"دليل الخليج. الجزء الأول. المواد التاريخية والسياسية. ملخص عن شؤون قطر، ١٨٧٣-١٩٠٤." [ظ‎‎١‎٨] (٩٢/٣٦)

precise nature of those relations may be a matter of comparative indifference to the Indian
<iovernment, whose cooBisient policy has been to restrict its interference with the tribes on the
Arab coast, whether parties to the maritime truce or not, to the measures necessary to prevent
hostilities at sea, and to hold aloof from their quarrels and concerns on the mainland, lo this
policy Her Majesty's Government desire to adhere.
4. As regards the course which should be followed in the event of the Sheikh of El-Bidaa,
or any other Chief similarly situated, putting to sea with hostile intentions, without rfference
to, or in disregard of, the warnings of the B iti^h Resident, it is not possible for me to give
Your Excellency in Council precise instructions. It must depend upon the circumstances of
each particular case, and upon the extent to which the peace of the seas may be menaced.
From the correspondence which lias passed within the last two years on the subject of Turkish
pretensions to jurisdiction along the Arab coast, it will have been seen that, while Her
Majesty's Government are not disposed to object to extension of the buitan's authority over the
tribes of the Gutlur peninsula, provided such authority be effectively exercised, it is their fixed
determination neither to allow the Turkish local officials to use the ^^-independent tribes as
inUrumentt of aggression on Bahrein and the territories of the T'ucial Chiefs, nor to permit
the tribes to cirry on piratical expeditions With impunity under the shelter of the lurhish flag.
The question, therefore, whether coe'don should be employed upon any particular occasion is
one which must be decided by Your Excellency's Government upon general considerations of
expe'iie^cy, with special reference to your interest in the maintenance of peace at sea as well as
your obligations to the Sheikh of Bahrein and the Trucial Chiefs.
5. From the foregoing observations, Your Excellency in Council will perceive that the
instructions lately issued to the Commanders of Her Majesty's ships in the Persian Gulf were
not intended t.> bear the very restricted construction which has been placed, upon them by
your Government anl by the Resident in the Gulf. As Her Majesty s Ambassador at Con-
-T .~ ... , t ^ ^ • t . t -.r stantinople was instructed to mtimate to the
• Lord Granville to Lord Duffenn, No, 515, -p, , v. ^ T ■■ , . ., , <• ,i m i • i
dated 22nd July 1881. Porte* in July last, the retusal of the Turkish
Government to entertain the proposals trade to it
for a sort of joint police of the seas along the Arab coast compelled Her Majesty's Govern
ment to undertake that duty single-handed " without reference to the claims of the Sultan to
territorial jurisdiction in those waters." The instructions in question were accordingly issued,
the intention being that the Commanders of British cruisers in the Gulf should have liberty
to act as might be necessary to prevent or punish disturbance of the peace of the seas, avoid
ing-, however, the raising of needless questions with the Turkish local authorities where they
exist, or unnecessary encroachment upon the jurisdiction of the Sultan, wherever it may really
be effectively established along the coast north of Odeid.
87. Further on account of repeated ill-treatment of British Indian subjects
c t " iqqo xt aa ? a ** هذه التواريخ تقريبية Bidaa, the Government of India again
Sec., January 1882, Nos. 443-456. . , T „ , , , ®
in Secret letter ]So. 3, dated the 9th
January 1882, requested the instructions of Her Majesty's Government in
respect of the policy to be adopted towards the Sheikh of Bidaa, on the Katar
Coast of Arabia, in order to restrain him from ill-treatment of British Indian
traders resident there.
They proposed to inform the Sheikh that arbitrary treatment of British
Indian subjects could not be permitted, and that, in future, he would he held
directly responsible for any act inconsistent with the friendly relations which
have hitherto existed between him and British Government.
Her Majesty's Government approved of a communication in the foregoing
Sec,. May 1882, Km. s-is. sense boin S to tbe Sheikh. 'They
trusted that it might prove suflBcient
for the subject in view, and that the liesident in the Gulf might be able to
obtain redress for any well-founded grievances of British subjects, without
being compelled to request the sanction of the Government to coercive
measures, which the Sheikh's relations with the Porte rendered it desirable
to avoid as long as possible.
Ill-treatment of British Indian subjects by Sheikh Jasim and
exaction of fine from him, 1880-1882.
88. In 1880 British Indian subjects at Bidaa complained of ill-treatment,
and at the same time the Sheikh Jasim bin-Thani and some of his neighbours
including Sheikh Nasir-bin-Mobarik appparently intended to resume hostilities
by sea, which would have caused a revival of piracy. This latter ques
tion was first dealt with, as noted above—see paragraphs 74—77 ; the principal
difficulty being that Sheikh Jasim and certain other Chiefs were under
Turkish portection. After negotiations with the Turkish Government, Her
Majesty's Government finally decided that expeditions by sea, and piracy,
should, if necessary be prevented by force, and the native craft might