Page 412 - Gulf Precis(VIII)_Neat

S8
~
__ 317. The exception referred to was that of Karrak and Kargo, which were
considered by the Sheikh of Bushire, the old feudal tributary of the Shah, as
his immediate property and the deep sea fishery around which he maintained as
= an entire monopoly in his hands. Colonel Kcmbrll at the same time seemed
to agree with Colonel Polly that no advantage would be gained by the proposed
enquiry, and suggested that any measures we took for the protection of the Arab
rights should be^on national lines (Colonel Kemball’s letter dated 25th July
1903)-
The Bombay Government concurred in in the opinion expressed by Colonel
Pelly and Colonel Kemball (letter No. 3901, dated 3rd December 1863).
318. In 1872 the YVali of Baghdad brought out an expert English diver for
employment on the pearl banks. Complica­
Political A., July i8/a, Nos. 235-2.17.
tions were expected between the Porte and
the Arabs, but these were avoided by the man voluntarily quitting Turkish employ
and returning to England.
319 In 1874 a British Company (Messrs. Smith and Co.) proposed to exploit
the fisheries. The matter was referred
Political A., January 1874, Nos. 313-341-
to the Government of India by the Secre­
tary of State for India. The Sheikh of Bahrein refused to grant the firm any
concession and declined even to entertain relations with parties unauthorised by
the English Government. The firm’s representative accordingly abandoned the
scheme.
320. While the matter was under consideration Colonel Pelly (then Agent to
the Governor-General, Rajputana) was con­
Political A., January 1874, Nos. 333-41.
sulted and discussed the question in an
interesting letter No. it, dated the 12th December 1873.
321. In 1883 a British Indian trader arrived with several diversion the pearl
banks near the Persian Coast. The Gov­
Political B., July 1863, Nos. 213-219.
ernment of India, to whom the matter was
referred, informed the Resident that if this man arranged with coast Arabs and
did not claim British protection there was
Political E., Auguit iS8j, No. 41.
apparently no objection. The party was
not successful and returned to Bombay.
323. In 1890 a Mr. Streeter proposed to fish for pearls and shell in deep
water on the Arabian Coast of the Persian
Secret E., June 1890, Nos. 155-159.
Gulf. The ‘matter was referred to the
Government of India who, in addressing the Secretary of State for India, expressed
the opinion that it w'as undesirable to en­
Secret E., August 1890, No:. 313-320.
courage the introduction of European enter­
prise. The London Foreign Office informed Mr. Streeter that they were unable
to comply with his application for support.
323. In 1894 a Mr. Malcolm desired to apply to the Persian Government
Secret E., June 1894, Nos. 351-360. for a concession for pearl diving in the
Persian waters of the Persian Gulf. He
Secret E., August 1894, Nos. 326-308.
was informed by Her Majesty’s Govern­
ment that they were unable to support his application.
324. In 1899* it was alleged that a concession for pearl-fishing in the
• Secret E.. June 1899, Nos. 187-191. Persian Gulf had been granted by the
t Secret E.( July 1900, Nos. 178-192. Persian Government to Messrs. Raphael
Sunye and Auguste Hagens in March of
Secret E.( Auguit 1900, No. S04.
1898, and later f it was reported to have
been renewed by Russian influence in the name of Monsieur Sunye. The Persian
Government were informed by the Legation at Tehran that no contract could
be recognised wdiich would have the effect of interfering with the rights exercised
by Chiefs under British protection.
325. In 1901, in connection with a project which was under the consideration
of the Pdrte to tax pearl fishers in the
Secret E.( January 1901, Nos. 16-25.
, c. _ . . Persian Gulf, Sir Nicolas O’Conor acquaint­
ed 1 ewhk Pasha with the British Government’s objections to the grant of any