Page 281 - Gulf Precis(VIII)_Neat

27
37. It was found, however, from a return of the number of vessels in Indian
waters during the quarter ending 30th
External A., February 1889, Nos. 224 232.
June 18SS, that more than one vessel had
been at one and the same time in the Gulf during the quarter referred to. The
India Office pointed out this irregularity to the Admiralty and added :—
“That it is stated th.»t tlvse vessels are entitled to have repairs in respect of their
Gulf service affected at the expense of India. This will have the effect of throwing upon
Indian revenues a greater expense for repairs than was intended, when the new arrange­
ments were agreed to, it being then contemplated that only one vessel at a time should be
employed in the Persian Gulf."
38. The Admiralty upon this instructed the Naval Commander-in-Chief,
East India Station, to employ only one
Externa! A , June 1S89, Nos. 81-82.
vessel at a time in future in the Persian
Gulf, except at the request of the Government of India or in case of emergency.
39. In acknowledging these orders, the Naval Commander-in-Chief stated :—
“ That in case I should find it necessary to station cruisers off the Arabian coast for
the suppression of the slave trade, they will be considered as on special service and
receive instructions to take no part in the politics of the Persian Gulf, except in case of
extraordinary emergency."
(ii) Duties of the Persian Gulf squadron Charge on account cf coal supplied to these
ships while cruising outside of the Persian Gulf, 1887.
40. The total charges incurred in the operations for the suppression of the
slave trade for the season ending October
External A., April 18S7, Nos. 172-174.
1885 was Rs. 1,066-10-8, of which a sum
of Rs. 576 was on account of the carriage of coal to H. M. S. Osprey and
Ranger while engaged in watching for slave dhows on the coasts of the Persian
Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.
The Secretary of State was informed that the whole amount should he met
by Her Majesty’s Government, but the Admiralty demurred to the item Rs 576
being debited to the Imperial exchequer on the grounds that it was “opposed
to the spirit of the agreement of 1869, with regard to the maintenance of the
Royal Navy in the Persian Gulf, etc.”
41. In discussion it was shown that in the present case the vessels were
withdrawn from their proper duty to perform work with which the Government
of India had no concern. It was therefore thought that “ expenditure when
employed in suppressing slave trade should be paid by the Admiralty, and further
that the subsidy for the time so employed should be stopped.” Colonel Ross
expressed the hope that special slave trade arrangements would be made, as “ it
would not be always convenient for the vessels of the Persian Gulf squadron to
be employed on this service.”
42. .It was therefore submitted that the Government of India should stand
out against paying this money, and that in replying to the Secretary of State it
should be pointed out that the coal in question was not sent for the use of Her
Majesty’s ships cruising in the Persian Gulf, but for the use of t hose ships
cruising off Ras-el-Had at the mouth of the Gulf of Oman and outside the
Persian Gulf, for the exclusive purpose of suppressing the slave trade.
(iii) Limits of the Persian Gulf Station, 1887.
43. With reference to the intimation made to the Secretary of State that
as the Political Officers in the Persian
External A., September 1887, Nos. 140-143.
Gulf did not protest against the employ­
ment of Her Majesty’s vessels outside the Gulf in connection with the slave
trade, the Government of India would not press the claim for Rs. 576 incurred
m coaling the vessels in question, Colonel Ross explained:
“That these vessels do not as a rule go beyond the limits of the Persian Gulf: and
that it is scarcely within the legitimate functions of the Political Officers to object to the
vessels proceeding on the service referred to, unless inconvenience were caused or other
interests affected.”