Page 302 - Gulf Precis (V)_Neat

101
assailant* into Turkish jurisdiction. It is moreover, proposed that until we aro assured that the
Turiki-h Government, can effectively protect our subjects and interests British cruisers should
ctcrcisu the right to pursue and capture pirates within Turkish territorial waters or on shore
within reach of their gun*: captures so made to bcdoalt with under the orders of the British
Resident in the Persian Gulf. To tho Turkish authorities would he left the exclu>ivo conduct
of any operations that, may he requisite on the mainland, and the cavo <f enforcing restitution
and compensation in case of piracies committed from within thoir jurisdiolion.11
" The object in view, viz., the repression of piracy and tho maintenance of nn efficient
marilimo polico in tho Gulf, is one in which this country takes c. usidcrahle interest, but to
which tho Turkish Government arc admitted to bo vory indifferent. Lord Salisbury tlierofore
fails to sco what aro the inducements which would lead a Government inclined to he jealous of
foreign interference, and singnlarlv indisposed to renounce claims of sovereignty or jurisdiction
however shadowy, to give au explicit content tithe principles above set forth.
“ It. would seem more practical and more in accordance with usage that, having sottled for
ourselves the limits within which Turkish jurisdiction may he admitted, and beyond which it
should he rejected or opposed, we should, as a general rule, look to the Turkish authorities to
exorcise a pmper polico in those limits, only sanctioning tho action of British cruisers in
Turkish territorial waters under special circumstances when the consent «f the local authorities
has been obtained. The measures adopted by the Porte have undoubtedly been as yet insuffi­
cient and ineffectual, but further cxcitions and fresh naval reinforcements have been prornisrd.
Until the result of these has been seen, there scarcely exists sufficient ground for a general
proposal of joint police in Turkish waters without any reciprocal concession to Turkish cruisers.
“The Government of India make a further proposal which, as Lord Salisbury understands
it, is to tho effect that the Truoial Chiefs on the coast-, who have hitherto been independent
under certain treaty obligation* to this country, and the Chief of Bahrein also, who is in a
somewhat similar position, should, for the future, become tributary dependents of Great Britain.
It is further suggested that, our relations with Maskat should undergo revision, but whether in
the same sense is not positively stated.
“These are pro porn's which, in Lord Salisbury’s opinion, should not be entertained with­
out very serious consideration. As regard* Maskat, Lord Cra nbrook is, no doubt, a ware that
this country is under an engagement with France (dated March 10th 1882) to respect tho
independence of the Sultan. The sovereignty of Bahrein has long formed tho suhjoct of claims
advanced by Turkey and Persia. Those claims have always been repudiated by Her Majesty’s
Government, but. such a step as is now suggested would doubtless lead to renewed controversy,
and give rise to suspicion and ill-fcoling on the part of both these powers, it may be true
that the extension of Turkish authority along the coast will be attended with inconvenience
and disadvantage to British commerce, and that the present position of the Trucial Chiefs does
not offer the same facilities for opposing such an extension as a more definite dependence on
Great Biitain. But the acquisition and maintenance of British sovereignty over this strip of
territory on the coast of Arabia is not unlikely to give rise to questions equally inconvenient.
412. In Sir L. Mallet’s letters, dated 0th September and 7tli October, the
Ko.77,d.ucd23rd juue. No*. 102 and lot. dated despatches noted in the margin were for-
u\ September 1878. warded to the Foreign Offico, and even­
tually in Sir L. Mallet’s letter, dated 17th September, already cited, tho Secre­
tary of State for India gave the following opinion on tho general question :—
“ There can, in Lord Cranbmok’s opinion, be lilfclo doubt that the present disturbed state
of the Arab coast and the seas adjacent i*«, in a great measure, a consequence (1) of tho
obstacles to direct action on the part of the British authorities in the Gulf, which are inter­
posed by the position assumed <-n the Arab coast by the Turkish Government since tho Nejd
expedition of 1871-72; (2) of the uncertain nature of that position ; and (3) of the practical
inabi ity of tho Ottoman officials to maintain order even along that part of the coast where
Turkish influence is strongest.
“This being so, it appears to Lord Cranbrook to be important to determine, na speedily
as possible, with whom shall rest r.*S|»onhibility for order along the coast, whether with tho
Government of India alone, or with the Porte alone, or with the two Governments conjointly.
“ His Lordship has considered with attention the views of Lord Lytton’s Government on
this point, expressed in their despatch No. 127, dated the 22nd May last, and also those of
Lord Salisbury, as set forth in Sir J. Paunccfote’s letter of the 23rd August.
“The Government of India recommend that from Bussorah to Ojair the authority of tho
Porte should be recognized as established on land, hut that at sea the Bri isli Government
should continue to cxcrciso some concurrent protectorate, pursuing pirates, if nc« cssary, into
Turkish waters, and dealing with them wherever found, whether at sea or on shore, within
certain limits, through the Resident in the Gulf; that south or east of Ojair, Turkish author­
ity should not bo recognized except at El Bidaa on tho Guttur peninsula; and that the Porte
should be ro juir^d (a) to stipulate not to interfere, citbor on tuc coast or inland, with the