'Persian Gulf - Turkish jurisdiction along the Arabian coast (Part II)' [‎153r] (13/45)

* Letter dated 8th
January 1877, No. 10.
I Political, No. 223,
dated 9th Nov. 1876, En
closure 9.
. 39
El Bidaa mkra, QdeM, and one or two other litflp
ah i' W .!; cli ' 1 0wi ^ n uinber of reefs and
as with which they are surrounded, are almost
inaccessible to vessels of any size. The possession
nlr T C i aSt W ?n ld C0nfer no Vantage whatever
which :;ir } V V t f le f iaclowy supremacy
s ! le 1 ^ Present claims over it, and which is
represented m a concrete form by the petty force
" ? lda f J Ming to cause great injury to
ur interests by interfering with that protectorate
ovei legitimate trade which we have exercised with
such beneficial results for nearly sixty years, and
by exciting a lawless and defiant spirit amon^ the
Arabs of the coast. 0
" I therefore respectfully submit that if in a
spirit of friendly concession the Turkish Govern
ment could be induced to waive their claims to all
that portion of the Arab coast which lies beyond a
point somewhat to the southward of Ojair in the
elbow of the bay of Bahrein, it would be very
advantageous to our interests, and would enable us
to put an immediate stop to the piratical spirit with
which it appears some of the Arab tribes are
beginning to be animated."
The
these
Government
views: there
of India did not concur
were in their opinion
m
HP m meir opinion many
objections to the course proposed, while, on the
other hand, the state of affairs on the Arab coast
did not appear to be sufficiently grave to necessitate
the adoption of so important a measure as formal
recognition of Turkish pretensions up to a certain
point of the coast.
In sending on the papers to the Foreign Office,*
it was stated that the Secretary of State concurred
with the Government of India on the latter point,
as well as in regard to the action which should be
taken in the El Bidaa case.
In the third and fourth cases specified above the
outrages were perpetrated by a section of the Beni
Yas tribe, which some years ago revolted from the
rule of its legitimate Chief, the Sheikh of Aboo-
thabee. In regard to these dissidents Colonel
Prideaux wrote (16th September 1876): —f
" The Chief of Aboothabee, though naturally
incensed at the defection of his tribesmen, has
throughout behaved with praiseworthy moderation
and forbearance ; and although by frequent appeals
to this Residency An office of the East India Company and, later, of the British Raj, established in the provinces and regions considered part of, or under the influence of, British India. he continues to assert his claims
upon Odeid, he has never attempted to enforce
them by any act which might be deemed incon
sistent with his treaty obligations.
" I do not doubt that if the question at issue were
simply between the Chief of Aboothabee and his
refractory tribesmen, it might be satisfactorily
arranged without any great difficulty j but it is to
some degree complicated by the fact that the Chief
of Odeid is in possession of a Turkish flag which
he occasionally hoists, and under the protection of
which it is believed that he would voluntarily place
himself if any attempt were made to coerce him.
/
I At