Page:EB1922 - Volume 32.djvu/87

Rh a naval base or a fortified port in the Persian Gulf by any other Power as a very grave menace to British interests, and we should certainly resist it by all the means at our disposal." This declara- tion was formally reaffirmed in 1907 by Sir E. Grey, in a despatch to the British ambassador at St. Petersburg, which further stated that " H.M. Government will continue to direct all their efforts to the observance of the status quo in the Gulf, and the maintenance of British trade; in doing so they have no desire to exclude the legitimate trade of any other Power." These declarations were never openly challenged, and in 1912-4 the British Government entered into far-reaching negotiations with the Turkish and German Governments with the object of regularizing the posi- tion. The resulting agreements had not, however, been ratified before the declaration of war in 1914.

The Arms Traffic. During the 3rd Afghan War the trade in modern arms and ammunition in the Persian Gulf attracted the attention of the British and Indian Governments for the first time. In 1880 the Government of India took preliminary steps in the matter within its own borders; in 1881 the importation of arms and ammunition into Persia was made illegal, but with little effect. In Far Eastern countries firearms are widely possessed and used. In 1890 the General Act of the Brussels Conference struck a blow at the arms trade in Africa and diverted it 'to the Persian Gulf, which was not subject to the Brussels Act.

The stream of arms flowing from Zanzibar to Muscat continued to increase in volume, and in 1892 no less than 11,500 firearms were landed at Muscat, of which more than half were at once reexported. The figure was doubled by 1895 and trebled in 1897; in spite of prohibitions, imports into Persia continued on a large scale. Moved at last by the great quantity of military material that was being found in the Gulf, the British Government urged the Persian Government to enforce the actual law and to confiscate the stores of arms which had accumulated at Bushire. The Persian Government, thoroughly alarmed, took action, but with only temporary effect. Somewhat similar action was taken at Bahrein. These seizures created much indignation and anxiety among firms in England whose interests were involved.

From 1898 to 1908 the attitude of the British Government towards the question was one of regular attention without the power to intervene directly or effectually. In 1900 the con- signment of arms and ammunition to the Persian Gulf through Indian ports with or without transhipment was made illegal. This was reinforced by an Act of Parliament empowering the sover- eign to prohibit by proclamation the export of arms and ammuni- tion from the United Kingdom to countries or places where they might be employed against British troops and subjects.

The trade, blocked at Persian ports and later at all Gulf ports except Muscat, continued to flourish, in spite of a naval blockade of the Makran coast by Great Britain in 1910-1. At length, however, in 1912 the Sultan of Muscat issued a proclama- tion requiring all arms imported into Muscat to be placed in a special warehouse from which they could not be removed except on production of an import permit from the competent authority at their destination. This killed the trade at Muscat; the French Government, who had claimed that the Sultan's proclamation was inconsistent with his treaty engagements with them, accepted the accomplished fact with good grace after lengthy diplomatic negotiations, and the trade was by 1913 almost dead, except at the N. end of the Gulf, where it still flourished on a small scale. The arms traffic has been responsible for much of the prevailing anarchy of the Middle East and indeed of Arabia. The posses- sion of firearms places irresistible temptations in the path of un- sophisticated and quick-tempered tribesmen. For this result the European Powers signatories of the Brussels Act of 1892 are to blame for lack of foresight and to some extent of goodwill. Joint Anglo-French action at any time during 1902-12 would probably have been effective in stopping the traffic.

Slave Trade. On board the fleet which in 1626 conveyed Sir Dodmore Cotton, a British ambassador, with his staff, from Surat to Bandar 'Abbas, there were more than 300 slaves

ought of Persians in India, and the only remark which this circumstance suggested to Sir T. Herbert was that " ships, besides the transporting of richer varieties from place to place, consociate the most remote regions of the earth by participation of commodities and other excellencies to each other." In 1772 it was decided by the English courts that a slave as soon as he set foot on the soil of the British Isles became free; the slave trade, however, continued actively until 1807, when an Act was passed to prevent British subjects dealing in slaves; in 1811 the traffic in slaves was declared to be felony; in 1833 the status of slavery was abolished throughout the British Dominions. In defiance of her commercial interests and of her popularity with the Moslem population of the Gulf, Great Britain set herself to suppress the trade, and executed a series of agreements with the chiefs of the Arabian littoral with this object. The arduous task of enforc- ing the observance of these treaties fell upon the Government of India and involved great sacrifice of lives and money.

