Page 277 - Gulf Precis (VI)_Neat

Chapter XIV. 217
Sir JE. Hertilct noted on this :—
"This notico would appear to have reference to the navigation of the Tigris by foreign
ships-of-war rather than to the navigation of tho Shat-ol-Arab.
Mr. Marinilch's memorandum says (hat foreign ships-of-war have hitherto only gono up
the river (which no doubt means tho Shat-ol-Arab) ns far as Ivurna after having applied for
and obtained tho necessary authorization. (This statement, however, is open to doubt.) And
it then prays that the British Ambassador will talco measures to ensure that British ships-of-
war “ s’abstieunont de rcmonlcr It fieuve au dessus dc Courna afin d’eviter toute cause dcconflit.”
Lo fleuve lure mentioned must, I think, mean the Tigris and not necessarily the Euphrates
also, as the Sbat-cl-Arab is only so called from Persian Gulf as far as Ivurna; the river abovo
Kuma to tho eastward being the Tigris and to the westward tho Euphrates, Ivurua being
actually situated on the Tigris.
"The Turkish authorities would appear to have a perfect right lo issuo this notice with
regard to the Tigris, provided a similar notice has been sent to other Governments ; but in
fact, when a discussion aroso in 1S74 respecting tho right of British ships-of-war to navigate
the Shat-el-Arab, Sir II. Elliot addressed a note to the Turkish Minister for Foreign AQairs,
in which he said—" I have the honor to request that if at any tirao the S. P. should wish
to propose new regulations, or to alter a practice that has prevailed, in reference to the prcscnco
of ships-of-war in any part of the Sultan's dominions, due notice of it may be given to Her
Majesty's Government, who will not fail to give such instructions as will ensuro from tho
Commanders of British ships-of-war every respect for the rights of the S. P."
350. Mr. Plowdcn referring to the Porto’s memorandum thought the word
" Courna ” had been wrongly substituted for “ Basrah,” since if the phrase
“ au dessus dc Courna ” was correctly copied, Artin Effeudi would appear to
have conceded the whole question at issue : it is hardly possible for men-of-
war of the class that visit Basrah to asccud the river to any appreciable
distance beyond Kurna, and none so far as bo was able to ascertain had ever
attempted to do so.
351. Mr. Plowdcn referred also to tho proceedings of our ships-of-war in
1S54 and 1874 and added that for the protection of our commerce it was not
only desirable that our ships-cf-war should be permitted to proceed as far as
Kurna, but that a gun-boat of tho Boyal Kavy should be substituted for tho
Comet for patrolling tho upper course of the Tigris. As to this question see
Chapter IX.
352. On this occasion Her Majesty’s Government directed that the British
vessels of war should not proceed beyond Kurna.
(iii) Objection of the Porte to the presence of British ships*of-war
at Basrah, 1883—1886-
353. In 1883 enquiries were mado by tho Porto as to the reason for the
presence of a British ship-of-war in Basrah
Proceedings, Scptombcr 1SS3, Nos 172-178.
waters. Lord Granville then informed
Musurus Pasha
" In deference to tho wishes of the Sublime Porte, British ships-of-war do x>ot proceed
further up the Shat-el-Arab than Kurna, but Her Majesty's Government are not awaro of
any regulation precluding such ships from visiting Basrah."
354. In the Turkish Arabia Diary for week onding 18th December 1885 men­
tion was made of two gun-boats, the Osprey
Bccret E., February 1S86, No*. 57-59.
and the Philomel, being at Basruh. Tho
reason given for their presence thore was that at Basrah there wero greater
facilities for obtaining fresh provisions than at any other station in tho Persian
Gulf.
355. Government of India received from Colonel Tweedie a copy of a tele­
gram to his address from Her Britannio Majosty’s Ambassador at Constanti­
nople, in which Sir W. "White said that tho Porto was anxious for information
as to the reason for the presence at Basrah of two British gun-boats. To this
telegram Colonol Twcedio replied that Sir W. White might safely assure the
Porto that its anxieties were groundless, and that the gun-boats at Basrah could
only be there “ for the sake of moving about a little.”
356. In this correspondence another point, namely, that regarding tho
right of British Bcsidout to travel about tho Pashalik and surrounding coun­
trios, is touched upon ; but this question was being dealt with separately.
357. In addition to his reply by telegram, Colonel Tweedie took opportunity
of laying his views before the Ambassador at Constantinople, and in forwarding