'SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPAL EVENTS AND MEASURES OF THE VICEROYALTY OF HIS EXCELLENCY LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON, VICEROY AND GOVERNOR-GENERAL OF INDIA IN THE FOREIGN DEPARTMENT. I. JANUARY 1899-APRIL 1904. II. DECEMBER 1904-NOVEMBER 1905. VOLUME IV. PERSIA AND THE PERSIAN GULF.' [‎157v] (319/386)

5G
waters as ordinarily recognised by international law. It is also worth noting-
that the above contention is supported by the authority of tl>e Swiss publicist,
Vattel, who in his “ Droit des Gens ” remarked, in discussing the question as
far back as the eighteenth century, “ Qui doutera que les pecheries de perles
de Bahrein et de Ceylon ne puis>ent legitimement tomber en propridte?” We
believe, therefore, that our claim to exclude all foreign pearling vessels from
the limits of the fisheries at present worked by the tribes within our protec
torate might, if challenged, be defended with a reasonable chance of success.
6. There remains, however, the case of foreign exploitation of deep waters
outside the sphere in which we believe that it may be shown that immemorial
usage and occupation have conferred prescriptive rights. In this still wider
area we doubt whether we possess claims in support of which we could appeal
to any law or international practice, and we fear that possible detriment to the
pearl banks in which wc bold prescriptive rights would furnish no valid gikmnd
for objecting to legitimate foreign enterprise outside the sphere of Arab
occupation ;"but by authorising the Chiefs to abstain from all intercourse with
such interlopers and to utilise the powers which they possess of interdicting the
importation of foreign diving appliances, of refusing to lend any assistance in
men, boats or in any other form, or, if necessary in the last resort, of removing
any such foreigner from their territories, we might succeed in putting such
serious impediments in the way of such enterprises as would discourage outsiders
from engaging in them.
7 . The question is fortunately not one in which we are at present called
upon to decide as to the exact nature of the rights or the precise limits of
the jurisdiction which the several Chiefs possess, and which we, as the
Paramount Power, are bound to assert and maintain on their behalf ; but in
view of the possibility of further attempts, whether by British companies or
by foreign capitalists, we think it advisable to be prepared in advance. We
shall, therefore, be glad to know whether His Majesty's Government concur
in the views above set forth, and to receive any instructions which it may be
deemed advisable to issue for the guidance of our local officers iu the event of
renewed adventures of a more determined character.
24
Secret,
Ko. 8,
India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. , London,
olst March 1905.
To His Excellency the Eight Honourable the Governor General of
India in Council.
My Lord,
On receipt of your Excellency’s letter No. G3 of the 10th March 1904, on
Pearl fisheries in the Persian Guif. question of the pearl fisheries in the
Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. , I entered into communica
tion with the Eoreign Office with a view to obtaining the opinion of the Law
Officers of the Crown upon the legal and international points raised by your
Excellency’s Government. *
information and guidance of the Govern
ment of India, a copy of the correspon
dence.*
2, I enclose herewith, for the
• To Foreign Office, dated 30th June 1004, and
enclosure.
From Fore-go Office, dated 16th July 1904.
To Foreign Office, dated 10th August UOl.and
enclosure.
From Foreign Office, dated 27th October 1904, and
enclosure.
From Foreign Office, dated 26th February 1905,
and enclosure.
To Foreign Office, dated 8th March 1905.
From Foreign Office, dated 20th March 1905.
3. Your Excellency will see that tin
Law Officers of the Crown have no doub
as to the rights of the tribes in such water
as may justly be considered territorial
Outside territorial waters, they are inclinet
to hold that the exclusive rights of th<
mrmWl tt v,* wu • i • tribes might be maintained to banks ii
re a aia to ^ Inch their exclusive possession is capable of historical proof; but the^