Page 66 - Gulf Precis (III)_Neat

50
231. It was pointed out tliat tho Government of India’s letter of tho
10th July 1888 contended that Kutob
lutomtl A., July 1688, No*. 43-04 (No.094).
vessels possessed nn independent character
and reference was also made to its letter No. 381G-I., dated the 26th September
188b, ou tho subject of an application by Kutch owners for a certiticate of
naturalisation. In that letter it was suggested that tho applicants might bo
told they were at liberty to avail themselves of tho provisions of Section 24 of
Aot X of 1841, by giving tho command of their vcbsoI to a subject of Her
Majesty, and that they might obtain letters of naturalisation by complying
with tho requirements of Act XXX of 1852. Tho Bombay Government still
desired to recommend tho course suggested in 1888 (paragraph 228 above),
and said that "the principle that the sea-board Native States of India in
subordinate alliance with ller Majesty should for the purposes of maritime
police and external relations bo treated as a part of Her Majesty’s Indian empiro
appears worthy of consideration.’1
232. Attention was also invited by the Bombay Government to tho corres­
pondence received from the India Office
Secret E.t October 1890, Noi. 1*14 (No*. 1-4).
. regarding a desire expressed by the German
Government to extend their protection and jurisdiction over such subjects of
Indian Native States as were not registered at the British Consulate at Zanzibar
and were to be found in the German protected territories in East Africa. In this
correspondence Kutch subjects were taken as an instance. Lord Cross’s view
was that tho subjects of any British Indian protected State are under tho pro­
tection of the British Government when out of India. The Bombay Govern­
ment were of opinion that the provisions of General Act rendered an alteration
of Act X of 1841 necessary; they pointed out that tho resemblance of the
Kutch flag* to the Turkish, Egyptian and Arab ensigns would especially
invite visitation of Kutch vessels, and
* Rod with ion and moon.
that “ in order to obtain fair consideration
Kutch vessels must hoist the British ensign, and consequently the removal of
legal difficulties to that course is tho first step to be taken.”
233. In letter No. 3144, dated the 14th May 1892, the Bombay Govern­
ment enquired whether, apart from legislation, sanction could not be given to
a form of license to carry the British flag. And with their letter, dated the
23rd May 1892, Bombay Government forwarded a communication from the Poli­
tical Agent, Kutch, regarding proposals by the Kutch Darbar in respect to—
(i) the alteration of the Kutch flag;
(ii) amendations of, or additions to, the forms previously used by ship­
owners.
Further reports from Kutch were forwardod with the Bombay Govern­
ment letter No. 3634, dated 4th June 1892, explaining that it wa9 only
intended to alter the Kutch flag so as to prevent i.s being mistaken for the
Turkish.
234. The views of the Government of India were expressed in Foreign.
Department letter No. 2053-E., dated 7th
Secret E., March 1893, Nos. 217*246 (No. 246).
v November 1892 :—
V
Two distinct questions appear to arise for deoision, viz. —
(») whether subjects of a Nativo State in Indio are M proteges” of the protecting
power within the meaning of Article XXXII of the General Act of tbo Brussels
Conference, in which case permission to fly the British flag, under that
article, might be grauted to vessels of 6uch Nativo States ; and
(ii) wbethorour own Municipal Law, as it at present stands, enables us to grant this
permission, and if not, what alteration of it is required for the purpose.
On the first of these points I ora to say that the Government of India are advised that
subjects of Native States in India can be held to be uprotected persons for the purposes of the
General Act/’
As regards the second question, I am to remark that there does not appear to be »ny
statutory authority enabling tho Government of India to grant permission to fly the Bntis
flag in 6hips, which aro not British ships or by persons who are not British subjects, «*cep
under the provisions of Act X of 1841, as amended by subsequent enactments, but nci er