Page 322 - Gulf Precis (V)_Neat

124,
oy tlio Mutaasarif of Hasa who punished the tribo responsible for the outrage.
None of tho property belonging to the Bahroin owners appears to have been
restored.
465. There was considerable delay in taking measures for obtaining rodross
in tho first fourth and eighth of tho cases mentioned above. Of these the two
piracies which occurred off tho coast of Katar in 180U woro reported by Colonel
Meade on Octobor 9th, 1S99. Colouol Meade then said he would postpone his
recommendations for exacting reparation
Secret e., e ru»ry i , 01. • . until he had consulted the Senior Naval
Officer. On the 28th Octobor 1899 lie telegraphed that lie proposed first to
demand restoration of property, or failing this, payment of indemnity, otherwise
a punitive expedition could be arranged. Wo replied by telegram on 2nd
November 1899 that Colonel Meade might, at bis discretion, demand restoration
of property or indemnity, but a punitive expedition would, of course, require
distinct sanction from Government. On tho 17th November 1899 Colouel-
Meade telegraphed that he proposed shortly to visit tho Trucial Chiefs and
would enquire into tho piracies on his way.
46G. On the 2nd of December 1899, Colonel Meado reported that ho had
enquired into the cases, that some of tho property had been recoverd by Sheikh
Ahraed-bin-Thani, and that the latter had promised to recover as much as he
could of tho remainder. Colonel Meade added that he would report again in
a month, and that he did not think that auything in tho shape of an expedi­
tion would bo necessary.
4:67. Colonel Meado did notfulGl his intention of reporting again, and we
heard nothing more on the subject until
Gocrot E, November 1900, No*. 61-69, (No. G5).
September 1900, when Colonel Kemball,
who had succeeded Colonel Meade on 17th April 1900, reported that Ahmod-
bin-Thani, as was only to be expected, bad taken no steps to recover the
remainder of the property and had given a very unsatisfactory reply to the
letter which Colonel Kemball had written to him. Colonel ICemhall mentioned
certain suggestions in tho way of reprisal which might be feasible, but made
no definite proposals and promised to submit a further report, in whioli definite
recommendations would be made.
469, The next report on tho subject is dated the 9th November 1900,
in which Colonel Kemball, after finding
Secret E., April. 1901, Kva. 83-90 (No. 87).
himself unable to recommend the seizure
of the Chief’s property in Bahrein, or the despatch of a Naval expedition,
expressed the opinion that it would bo sufficient if ho informed Ahmed-bin-
Tbaui that the Government of India consider him to bo responsible for the
control of the Bedouins who reside in Katar, and that steps would, if necessary,
be taken to bring this responsibility homo to him. Ho also proposed to require
the Sheikh to warn all boat owners to bo careful not to allow their boats to be
used by the Bedouins; as in future tho owners of tho boats used by pirates
would bo held responsible. The Government of India coucurrod in those
proposals.
469. The third case of piracy, which occurred in August 1900, was reported
in September 1900 ; no suggestion was
Secret E., November 1900, No*. 61-69. case
made for enforcing reparation for this
until October 1901, when Colonel Kemball reported that it might bo advisable
to attack the Chief’s property in Bahrein, and even then no definite proposal
was made.

470. In December 1901, Colonel Kemball submitted certain proposals in
connection with these piracies. These proposals and tho orders passed by the
Government will be clear on perusal of Foreign Department letter to Colonel
lloss. No. 429 13. A., dated 6th February 1892-
" Your letter deals with three eases of piracy, two of which occurred in August 1^9, vvhiU
tbe third dates from August 190U. In the third case tho stolen property ia valued at Rs. Jio-a
only, but in two earlier caa-s property of tho value of more than Us. 12,000 is alleged to havo