Page 304 - Gulf Precis (III)_Neat

6
in tho first instance to his own dependents, and could not therefore subject
himself to pecuniary loss. It was timo that the power of the British Govern­
ment was adequate to enforce compliance with its behests, but the direct
exercise of that power over individuals so excitable as tho Arabs, when actuated
by revenge, and little influenced by the control of thoir immediate superiors,
might in somo cases bo productive of embarrassment.
32. Captain Kcmball’s letter was transmitted to tho Honourable the Court
of Directors, with a remark that, however right the principle laid down by
them, it was probablo that in praotice it would not be found to work so effica­
ciously as that hitherto in force, of giving compensation to sufferers through
their Chiefs, and that tho Governor in Council accordingly renewed tho sugges­
tion for a reconsideration of the orders.
I 33. The Court of Directors expressed their final decision as follows
(Despatch No. H, dated 27th April
Volume III—79 of 1864.
1864)
** Captain Kcmball has Assigned no sufficient reason to induce us to revoke our order,
that money recovered by yon as compensation for injuries sustained from piracy
or maritime aggression should be paid to the injured persons themselves and
not to their Chiefs. On the contrary, the Aversion, expressed to the ohango
by Sbeikh Sultan bin Saggar, grounded on a right openly olaimed by him to
detain a part of such sums by way of compensation to himself for discharging
the liabilities of offenders of his own tribe from whom he is unablo to enforce
payment, impresses us still more strongly thau before with the importance of
adhering to the new rule.”