Page 179 - Gulf Precis (VII)_Neat

35
delivery or surren der of the slave, must depend on the bona Jides of the demand, and
on the proof in support of the charge which may accompany the demand for the slave's
delivery or surrender, and on the other specialities of each such ease. In the two cases
now submitted for my consideration, 1 entirely concur in the decision the Political
Resident came to, in declining to interfere to effect the restoration of the slaves to their
owners.
147. A demand for the surrender of certain slaves who had escaped
to Bassidorc was made in 1868 by the Persian authorities. The question was
then fully discussed by Mr. Bayley, Advocate General, Bombay (letter dated
30th April 1868), about the British positional Bassidore, who wrote:—
I am of opinion that the demand of the local Persian authorities for the surrender
of the slaves mentioned in accompanying correspondence should not be complied with.
2. It may be interesting in an historical point of view, but is not perhaps absolutely
essential for the purpose of answering the present reference, to consider the precise
time, <r the mode in which, or from what power, the British obtained possession of
bassidorc.
3. In the extracts from brief notes containing historical and other information
connected with the island of Kishm and other islands and places in the Persian Gulf,
prepared in 1818 by Captain Taylor, Assistant Political Agent in Turkish Arabia,
printed in Vol. XXIV, new series, of the Bombay Government records, it is stated
(page 33) that “ the whole island of Kishm as well as a large portion of the opposite
coast, in which arc mines of brimstone, is farmed from Persia by the Imam of Maskat; "
and at page 37 it is stated “ within the north-west of Kishm are the ruins of Bassidore,
once a flourishing town under the Portuguese,”
In a memoir published in the same volume, descriptive of the navigation of the
Gulf of Persia, with brief notices of the commerce and resources of the people inhabit­
ing its shores and islands, prepared by the late Captain Brucks, Indian Navy, in 1835,
it is stated (page 602) that “ Bassidore was once a flourishing Portuguese settlement,
and the ruins of the town are still in existence. In 1821 the force stationed in the Gulf
for keeping down the pirate tribos was removed to this place from Sallack, and was
withdrawn in 1823, since when it has been the head-quarters of the Indian naval
squadron in the Gulf. They have a tolerable hospital and store-houses, and some houses
occupied occasionally by the commanders of the vessels stationed there. There is a
small bazaar and middling supplies. The place is the most healthy on the Island of Kishm,
but far from being a desirable station;” and at page 605 of the same memoir, where the
Island of Kishm is described, it is stated that, “ before the pirates became so powerful,”
it (the Island of Kishm) had about seventy small towns and villages, and a population of
about twenty thousand inhabitants. A very great part of these were weavers, others
cultivated the soil, and others were fishermen. Most of these were destroyed or obliged to
seek shelter elsewhere during the time the pirates were in power; many are now return­
ing, but the island will never be what it is said to have beeu again. It belongs to the
Imam of Maskat.”
4. In Aitchison’s Collection of Treaties, Vol. VII (published in 1865), page 203,
it is stated, “ about the same time (*.*., 1845) he (His Highness Syad Saeed, Imam of
Muscat) got into trouble with Persia regarding his possessions on the Mekran Coast.
Besides his possessions on the Arabian and African Coast, the Imam holds the islands of
Hormuz and Kishm in the Persian Gulf, and is acknowledged as feudal lord by the Arabs
on the Mekran Coast between ]ask and Passim. He holds Bunder Abbas and its
dependencies on rent from Persia. In 1853 the Shah cf Persia resumed possession of
Bunder Abbas and its dependencies, but he restored them to the Imam in 1856 on much
less advantageous terms than formerly. The rent was raised from 6,000 to 16,000 tomans
a year, and the islands of Hormuz and Kishm, the Imam’s hereditary possessions, were
ceded to Persia.”
5. From these extracts, the facts stated in which are, I presume, more or less correct,
it would appear doubtful whether the British took possession of Bassidore whilst the
Island of Kishm was subject to Persia, or whilst it belonged to the Imam of Maskat, and
it is not impossible that Bassidore might have remained unoccupied after the once flourishing
Portuguese settlement ceased to exist until the British took possession.
6. It docs not, however, appear to me necessary, for the purposes of the present
case, to consider which of these alternatives is the most probable, or whether any formal
instrument of gift or cession of Bassidore to the British was executed by the power to
which the Island of Kishm then belonged.
7. This, I think, is borne out by the language of Dr. Lushington in delivering the
judgment of the Privy Council on the 5th August 1863, in the important case of Papaganni
versus the Russian Steam Navigation and Trading Co., 2, Moore's Privy Council cases,
new series, 181, an appeal from Her Majesty’s Supreme Consular Court at Constanti­
nople—“ It must always be borne in mind that in almost all transactions, whether political