"الخليج العربي - الولاية القضائية التركية على طول الساحل العربي (الجزء الرابع)" [‎١] (١٦/١)

Confidential.
Persian Gulf. Turkish Jurisdiction
along the Arabian Coast.
(Part IV.)
{Continuation of Memorandum, dated the
2nd December 1881.)
Government of India Letter, No. 145, of the
30th October 1881, which requested instructions
as to the nature of their future relations with the
Sheikh of El Bidaa, and raised incidentally a
question as to the scope of the orders issued by
* Part III., pp. 24 and 25. the Admiralty in July 1881* to the Commanders
of Royal Navy vessels in the Persian Gulf in re
spect to the suppression of piracy in those waters,
was forwarded to the Foreign Office on the 4th
January 1882, with the draft of a Despatch which,
if concurred in by Lord Granville, it was proposed
f To Foreign Office, 4th January 1882, to send to India in reply to the reference made.f
No. 6. The material paragraphs of the draft ran as
J Secret Despatch to India, No. 3, dated follows :—|
20th Janaary 1882. The Chief in question [El llidaa] occupies a part of the
coast where the jurisdiction of the Ottoman Sultan has not been
formally recognized by Her Majesty’s Government, and is, in
fact, little more than nominal ; but he appears to fly the Turkish
flag on shore and to have admitted a Turkish garrison into his
fort. On the other hand, he is in constant communication with
the British Resident in the Gulf ; he has lately abandoned a
contemplated maritime expedition to the neighbourhood of the
Turkish port of Kateef, in deference to the remonstrances of
that officer, to whose orders in such matters he professes his
intention to submit; and he has explicitly stated that he regards
the seas of those parts as being ‘ under the British Government.’
“ 3. It seems, therefore, that, to whatever extent the Chief may
have accepted the position of an Ottoman dependant, he, like his
father before him, maintains very close and direct relations with
the authorities of the Indian Government, and is prepared to
defer to them in all matters affecting the peace of the seas. In
the opinion of Her Majesty’s Government, this disposition on the
part of the Sheikh should be encouraged. There is nothing in it
incompatible with corresponding relations on his part with the
Turks as regards his affairs on land, while, if he act up to his
professions and abstain from ill treatment of British subjects, the
precise nature of those relations may be a matter of comparative
indifference to the Indian Government, whose consistent policy
has been to restrict its interference with the tribes on the Arab
coas t—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. io 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 reference
to, or in disregard of the warnings of, the British Resident, it is
not possible for me to give your Excellency in Council precise
instructions. It must depend npon the circumstances of each
particular ca-^e, and upon the extent to which the peace of the .‘■e.is
may be menaced. From the correspondence which has passed
within the hist 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 Sultan’s authority over [the tribes of the Katr peninsula,
provided such authority be effectively exercised, it is their fixed
!M28. 1.3181. A
It