Page 239 - Gulf Precis (III)_Neat

63
the Persian Slave Commissioner: but he also requested the slave agent to
consider the slave as under his own surveillance and charge pending confirmation
of proceedings.
123. The other slave, reclaimed by the British protected subject, appeared I
on enquiry to be the property of the claimant's sister, and Colonel Pelly declined
to interfere on her account at the request of a British protected subject: the
slave not having been reclaimed by the Slave Commissioner was set at liberty
by Colonel Pelly. Soon after other slaves came alongside the Bullfinchl but
the Commander declined to receive them on board.
124. Colonel Pelly thereupon solicited instructions providing for the contin­
gency of slaves seeking refuge on Her Majesty’s ships of war. He wrote:—
'* I presume that, as a general rule, a slave boarding one of Her Majesty’s vessels with­
out the limit of territorial waters (i.c., beyond a sea league from the shore line, and without
the line of the King’s chambers) could come under the law of the ship and before (sic.) Would
the fact of the Persian Gulf being a narrow sea, almost wholly landlocked, give a riparian
power, territorial or other jurisdiction thereon beyond the distance of a sea league from the
shore line, or should the gulf beyond the distance of a sea league from the shore line be
considered as the high sea ?
“ Apart from the provisions of any positive law or treaty engagement in the case would
a British vessel of war be authorized in refusing to surrender a slave who might have found
refuge on board such vessel of war, being at the time of the refugees boarding her within
the territorial waters of the power reclaiming the slave ?
125. The Bombay Government in reply furnished Colonel Pelly with the
opinion of their law olficers, viz.:—
“The Commander of a British ship of war is not bound to receive fugitive slaves on
board his vessel, yet if he does receive them they become free.
“The Hon’ble the Advocate-General states that be is not aware that the Persian Gulf
•There on be no question whatever that the has ever been diplomatically treated as a narrow*
Persian Gulf is not a no" clausum at.jr more than sea. He would be sorry, without higher author­
the Red Sea or the German Ocean, ity, to say anything which could be construed
(Sd.) C. U. A. into an admission of the right of the riparian
powers in the Persian Gulf, but if it is to be treated politically as a narrow sea the legal
consequence follows that it belongs to the surrounding territory or territories in as full and
complete a manner as a fresh-water lake, and that such riparian power has jurisdiction
ad medium filum aqua, without any limitation as to the distance of a marine league in
regard to private and merchant vessels.
“ The commanders of British vessels would not only be authorized in refusing to
surrender a slave who had found refuge on board his vessel; but would incur very serious
legal responsibilities if he iu any way attempted to coerce that slave to return to his
master."
126. In the May Frere case Colonel Ross quoted the Bombay Advocate-
General’s opinion given in 1871, and asked for general instructions on the whole
question raised.
127. The consequences, he said, of an excessive exercise in the Persian
Gulf of the powers vested in commanders of vessels of war would nowhere be
more serious than on the pearl banks, where the diving was carried on almost
entirely by domestic slaves, who if they found an opportunity might run off to a
British vessel, a general feeling of consternation and disgust would be produced,
and we should no longer be regarded as the friendly protectors of the maritime
Arabs.
128. Colonel Ross thought it highly advisable that every means should be
taken to induce commanders of vessels whenever practicable to refuse to receive
runaways on board, but that this could not always be done consistently with
humanity.
129. He sent the slave to Bombay to the care of the Commissioner of
Police, with a request that the orders of the Bombay Govment as to its
disposal might be taken.
130. The case was referred to the Home Government and the following
opinion was expressed by the law officers
Political A., July 1874, Nos. 184-185. i
of the Crown (dated 18th April 1874)