Page 302 - Gulf Precis (VI)_Neat

272 Part III.
4G2. The difficulty was on whom the blame should be fixed. It was sup­
posed that both Persian oud Turkish sub­
Secret E., April 1897, Noi. 33*73.
jects combined in these piracies. There
was : little doubt that the Sheikh of Koweit knew woll who the culprits were.
Almost all the land in tho vicinity of Pao was, as the British Consul at Basrah
(Captain Whyte) reported, owned by the Sheikh of Kowoit and his Mulch tar had
five sons living at Gusba, a village on tho Persian bank opposite Pao, where
many of the pirates lived. The British Consul also thought that the Sheikh
of Mohamnicrah was also equally informed. He therefore proposed that both
the Governments, Persian and Turkish,
Natter No. 023, dated 20lli October 1600.
No. 02 of Proceeding* cited. should be asked to call upon these Sheikhs
to produce tho pirates and in the event of their failure to comply, to recover
from them in equal shares the amount of indemnity which Government might
decide to demand. Another proposal was made by tho Consul-General, Bagh­
dad (Mr. Mocklcr), that both the Persian and Turkish Governments should be
callod upon to appoint a joint Commission to investigate into the case of the
piracy. A third proposal was to make the Sheikh of Koweit alone responsible,
as tho culprits were mainly traced to his territory or lands. The difficulty,
however, was whether the British Government could deal with him directly.
Since it was supposed that the Sheikh acknowledged the Porte as his suzerain.
On the other hand, there was reason to
No. 60 of Eccrct E., April 1897. No*. 35-73.
believe that the Sheikh was in reality an
independent potentate and only nominally subject to the Sultan, and Sir Philip
Currie thought for this reason and for other reasons it would he impractical to
call upon the Turkish Government to make the Sheikh of Koweit produce the
pirates.
4-63. The Government of India in their despatch to the Secretary of State,
No. 27, dated 24th February 1897, expressed the following opinion :—
“ It appears to us that there might bo advantage in fixing upon tho Turkish Government
the responsibility f<*r the Sheikh of Koweit's
No. 06 of Secret E, April 1897, Noi. 35-73.
actions. A state of affairs in which he can shelter
himself under a nominal subjection to tho Porto, while tho Porte can disclaim at will any
responsibility is in the last degreo unsatisfactory."
464. The Secretary of State on 4th May asked the opinion of the Viceroy on
Mr. Mockb-r’s suggestion for demanding
No. 113 of do.
a joint Persia n-Turkisli Commission, and
at the same time added :—
“ Lord Salisbury also suggests, when opportunity presents itself, Resident might oonvey
to Sheikh Koweit serious warning that his responsibility will be enforced if his subjects are
not restrained in future from committing attacks upon British baghlas. Plcaso instruct Resi­
dent if you agree."
465. The Viceroy telegraphed on 9th May that he saw no uso in demanding
of Persia that she should join in a Com­
No. 114.
mission to find out who the pirates were,
and that he was instructing the Resident as suggested. At the same time the
following telegram was sent to the Resi­
No. 116.
dent :—
u I assume, you have not yet met Sheikh of Koweit. Her Majesty's Government wish
when you meet him, you would convey to Sheikh serious warning that his responsibility will be
enforced if his subjects are not restrained in future from committing attacks on British
baghlas."
466. The proposal as to the joint Commission was ultimately dropped, es­
Secret E., November 18&7» Noi. 83-141, pecially as it was proposed by Lord George
Hamilton that a British officer should
No. 100 of Procecdingi cited.
have a seat on it, and there would bo
found many difficulties in the way of the appointment of such a mixed Commis­
sion.
467. The only thing done was to warn the Sheikh of Koweit. This was
done by a personal visit of the Political Resident at Bushirc. The results of
this eventful visit are narrated in the lJrdcis of Koweit Affairs.

I