In subsequent years over 700 slaves were rescued at sea and more than 2,000 otherwise released; the traffic was by 1920 vir- tually dead in the Gulf, but slavery as an institution seemed likely to continue for many decades to come to flourish inland in Mus- cat, in Central Arabia, and in a modified form in part of Persia.

AUTHORITIES. The chief source of information is the late J. G. Lorimer's Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf, published confidentially by the Government of India in 1908. See also Lord Curzon's Persia (1892); papers by T. J. Bennett, of The Times of India (Royal Society of Arts, 1902), and the late Comm. A. W. Stiffe, Indian Navy (Jour. R.G.S. 1897) ; and handbooks prepared during the war of 1914-8 under the direction of the Historical Section of the Foreign Office. (A. T. W.)

PERTAB (or PARTAB) SINGH, SIR (1844- ), Indian soldier and statesman (see 21.259), relinquished his position as Maharaja of Idar in 1911 in favour of his adopted son Daolat Singh, in order to resume the regency of Jodhpur which he had previously held on the death of his brother in 1895, but this time for his grand-nephew Summair Singh, then 13 years of age. When the World War broke out Sir Pertab, in the words of Lord Hardinge the Viceroy, " would not be denied his right to serve the King-Emperor in spite of his 70 years." He came to France for service in the field with his young ward, then only 16, and commanded the famous Jodhpur Lancers. In the later stages of the war he served with them in Egypt and Palestine. Sir Sum- mair Singh died in 1918, two years after receiving ruling powers, and Sir Pertab again became regent, assisted by a council.

PERU (see 21.264). No accurate statistics for the pop. of Peru exist, but probably there are between 3,500,000 and 4,000,000 inhabitants besides the savage tribes, still partly independent, who inhabit the remoter montana or eastern forest region. The racial proportions are approximately:

Negroes, pure-blooded or predominantly African. 6 %

Various (including Asiatics, African-Indian mixture, etc.) Indians, pure-blooded or nearly so. .... Mestizos (mixed Indian and white blood). . . Whites (entirely of Caucasian blood) .... 10% 52% 30% 2%

The negroes are either descendants of slaves of colonial times or, in fewer cases, people who have drifted in during recent years from the Barbados, Trinidad, Panama, etc. Though the negroes of colo- nial times were notorious for their brawls and riots, those of to-day seem to be reasonably law-abiding. They are addicted to many vicious practices which are gradually causing the population of Lima and other coast cities to decrease in physical strength and intel- ligence. Most of the negroes live on the coast. The Indians fall into two groups: those who dwell in the highlands or sierra in the in- terior and still preserve their ancient language and customs, and those who live on the coast and speak Spanish, dressing more or less after the European fashion and observing but few customs that can be called pre-Spanish. The lot of the highland Indians is, in many districts, very bad. This is due to three chief causes : the abuse meted out by the great landed proprietors ever since the conquest (1531) and continued with some abatement to the present day ; the use of far too much alcohol and coca; the lack of even rudiments of public or personal hygiene. There is much evidence, however, that the lot of the Indians will improve within a generation or two. The younger generation of the land-holding class are beginning to see that it will be to their advantage to improve the material and social condition of the Indians on their estates; there is an increasing agitation in favour of suppressing the sale of sugar-brandy and other harmful liquors to the Indians and of regulating the consumption of coca; at the present time the Peruvian Government is beginning to take serious measures for the sanitation of the country. The mestizos compose the middle class, the artisans, small shopkeepers, clerks,