Page 295 - Gulf Precis (VI)_Neat

Chapter XIV. 2G5
448. Under instructions then of Her Majesty's Government the following
note was addressed by Sir P. Currie to
Ibid (No. 20).
the Porto, dated 9th March 1898 :—
“Ilcr Majesty's Embassy have received with regret a report from the British Consul-
General at Baghdad, stating that the local Turkish authorities continue to illegally stop aud
detain British Indian vessels at or near Fao.
Her Majesty's Embassy have the honour to romind the Sublime Porte of tho arrangements
contained in the S. P. N. V. No. 101 of 30th December 1890, and the Embassy's leply No.
148 of 22nd December of the samo year, in virtue of which British ships passing Fao and
bound for Turkey can be searched at Basrah only and arc in no case to bo slopped at Fao or
elsewhere on tho Shat-cl-Arab, while those hound for Persian territory have a right to proceed
directly to their destination without being stopped anywhere by the Ottoman authorities.
It was on these conditions that Her Majesty's Embassy consented to waive their demand
for the recognition of a British Cousul at Fao, and if these conditions are not observed, it will
be necessary to insist on tho appointment of this Consular Officer and to order Her Majesty's
Ships to take effective measures for the protection of British shipping.
Her Majesty's Embassy trust therefore that the Sublime Porto will 6euJ instructions to
the Vali of Basrah to observe the arrangement of 1896, and thus prevent the recurrence of
difficulties in the district placed under his charge."
449. The Resident at Baghdad was then instructed by the Embassy to
report any fresh cases of illegal detention,
Secret E., September 1698, Not. £5*30.
or exactions at Fao. The native shipping
season commenced shortly afterwards; hut no cases of detention or extortion
have been reported sinco then.
450. Such cases should bo distinguished from cases of piracy on the
8hat-el-Arab, which arc treated in Chapter XV.
450-A. The Regulation drawn hy the Paris Sanitary Convention, 190?,
provide in Part II, Chapter 1, Sections V
External A«, July 1995, Not. 89 92
and YII for two Sanitary establishments
in the Persian Gulf, one at Ormuz and the other in the neighbourhood of
Basrah.
460-B. The attention of the Government of India has recently been called
to the vexatious nature of the quarantine imposed by tho Turkish Government
as well as of the various hindrauccs which the British Indian commerce ex­
periences in the Turkish ports of the Persian Gulf. So long, however, as the
Ottoman Government does not subscribe to the Convention, the sections in
question are likely to remain a dead-letter, like their predecessors. The Gov­
ernments of Turkey and Persia havo not agreed regarding tho control of the
Sanitary Station at Ormuz, and Great Britain has refused to accept it until
tho Sanitary Board of Health at Constantinople is re-constitutod—a proposal
which the Turkish Government has so far.declined to discuss.

[S64GFD]