"ملف A/5 مصائد اللؤلؤ بالخليج العربي" [ظ‎‎٦] (٦٢/١٢)

[ 8 ]
They cite instances in the past in which they have successfully intervened
to prevent the intrusion both of foreigners by diplomatic means aud of British
subjects.
They recognise, however, that the position is difficult, both in regard to
British subjects and from the point of view of international law. They there
fore desire to ascertain the extent to which they may be authorised to intervene,
should the necessity arise.
The material facts may be stated as follows :—
1. The pearl fishery banks lie oflf the Arabian Coast of the Persian Gulf and
off the coast of Bahrein. They extend, as shown on the charts (Annex B)
enclosed with the Government of India's letter, from Um-ul-Kawain to near
the head of the Gulf. His Majesty's Government have identical Agreements
(Annex 0) with the Arab Ciiiefs of llaz-ul-Kliaimah, Um-ul-Kawain, Ajman,
Shargah, Debai, Abu Dthabi, and Bahrein, by which the Chiefs have practically
surrendered their foreign relations into the hands of the British Government.
The territory of these Chiefs comprises the Arabian Coast of the Gulf off
which the pearl banks lie up to the island of Bahrein, with the exception of the
promontory of El Katr, with whose Chief the question of making a similar
Agreement is now under the consideration of His Majesty's Government.
North of Bahrein, the sovereignty over the Arabian shore of the Gulf belongs
to the Sultan of Turkey, with the exception of the territory of Sheikh of
Koweit, who has special relations with His Majesty's Government.
2. Apparently all the tribes fish for pearls wherever they are to be found*
and no tribe has exercised a right excluding the other tribes from any part of
the fishery.
3. Only members of the tribes have hitherto fished for pearls in these
waters.
4. {a) Portions of some of the pearl banks lie within the 3-mile territorial
limit.
(li) Some of the banks extend from within the 3-mile limit outwards for
several miles.
(c) Some of the banks are entirely outside the 3-mile limit.
In all those cases the? tribes have exercised an exclusive and concurrent
right of fishing for pearls.
5. The tribes have not fished for pearls in the deep waters off the banks,
having no appliances for deep-wnter fishing. It is apprehended that dredging
for pearls in such deep waters would materially injure the pearl fishery on the
banks; and it is desired, if possible, to prevent dredging in such deep waters.
6. The action to be taken for the protection of the pearl fishery would
appear to depend on (1) the legal right of the tribes to a monopoly ; and (2)
the power of the British Government to act on their behalf in maintaining that
monopoly. It is conceived that some precise' delegation of authority to the
British Government to act on behalf of the tribes in this matter would be
necessary. It must be added that none of the tribes have any judicial system
or Courts of Law for dealing with trespassers or trespassing boats. "
A collection of confidential correspondence respecting the* Ceylon Pearl
Fisheries, which took place in 1891-1892 (Annex D), and copies of the Argument
(Annex E) and Counter-Case (Annex E) of Her late Majesty's Government in
the Behring Sea Arbitration (certain passages in which are specially marked)
are inclosed herewith for your information.
I am to request that you wil- take the papers transmitted herewith into
your consideration, and that you will favour Lord Lansdowne with your
opinion :—
1. As to the legal rights of the tribes within, as also without, the 3-mile
territorial limit:
2. As to the procedure to be followed in expelling interlopers and dealing
with their boats and fishing appliances.
I have, etc.,
(Sd.) ELDON GORST.
G. I. # C. P. O.-J^o. 2748 F. D. -1-112.1901-40—P. M. M..