant-Colonel flcnucll's
lcttci, dated *'0th January 1351, that he has signified to the Chief of Sharguli that the rule
would not be adhered to in eases which coucururd that Chief's subjects. We do not consider
tho faith of Government as pledged by this unauthorized intimation and the Chief should
be informed that we refuse our confirmation of it.*'
29. On 13th January 1S53, the Bombay Government submitted to the
Court of Directors a remonstrance ad­
Volumo IV—109 of 1853, page 101.
dressed by Sultan bin Saggar against the
above orders and a rccommendaiion from Captain Kemball, in which the Gov­
ernment agreed, in favour of reconsideration of the orders.
30. In reply the Honourable Court in the 7th paragraph of their letter to
this Government, dated the 4th Day i853, remarked as follows:—
“ Our order that all monies recovered by us as compensation to injured persons shall be
paid directly to the sufferers, and not to the Chiefs, has been the subject of a remonstrance
from sheikh Sultan bin Saggar; and ( antaiu Kemlull, with whom your (invernment express
agreement, lecommemls that the order be reconsideied, and that the Resident should be left,
according to the circumstances of each case, ‘ to take such precautions in the form of exorta-
tion and remonstrance, at d by timely notice to the persons to be indemnified, as may appear
to him calculated to utilize the object it is directed to attain.' Captain Kemball, however,
admits that money paid through the medium of the Chiefs, was by no means certain to reach
the persous for whom it was intended ; and as we cannot collect from his letter any other
reason for re\crtmg to the f. inter practice than that its abandonment may render the Chiefs
less zealous in representing the grievances of their subjects, which it is to bo presumed that
the subjects themse-ves will represent if the Chiefs fail of do;ug so, ho must, before revoking
au order evidently right iu principles, request a more clear statement of the practical objections
to which you deem it to be liable. "
31. The foregoing extract bad been forwarded to the Resident in the
Persian Gulf for any remarks lie might have to oll'cr.
His opinion was expressed in his letter, dat' d 2Gtli September 1853.
The opposition of Sheikh Sultan hill Saggar to this measure was based
upon his supposed rights and privileges as an independent Chieftain, as well
as tho obligation which attached to him of discharging the liabilities of de­
faulters of his own tribe, whose want of means or whoso escape beyond the
reach of his control rendered their personal responsibility unavailing or
ineligible. Deducing thenco bis right to reimburse himself for losses of this
nature bv a certain percentage upon the compensation received when his own
subjects might be the sulfcrei’3. Captain Koiuball ventured to submit that
their object would be sutlicieutly answered if, on all such occasions, bis influence
were exerted to secure moderation in the exaction.
Under the then new system, each Chief possessing unquestionably the
means to extort. from his dependents any sum ho pleased, it appeared to him
that he could always find a pretext for rcudering tho rule virtually inoperative,
or on the other hand if tlie fear of their intervention or tho odium of such an
act prompted his strict observaacc of it, tho natural effect must be to deprive
him of ail interest in cheeking reprisals, or in compelling aequiesccneo in our
views on the part of ike aggrieved persons. When such persons should be dissa­
tisfied with our decision, or where the Muhammadan law gave aright to claim
blood for blood, however accidental the homicide, the Resident thought that
the motives being wanting to the Sheikh to promote an amiuable adjustment
he would not hesitate to connive at a recourse to retaliation, of \\ hieli the
penalty, he might argue, would not exceed the amount of c mpensation due