DR. CAMERONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, with reference to the blockade and capture from Machy Makiber of six strongly fortified forts on the Red Sea littoral, and the deportation of that chief and his followers to Aden, Whether the forts in question were or were not in British territory; if in British territory, whether Machy Makiber had committed any offence against British Law; if not in British territory, whether Machy Makiber was attacked on any ground connected with slave dealing, piracy, or any violation of International Law; what reason was given by the Indian Government which induced the Admiralty to allow two of Her Majesty's ships to be employed in the blockade and capture; did the capture of the forts involve any loss of life, Arab 619 or British; and, what was the cost of the operation, and has it been repaid by the Indian Government?
§ MR. J. K. CROSSThe forts in question were not in British territory. The reasons for the operations were, briefly, as follows:—The Chiefs of Shahr and Makulla had been at feud for many years. Both parties frequently applied to the Resident at Aden to settle their differences, and he, more than once, effected a truce. In February, 1881, the two Chiefs signed three alternative agreements, declaring that they would consider themselves bound by whichever of the three the British Government might consider the most suitable. The Government of India adopted the second of the three, which provided that the Makulla Chief should sell outright the whole of his possessions to Shahr, in accordance with a proposal made by the Makulla Chief himself, and known to be acceptable to Shahr. The Chief of Makulla, however, declined to adhere to the agreement, and commenced intrigues prejudicial to the British position at Aden and to the peace of the Persian Gulf. In the circumstances, it was decided that the agreement, which both parties had bound themselves to accept, should be enforced, and that the Chief of Shahr should be given the support of Her Majesty's ships. The capture of the forts involved no loss of life, Arab or British. The operations do not appear to have involved any expenditure outside the lump sum paid annually by the Indian to the Imperial Government for naval services, except 239 dollars for presents to various persons, and Rs.138.14.4 field allowances to the officers and men of the Dragon and Aral for services on shore at Makulla, which were defrayed from the Aden Treasury.
DR. CAMERONasked whether it was to be understood that gunboats went there at the expense of the British taxpayers to enforce a civil contract?
§ MR. J. K. CROSSNo, Sir; they did not go at the expense of the British taxpayer. Their services were reckoned as included in the amount which the Indian Government pay to the British Government for naval services in the East.