Page 307 - Gulf Precis (V)_Neat

109
422A. To Sir n. Layard's note tbe Turkish Foreign Minister replied as
follows : —
k « No. 131, (i i S Porte,
a i
Min. da aft. strange, U 8 Scptcmbre 1879.
“ Note verbale.
“ Lo rainistcro dcs affaires ctrnngfcrcs a re?u ct communique nvec Bon annexe au dap. de la
marino la note verbale quo I’ambaesadeur do S. M. Hrit. a bien voulu lui adressor le 16 juilk-t,
No. 177, relativemcnt aux acres de piratcric qui bo commetterent [? comraettaient] dans lo
golfe persique.
” Dans sa rcpon6c S E. Rassim Pasha informo la S Porto qu’il a r6itcrc les ordres* au
commandant de la division navalc de BusBorah pour qu’il nit a redouldcr de vigilance afin
qu'aucun acto de cetto nature no se renouvello plus Au surplus des corvettes de la marine
iraperiale ‘ Merid* et ‘ Alorco* seront envoyces inecssamment dans ces parages pour faire do
leur c6tc aussi la ebaseo aux pirates, dont il s'agit *
422B. The remaining despatches noted by the Secretary of Stato are No. 91,
dated 2Sth July, and Nos. 102 and 104, dated 1st September. The first of these
dealt specially with the losses suffered by the Chief of Bahrein, and explained
the action which the British Government was bound by treaty to undertake to
recover compensation.
It also enclosed a letter from Colonel Ross, contradicting, for reason
given, Colonel Nixon’s opinion that the recent piracies in the Gulf had emanated
from internecine quarrels among the tribes on the mainland. Colonel Boss
attributed them to the neglect of the Turkish authorities lo deal vigorously
with the offenders at the beginning.
The next despatch is No. 102, dated 1st September, which enclosed papers
relating to a fresh piracy by the Beni Ilajir and the orders issued to Colonel
Boss.
The remaining despatch No. 104, dated 1st September, sent home the
correspondence relating to the surrender of Ali bin Jabir to the Sheikh of
Bahrein.”
423. In continuation of his despatch No. 40 of the 6th November 1879,
dealt with in the foregoing note, the Sec­
Politic*! A, May 1880. No. 37.
retary of State in his despatch No. 4
(Secret) of 29th January 18S0, forwarded further correspondence between the
India and Foreign Offices on the subject of Turkish jurisdiction along the
Arab coast of tbe Persian Gulf, and tbe maintenance of tLe peace of the seas
in those parts.
For reason explained in the correspondence, the policy suggested by Sir
Louis Mallet in his letter of the 17th September (quoted in paragraph 412)
was not adopted; but Her Majesty’s Ambassador at Constantinople was
authorized to propose to the Turkish Government an arrangement under
which, in the territorial ienters of that portion of the mainland, tohere Ottoman
authority had been to some extent establishedt i.e., along the coast north of
Odeid, British cruisers would be allowed sufficient liberty of action for the
repression of piracy.
424. In the course of the discussion the Foreign Office submitted to the
Law officers of the Crown a point of international law, whether, under the
circumstances shown in tho correspondence on this subject, and in view of the
unwillingness or inability of the Turkish Government to prevent outrages by
piratical hands organized in, and emanating from, territories under their
authority and jurisdiction, Her Majesty’s Government would bo justified in
authorizing the commauders of Ilcr Majesty’s ships to pursue the pirates and
maraudors in Turkish waters, and to destroy their strongholds on the Turkish
mainland.
425. Tho Law officors held that the circumstances, as stated, would not
justify such a courso. .Lord Salisbury therefore considered that there were
other and larger considerations of Imperial policy, which rendered it inex­
pedient to adopt a course in tho matter which might bo regarded by the Porte 1
as unfriendly and aggressive, or might be pointod out by other powers, as
showing an intention of subverting or weakening tho Sultan’s authority in
a portion of his Asiatio dominions.
[C967FDJ