"ملخص عن التدابير البحرية في الخليج العربي، ١٨٦٢-١٩٠٥" [‎٢‎٧] (٦٤/٣٥)

2 7
37. It was found, however, from a return of (.he number of vessels in Indian
External A., February 1889, Nos. 224-332. waters during the quarter ending 30th
t June 1888, that more than one vessel had
been at one and the same time in the Gulf during the quarter referred to. The
India Office pointed out this irregularity to the Admiralty and added
That it is staged that tlvse vessels are entitled to have repairs in respect of their
Gulr service affected at the expense of India. This will have the effect of throwing upon
Indian revenues a greater expense for repairs than was intended, when the new arrange
ments were agreed to, it beiag then contemplated that only one vessel at a time should be
employed in the Persian Gulf."
38. The Admiralty upon this instructed the Naval Commander-in-Chief,
Externa! a , June 1S89, Nos. £ i - S2« East India Station, to employ only one
vessel at a time in future in the Persian
Gulf, except at the request of the Government of India or in case of emergency.
39. In acknowledging these orders, the Naval Commander-in-Chief stated
" I hat in case I should find it necessary to station cruisers off the Arabian coast for
the suppression of the slave trade, they will be considered as on special service and
receive instructions to take no part in the politics of the Persian Gulf, except in case of
extraordinary emergency."
(ii) Duties of the Persian Gulf squadron. Charge on account cf coal supplied to these
ships while cruising outside of the Persian Gulf, 1887.
40. The total charges incurred in the operations for the suppression of the
External A, A P r.i .88 7 , No,. ,72-74. ^ trad e f or the season ending October
1885 was Rs. 1,066-10-8, of which a sum
of Rs. 576 was on account of the carriage of coal to H. M. S. Osprey and
Rcwger while engaged in watching for slave dhows on the coasts of the Persian
Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.
The Secretary of State was Informed that the whole amount should be met
by Her Majesty's Government, but the Admiralty demurred to the item Rs. 576
being debited to the Imperial exchequer on the grounds that it w^s "opposed
to the spirit of the agreement of 1869, with regard to the maintenance of the
Royal Navy in the Persian Gulf, etc."
41. In discussion it was shown that in the present case the vessels were
withdrawn from their proper duty to perform work with which the Government
of India had no concern. It was therefore thought that u expenditure when
employed in suppressing slave trade should be paid by the Admiralty, and further
that the subsidy for the time so employed should be stopped." Colonel Ross
expressed the hope that special slave trade arrangements would be made, as "it
would not be always convenient for the vessels of the Persian Gulf squadron to
be employed on this service. 51
42. It was therefore submitted that the Government of India should stand
out against paying this money, and that in replying to the Secretary of State it
should be pointed out that the coal in question was not sent for the use of Her
Majesty's ships cruising in the Persian Gulf, but for the use of t hose ships
cruising off Ras-el-Had at the mouth of the Gulf of Oman and outside the
Persian Gulf, for the exclusive purpose of suppressing the slave trade.
(iii) Limits of the Persian Gulf Station, 1887.
43. With reference to the intimation made to the Secretary of State that
as the Political Officers in the Persian
Externa! A., Septembe, .887. No.. .40-143. Gul£ ^ ^ protest against the employ .
ment of Her Majesty 's vessels outside the Gulf in connection with the slave
trade, the Government of India would not press the claim for Rs. 576 incurred
in coaling the vessels in question. Colonel Ross explained:
"That these vessels do not as a rule go beyond the limits of the Persian Gulf: and
that it Is scarcely within the legitimate functions of the Political Officers to object to the
vessels proceeding on the service referred to, unlegs inconvenience were caused or other
interests affected."