'Extracts from Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf, Oman and Central Arabia by J G Lorimer CIE, Indian Civil Service' [‎22r] (48/180)

33
authorities had the right to enquire into the building of new vessels at the piratical
ports and to destroy them on the stocks in event ot the explanation given being
unsatisfactory, and whether it was permissible to detain the vessels of signatory
states if not possessed oi the papers or flying the flag required by the treaty of
1820. in both cases the decision appears to have been in the negative. The
principal points now discussed were the competence of the British authorities to
forbid the building or rebuilding of fortifications by chiefs, the scope of the article
(No. 9) relating to the slave trade, and the extent to which under another article
(No. 10) the British Government was pledged to protect the pacificated Arabs
against the attacks ol non-signatory powers. It was ruled with reference to these,
in March 1823, that the terms of the treaty did not warrant any prohibition of the
building of forts, that the article in which slaves were mentioned referred not to
the buying and selling of persons already enslaved but to raids on the coast of Africa
for the purpose of making slaves, which alone could be correctly described as
plunder and piracy ; and that the promise of protection against non-signatories
only covered the Indian ports to which, by the same article, access was guaranteed
to signatories.
Here it may be mentioned that Sultan-bin-Saqar, having apparently received Destruction
permission from Lieutenant-General Smith so long before as 1821, proceeded in of a tower
1823 to erect a tower 30 feet high on the sea-face of Ras-al-Khaimah, whereupon f S harjah '
Captain Faithfull of the Bombay Marine The navy of the East India Company. , supposing this to be a breach of the
treaty, at once proceeded to the spot with five cruisers and obtained the demolition
of the work. Captain Faithfull's action was rendered possible by his omission
to consult the Resident, who was probably by this time aware of the ruling of
Government in regard to new fortifications,—an omission which he was enjoined
to avoid for the future in all political questions, unless of extreme urgency.
The establishment of order at sea was necessarily a gradual process; but piracy Minor
had ceased to be a profession, and such cases as occurred, even when they could P ira cies,
not be attributed to quarrels among the Arab chieftains or their subjects, did not 1823 - 88 -
often affect the vessels of foreigners.
At the end ol 1823 one Hassun of Sharjah fitted out a boat for piratical purposes 1823.
and was said to have cruised for some time, but without success, off the coast near
Jashk; on his return to port his proceedings became the subject of inquiry, but
evidence sufficient to ensure his conviction was not obtained.
At the beginning of 1824 two other Sharjah boats put to sea with nefarious 1824.
intentions, as was reported to the Senior Marine Officer bv the Shaikh, though
not until after their departure; and a little later it was stated that they had captured
a Mahra Baghlah Large trading vessel. near Soqotrah, putting all on board of her to death, and had
proceeded on their wav to Zanzibar. This case also was apparently not free from
doubt, for the British Government, on the return of the boats to their home waters,
rested content with the breaking up of one, which was found abandoned at Charak'
while the other, discovered at Matrah, was left unmolested.
In 1825 a somewhat grave case occurred through an unprovoked attack by 1825.
some vessels of Sharjah upon a Bahrain boat near the island of Hanjam, in which
the Bahrainis had three or four men killed and were robbed of a considerable
amount of specie, and in the month ol August the Senior Marine Officer was
directed to proceed to Sharjah with a squadron and demand full compensation.'
should it not be granted he was to remove the Residency An office of the East India Company and, later, of the British Raj, established in the provinces and regions considered part of, or under the influence of, British India. Native Agent Non-British agents affiliated with the British Government. and to
capture all the vessels belonging to the port. As a result of his proceedings ample
redress was vouchsafed to the injured parties, the Shaikh of Bahrain expressed
himself satisfied, and a proper appreciation of the treaty of 1820 was inculcated
upon the people of the whole Gulf.
In 1826 a series of piracies were committed by 'Obaid-bin-Sa'adui and Saif- 1826-27.
bin-Dhaikhan (or Tikhan), adherents of the freebooter Suwaidan-bin-Za'al who
had fled from Abu Dhabi territory and settled at Dohah in Qatar, in the nominal
jurisdiction of the Shaikh of Bahrain. Their offences included the taking of an
Abu Dhabi Baghlah Large trading vessel. , several persons in which were killed and wounded; the
capture of an Umm-al-Qaiwain boat, not long retained, with a loss to the
defenders of one man killed and one wounded; and the plunder of a vessel
belonging to Bahrain. On the ground that the base of these piratical operations
was Dohah in the jurisdiction of the Shaikh of Bahrain, while the sufferers in
one case belonged to Umm-al-Qaiwain, a dependency of Sharjah, Sultan-bin-Saqar
now attempted to evade payment of the compensation arranged in the Hanjam
case of 1825; but his plea was not admitted by the British authorities. It does
not appear that in the cases of 1826, though the Shaikh of Abu Dhabi appealed