‘Persian Gulf Gazetteer. Part 1. Historical and political materials. Precis of Turkish expansion on the Arab littoral of the Persian Gulf and Hasa [Al-Hasa] and Katif [Al-Qaṭīf] affairs.’ [‎104] (116/160)

10 i
assailants into Turkish jurisdiction. It is moreover, proposed that until we are assured that the
Turiksh Government can effectively protect our aubjpcts and interests. British cruisers should
evercise the right to pursue and capture pirates within Turkish territorial waters or on shore
within reach of their guns : captures so made to be dealt with under the orders of the British
Ees'dent in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. . To the Turkish authorities would be left the exclusive conduct
of anv operations that may be requisite on the mainland, and the care of enforcing restitution
and compensation in case of piracies committed from within their jurisdiction.
<1 0 V >ject in view, viz., the repression of piracy and the maintenance of an efficient
maritime police in the Gulf, is one in which this country takes considerable interest, but to
which the Turkish Government are admitted to be very indifferent. Lord Salisbury therefore
fails to see what are the inducements which would lead a Government inclined to be _ jealous of
foreign interferencej and singularly indisposed to renounce claims of sovereignty or jurisdiction
however shadowy, to give an explicit consent to the principles above set forth.
«It would seem more practical and more in accordance with usaire that, having settled for
oursplves the limits within which Turkish jurisdiction may be admitted, and beyond which it
should be rejected or opposed, we should, as a general rule, look to the Turkish^ authorities to
exercise a proper police in those limits, only sanctioning the action of Biitish ciuisnrs in
Turkish territorial waters under special circumstances when the consent < f the local authorities
has been obtained. The measures adopted by the Porte have undoubtedly been as yet insuffi
cient and ineffectual, but further exertions and fresh naval reinforcements have been promised.
Until the result of these has been seen, there scarcely exists sufficient ground for a general
proposal of joint police in Turkish waters without any reciprocal concession to Turkish cruisers.
"The Government of India make a further proposal which, as Lord Salisbury understands
it, is to the effect that the Trucial Chiefs on the coast, who have hitherto been independent
under certain treaty obligations to this country, and the Chief of Bahrein also, who is in a
somewhat similar position, should, for the future, become tributary dependents of Great Britain.
It is further suggested that our relations with Maskat should undergo revision, but whether in
the same sense is not positively stated.
"These are proposal which, in Lord Salisbury's opinion, should not be entertained with
out very serious consideration. As regards Maskat, Lord Cranbrook is, no doubt, aware that
this country is under an engagement with France (dated March lOth 1S82) to respect the
independence of the Sultan. The sovereignty of Bahrein has long formed the subject of claims
advanced by Turkey and Persia. These cdaims have always been repudiated by Her Majesty's
Government, but such a step as is now suggested would doubtless lead to renewed controversy,
and give rise to suspicion and ill-feeling on the part of both these powers. It may be true
that the extension of Turkish authority along the coast will be attended with inconvenience
and disadvantage to British commerce, and that the present position of the Trucial Chiefs does
not offer the same facilities for opposing such an extension as a more definite dependence on
Great Biitain. But the acquisition and maintenance of British sovereignty over this strip of
territory on the coast of Arabia is not unlikely to give rise to questions equally inconvenient.
412. In Sir L. Mallet's letters, dated 6th September and 7tli October, the
No. 77, dated 23rd June, Nos. 102 and 104, dated despatches noted in the margin were for-
ut September 1878. warded to the Foreign Office, and even
tually in Sir L. Mallet's letter, dated 17tb September, already cited, the Secre
tary of State for India gave the following opinion on the general question:—
« There can, in Lord Cranbrnok's opinion, be little doubt that the present disturbed state
of the Arab coast and ths seas adjacent is, in a great measure, a consequence (1) of the
obstacles to direct action on the part of the British authorities in the Gulf, which are inter
posed by the position assumed on the Arab coast by the Turkish Government since the Nejd
expedition of 1871-7^ ; (2) of the uncertain nature of that position ; and (3) of the practical
inabi ity of the Ottoman officials to maintain order even along that part of the coast where
Turkish influence is strongest.
"This being so, it appears to Lord Cranbrook to be important to determine, as speedily
as possible, with whom shall rest responsibility for order along the coast, whether with the
Government of India alone, or with the Porte alone, or with the two Governments conjointly.
" His Lordship has considered with attention the views of Lord Lytton's Government on
this point, expressed in their despatch No. 127, dated the 22nd May last, and also those of
Lord Salisbury, as set forth in Sir J. Pauncefote's letter of the 23rd August.
"The Government of India recommend that from Bussorah to Ojair the authority of the
Porte should be recognized as established on land, but that at sea the Bri ish Goverament
should continue to exercise some concurrent protectorate, pursuing pirates, if necessary, into
Turkish waters, and dealing with them wherever found, whether at sea or on shore, within
certain limits, through the Resident in the Gulf; that south or east of Ojair, Turkish author
ity should not be recognized except at El Bidaa on the Guttur peninsula; a^d that the Porte
should be required {a) to stipulate not to interfere, either on tae coast or inland, with the