Page 438 - Gulf Precis(VIII)_Neat

*4
and no address. Even these marks and the destination arc altered on board
either at Port Said or at sea. The shippers undertake to land not merely at
the port originally named, but at another port in the Gulf as desired, and tha
desire of the consignee is signified at the last moment, and even at a port on
the way to the Gulf. The practice of the trade has been carefully watched of
late, and the main impression produced by the inquiries is the endevour to
obscure the destination and the names of the recipients of the arms. Some
firms of repute have given up the trade, and th.c firms which take most part
in it have Indians or Persians as partners. At the port of receipt the trade
is largely in the hands of those, c.g., Malcolm & Co. of Bushire, or Gopali:
Walji of Maskat, who have secured a contract for the collection of the customs-
Where the importer is not also collector, he secures the goodwill of the cus­
toms authorities by payment of a bribe in the shape of a special ad valorem duty.
The receipts from these duties are not entered in the customs receipt. The
English firms have agents at Maskat or in the Gulf, whose proceedings are
in accord with the whole spirit of secrecy that pervaded the trade. Finally the
arms sent out are chiefly of Belgian make, and the greatest care has of late been
taken to remove all marks from them.
Our policy for the future.—\ have shown that despite the representations
of Maskat, and the customs regulations of Persia, an illicit traffic of arms, chiefly
of Belgian make, has been carried on by a few British firms in a secret manner
with tne Gulf, and that it is inimical to British interests. As to its extent,
its registered value rose from Rs. 13,120 in 1892-93 to Rs. 23,87,195
in 1896-97, and when lately the operations of search and seizure were
conducted at Bushire, Maskat and Bahrein, some two and a half million rounds
of ammunition, and nearly 16,000 rifles were seized. Our interests in the Gulf
are to preserve peace and order for commerce, and in Persian territory we
desire to maintain communications and open out trade routes. In Baluchistan
we are more directly responsible for order, and it is important that Afghan and1
Pathan tribes should not have access to an unlimited supply of arms. We must
therefore continue to assist our allies in suppressing the illicit traffic in arms,
and it is necessary that no favour should be shown by them to foreign merchants.
We have a right to expect that Persia will uniformly exert itself to confiscate
arms imported by any nation contrary to its regulations. As regards the British
importers, whose arms have been seized, no intervention on their behalf will be
justified unless they can prove in the Consular Courts that the arms seized
were not intended for Persian or Britieh territory, or if so intended were being
sent under permission duly received from responsible authority. The trade is
at present almost entirely suspended, and its revival would be unfair upon
Persia and Maskat as well as opposed to our own interests.”

Claim for compensation by the Sultan of Maskat on account of al­
leged losses sustained by his customs—not allowed, 1898.
39. In July, 1898, we find the Sultan of Maskat preferring a claim on ac-
- _ count of the loss of income from customs
Secret E., March 1899, Nos. 13-18* sustaine(j by him in consequence of the
permission given by him to Her Majesty's
vessels of war to seize arms and ammunition in his territorial waters. The claim
was not allowed however, it being clearly shown to be unwarranted by His
Excellency the Viceroy who wrote
"The claim for compensation seems to me almost ridiculous. What are the facts?
The Sultan sells his customs for §1,40,000! Suddenly he hears of the combined action of
the British and.Persian Governments re arms and of the intention of the shippers to evade
seizure by altering the destination of their arms to Maskat. He accordingly cancels bis
contract and makes another which promises him §30,000 more, an increase which he thinks
he will derive from the policy of the British Government. Subsequently the British Goy.
ernment in pursuance of the same policy seize the cargo of the " Baluchistan " (with his
permission given ia return for no promise or quid pro quo) in Maskat waters. He now
bp to cancel his second contract, and to take §1,45,000 from the former in consequence
of the reduced expectations of the latter. Then he is left §5,000 the better for the arms
policy of the British Government (/.«., the difference between the §1,40,000 of the first con-
tract and the §1,45,000 of the third).