'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.' [‎157r] (318/386)

56
countenance proposals made by British companies to exploit the fisheries In
1894 support was refused to an application by a British subject to the Persian
Government for pearling concessions in the Gulf. In 1899, in connection with
the alleged grant of certain privileges to two Europeans by the Persian Govern
ment, the Mushir-ed-Dovv 1 eh was informed by His Majesty’s Minister at
Tehran that no contract could be recognised which would have the effect of
interfering with the rights exercised by Chiefs under British protection. In
1901 Sir Nicolas O’Conor, hearing of a project which was under the considera
tion of the Porte to tax the fisheries, acquainted Tewfik Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. with the
objections which Her late Majesty’s Government saw to any action which
would interfere with the prescriptive rights of our protected tribes. In 1902
our local officer's declined to countenance the project of a Britsh Indian subject
who proposed to obtain facilities for pearling in Abu Dhabi waters. Pinaljy, in
1903, Colonel Kemball reported that two Frenchmen, named Dumas and
Castelin, had arrived in Bahrein with the intention of prospecting the pearl
banks round that island. Ihe Chief refused to entertain their proposals, and
subsequently the strangers left the neighbourhood, one for Turkish Arabia A term used by the British officials to describe the territory roughly corresponding to, but not coextensive with, modern-day Iraq under the control of the Ottoman Empire. , and
the other for Europe, where it was believed that he intended to engage a pro
fessional diver. He has, however, not yet re-appeared. In connection with
the last-mentioned case, we have informed our Political Besident in the Persian
Gulf that we entirely approve Sheikh Esa’s attitude, and that, in the event of
either of these Frenchmen returning to Bahrein, the Chief should refuse to
render assistance of any description ; that any other Chief who may be similarly
approached should return a similar response; and that the Government of
India should at once be informed of any renewal of the project or of any like
attempt. We enclose, for your information, a copy of the recent Correspondence
on this subject.
5. We have thus succeeded, hitherto, in staving off outside interference-
We recognise, however, that our position in the mutter is in certain respects
difficult,"and that in the future the same success may not attend measures
which in the past have sufficed to attain our object. Hie question involves
considerations, firstlv, of private, and, secondly, of international law. Our
rights in restraining foreign interference are, it appeals to us, at any rate
commensurate with those of the Arab tribes concerned, since tuese have
agreed to leave the protection of their interests in our hands ; and the question
which we may hereafter be called upon to answ r er, whether in defending a
civil suit in a British Court or in meeting an international claim, must
be the same, namely, the extent of the rights and jurisdiction possessed
by the Arab Chiefs* The chart which w r e enclose shows that the pearl
banks extend to conshlerable distances from the mainland or from any
island. Within the 3-mile limit it seems evident that nO difficulty need
be encountered, and that the rights over the pearl banks and the jurisdiction
required to assert those rights are indisputable. Beyond this zone, however,
the case is less clear. We understand that it has become an uncontested
principle of modern international law that the sea, as a general rule, cannot be
subjected to appropriation. At the same time we believe that it is admitted
that portions of the sea may be affected by proprietary rights on the part of
the States whose territories it adjoins, and that such rights have been more
especially recognised in the case of fisheries, to wdnch the inhabitants of a
neighbouring State have established a claim through immemorial exercise
of the right of fishing. There can be no doubt that the riguts of which they
now claim the exclusive enjoyment have been exercised by the Arabs of
these coasts from time immemorial ; and we consider, therefore,. that the
fact of these fisheries being in part outside the limits (A territorial waters
need not necessarily constitute a conclusive bar to the claim. In ic pearl-
fisheries of Ceylon we have a precedent for the exercise of jurisdiction beyond
the 3-mile limit under the Colonial Act of 1811, which authorises the seizure
and condemnation of anv boat found within the limits o , 0 ! io\eiin 3
the pearl banks extending from G to 21 miles from the coast; and it
may be observed that, in the recent Behring Sea Arbitration^ the United
States of America cited the Ceylon precedent as justi y mg icir exercise o
possession in, and control over, seal-fisheries beyond t c zone o cm oria