Page 414 - Gulf Precis(VIII)_Neat

100
the Agent of any other State; and not to cede, sell, mortgage, or otherwise give, occupa­
tion of any portion of their territories, save to the British Government. In respect ot El
Katr we have at present no formal Conventions. We have declined, however, to - rccog-
nixe Turkish pretensions on the peninsula, and the leading Chief has on more than i one
occasion approached our officers in the Gulf with a request that he may be admited to
closer relations with the Indian Government. Bahrein has for long been, to all intents and
purposes, a British protectorate; while in the case of Koweit, though the lurks have laid
claim certain ill-defined rights of sovereignty, we have always asserted that, the Sheikh
enjoys a large measure of practical independence, and His Majesty’s Government have
promised him their good officers. The maintenance of the maritime peace in the Gulf is an
cbject which for more than a century past we have steadily kept iu view in all our dealings
with the Arab tribes. To secure object we have prohibited the use of armed boats by
the Chiefs, .and have taken upon ourselves the duty of policing all these waters. A
necessary corollary of .this policy is that the Chiefs cannot themselves adopt forcible
.measures for the preservation of their monopoly in connection with the pearl-fisheries.
It is clear, therefore, that we on our part owe to them nn obligation to defend their rights
sc far as they can reasonably be substantiated. This duty carries with it incidentally the
advantage that, if our right to police the pearl banks is recognised, a large area of the Gulf
becomes at once practically British Waters.
4. In the past we have on more than one occasion intervened to prevent the intrusion
of foreigners, in 1863 a British steamer appeared in the Gulf with trained divers and
scientific appliances, but the steps which were at .once taken by the .Resident, <with the
approval ot the Bombay Government, sufficed to frustrate the attempted encroachment*
In 1874, and again in 1890, His Majesty's Government, on the advice of the Government
of India, declined to countenance proposals made by British companies to exploit the
fisheries. In 1894 support was refused to an application by a British subject to the Per­
sian Government for pearling concessions in the Gulf. 111:1699, in connection with the
alleged grant of certain privileges to two Europeans by the Persian Government, Mushir*
ed-Dowleh was informed by His Majesty’s Minister at Tehran that no contract could be
recognised whioh would have the effect of interfering with the rights exercised by Chiefs
under British protection. In 1901 Sir Nicolas CTConor, hearing of a project which was
under the consideration of the port to tax the fisheries, acquainted Tcwfik Pasha with the
objections which Her late Majesty’s Government saw to any action which would interfere
with the prescriptive rights of our protected tribes. In 1902 our local officers declined
to countenance the project of a British Indian subject, who proposed .to obtain facilities
for pearling in Abu Dhabi waters. Finally, 1903, Colonel Kemball reported that
two Frenchmen, named Dumas and Ca6ttilin, had arrived in Bahrein with the intention of
prospecting the pearl banks round that island. The Chief refused to entertain their pro­
posals, and subsequently the strangers left the neighbourhood one for Turkish Arabia,
and the other for Europe, where it was believed that he intended to engage a professional
diver. He has, however, not yet re-appeared. In connection with the last-mentioned case,
we have informed our Political Resident in the Persian Gulf that w.e entirely approve Sheikh
Esa’s attitude, and that, in the event of either of these Frenchmen returning to Bahrein,
the Chief should refuse to render assistance of any description ; that any other Chief who
may be similarly approached should return a similar response ; and that the Government
of India should at once be informed of any renewal of the project or of any like attempt, Wc
enclose, for your information, a copy of the recent correspondence on this subject.
5. We have thus succeeded, hitherto in staving of outside interference. We recog­
nise, however, that our position in the matter is in certain respects difficult, and that in the
future the same success may not attend measures which in the past have sufficed to attain
our object. The question involves considerations, firstly, of private, and, secondly, of inter­
national law. Our rights in restraining foreign interference are it appears to us, at any
rate commensurate with those of the Arab tribes concerned, since these save agreed to
leave the protection of their interests in our hands ; and the question which we may hereafter
be called upon the answer, whether in defending a civil suit in a British Court or iu meeting
aud international claim, must be the same, namely, the extent pf the rights and jurisdiction
possessed by the Arab Chiefs. The chart which we enclose shows that the pearl bank
extend to considerable distances from the mainland or from any island. Within the 3-mile
limit it seems evident that no difficulty need .be encountered, and that the rights over the
pearl banks and the jurisdiction required .to assert those rights are indisputable. Beyond
this zone, however, the case is less clear. We understand that it has become an uncontest­
ed principle of modern international law that the sea, as a general rule, cannot be.subject­
ed to appropriation. At the same time we believe that it is admitted .that portions of .the
sea may be affected by proprietary rights on the part of the States whose territories it
adjoins, and that such rights have been n.ore especially recognised in the case of fisheries,
to which the inhabitants of a neighbouring State have established a claim through immemo­
rial exercise of the riyfct of fishing. There can be no doubt that the rights of which they
v claim the exclusive enjoyment have been exercised by the Arabs of these coasts from
now
time immemorial; and we consider, therefore, that thedactof these fisheries being in part
outside the limits of territorial waters need not necessarily constitute a conclusive bar to
the claim. In the pearl-fisheries of Ceylon wc -have a precedent for the cxeroise of

k ■