'Selection from Correspondence Relative to the Traffic in Arms in the Persian Gulf, 1897-98. Part II' [‎51r] (47/52)

51
99
Government by prohibiting the importation of arms into Gwadur.
The British Government, whose interests in the matter have been traced
from 1880, could not allow a portion of the cargo of a British ship to
be seized in Maskat waters without proper securities; and, just as, in
the case of entry into warehouses in Bushire owned by British subjects,
it authorised its consular officers to watch proceedings and by their
presence to assist the territorial [authorities in enforcing the law, so in
the waters of Maskat it co-operated with the Sultan in enforcing his
orders. H.M.S. “ Lapwing,” accordingly, took part in the seizure of
the arms, and its proceedings on behalf of the Sultan were subsequently
reviewed, and adjudged by a Maskat Court of Inquiry to have been
correct and legal. At that inquiry Messrs. Eracis Times might have
put forward their claim if they could have proved it, and even now.
Lord George Hamilton understands, it is open to them, if they can
do so, to prove to the satisfaction of the British Political Agent A mid-ranking political representative (equivalent to a Consul) from the diplomatic corps of the Government of India or one of its subordinate provincial governments, in charge of a Political Agency. that
any case or cases which have been seized, were not really, notwith
standing Messrs. Strick & Co’s, letter of the 23rd of December, and
the other proofs of destination, intended for Persia, or that, if so intended,
they were being lawfully imported into that country. Such a claim
can obviously be best proved at Maskat where the arms are; and in the
absence of such proof it does not seem that the Sultans decision and
action can be properly questioned.
8. Some light is thrown upon the plea of ignorance, which is alleged,
by an examination of the contention made by Messrs. Eracis Times and
others to the effect that the trade in arms has been carried on in the
most open maimer. Lord George Hamilton has already dealt with this
matter in my letter of the 1st of December last, and further inquiries
have only confirmed the facts then stated. Shippers have of course
been obliged to give to the British Customs authorities to some extent
truthful specifications, but in those documents, such as a bill of lading A document confirming the goods which a ship has received. ,
which may reach the eyes of the authorities at the port of destination,
they have frequently either concealed or misrepresented the facts. A
large proportion of the arms and ammunition exported to the Persian
Gulf is made in Belgium, where Messrs. Eracis Times obtained a
portion of their shipments by the “ Baluchistan,” and the other ships
which preceded it; and although the barrels may have been sent over
to Birmingham to be proved they were returned to Li6ge to be made
up. As to the ammunition, it is significant that a leading firm of
Birmingham manufacturers, Messrs. Kynoch, sent in a written protest,
dated 15th February last, against the practice resorted to by shippers
to the Gulf, of exporting Belgian ammunition as if it were British.
Steps have now been taken by the Customs authorities, in the issue of a
notice, dated 26th February 1898, to prevent in future the misdescription
of explosives of Foreign origin as if they were of British origin. But a
more serious and comnym class of misrepresentation may be illustrated
by two complaints, which the seizure of the very arms now under
discussion on board the “Baluchistan” has brought to light. As a
rule, secrecy has been aimed at by not giving the name of the consignees
in the returns given to the Customs authority. But on some occasions
when this omission has been made a matter of comment, false names of
consignees have been supplied. Thus, when the arms carried by the
“ Baluchistan ” were seized, an Indian subject of Her Majesty trading
at Maskat, named Gopalji Walji, found that no less than 33 cases of
arms made in Belgium, but sent by that ship, were consigned to him,
and the Bills of Lading were made out accordingly. He, however,
denied all knowledge of the transaction. In the same way a firm in
Mincing Lane consigned 236,000 cartridges to Messrs. Gray, Paul & Co.,
of Bushire, in whose name the bills of entry were made out. The
consignees, however, have formally denied that they had ever been
engaged in the arms traffic, and repudiated the transaction.
9. It is perhaps unnecessary to detail other instances of concealment
and misdescription which have come to notice. Special inquiries into