Page 305 - Gulf Precis (V)_Neat

3b7

within limit9 to ho settled by the British Government, and its absolute repudi­
ation boyond those limits. Ordinarily, the Turks should be held repousiblo
for the maintonanco of a proper police within their own jurisdiction, but
British operations in Turkish territorial waters would ho permissible in special
'cases with the previous consent of the local authorities.

iii.~-Tho India Office wa9 against any definition of the limits of Turkish
jurisdiction. Mere pretensions to sovereignty on the part of the Turks sh6uld
not be allowed to hamper British action. But where Turkish authority has
been, or may hereafter be, effectually established in any part of the coast
north of Odeid—the islands of Bahrein heiug excepted—it must be recognized.
Further, provided that no obstacles were interposed to any operations which
might bo necessary to preserve the peace of the Seas and to punish raaraudors,-
and that no interference was attempted either with Bahrein or the Truciai
Chiefs from Odeid to Ras-cl-Khyma or with Maskat, the Turks may be left to
establish Ottoman authority as far south as Odeid.
The proposals of the Government of India differed essentially from those
of the Foreign Office, in that the latter would ordinarily not permit British
operations within Turkish jurisdiction. The practical effect of this difference
would bo found to depond upon the extnnt of the territorial limits within
which- the Foreign Office must bo prepared to recognize the existence of estab­
lished Turkish, authority. The Foreign Office did not absolutely reject1 the
Indian, idea of a joint police. There is1 an apparent1 inclination to give
the Turks another trial,, and to wait tlie result of the renewed and more vigor­
ous moasures which they have promisod to initiate.
414. The views of the India Office, it will be seen, had undergone a com­
plete change. In Sir'L. Mallet’s letter, dated 1st August^ Lord Crahbrook
concurred generally in the proposals of tile Government of India, more especi­
ally in the suggested definition of tlie limits of Turkish* authority. In Sir L.
Mallet’s subsequent letter tho inexpediency of any such definition constitutes
the distinctive feature of Lord Cranbrook’s policy, and special stress is laid
upon it.
413SI Another point to notice'was the suggestion made by. Lord Cranbrook
in respect to the instructions to be issued for the guidance of naval officers
in the Gulf1.
416. In March 1879 Colonel Ross wrote .to Captain TTodehouse, Com­
manding' Her Majesty's Ship Tedzet\ ixitimating' that the Government of
India had accorded their sanction and approval to naval action against pirates
along,that portion of the Turkish Arabian coast, of late infested by robber
bands, whether within or beyond Turkish territorial waters, to the extent of
thorough examination of the coast referred to, recovery, of Bahrein vessels
stolen by the Bedouins, and removal beyond their roach of boats likely to be
seized and used for further depredations. •
417. The' sanction was given on the condition that the naval officers and
the Resident in the Gulf'were in accord on tho subject, and on the under­
standing'that'no expedition would ho undertaken on the mainland, subject
to Turkish authority beyond the roach of tho guns of Her Majesty’s ships'.*
418. Captain Wodehouse referred these instructions to the Naval Cora-
mander-in-Chief; and in duo course they were submitted byi the:Admiralty to
the Foreign Office, with an enquiry whether it was the desire of Her Majesty’s
Government that the'eourse directed by tho Indian Government should be
adopted. LordJ Salisbury* felt' a* difficulty in' tho absence’off further explana­
tions in expressing concurrence in tho measures proposed.. He apprehended
that in - tlie absence of treaty stipulations,1 Her Majesty’s ships-could only deal
with piracy jure tye/tfittm', that is piracy committed in the high seas beyond
the territorial waters' of Turkoy,’ aud that • any expeditions' by them oh the
mainland, although within roach of tho guns of Her Majesty's ships*