Page 184 - Gulf Precis (VII)_Neat

40
4- As regards the first point, it will he seen that in the Administration Reports of the
Persian Gulf for the past four years Dassidorc (or Basiduh) is described as a British
station, and in the occupation of the British Government, and is reported on distinctly
from Persian and Arab ports or territories. For some lime purely a naval station, at the
present time a guard of a native regiment is quartered at Bassidorc,.as much perhaps for
the sake of marking our position as for protective purposes. VVe arc thus, or so far, in
military occupation of the place. We have buildings the property of the British Gov­
ernment; likewise a good .stone pier, water tanks, and a coal depdt. The British flag, i.e.,
the plain Union Jack, is constantly flown, not, as at Bushirc and Maskat, to mark the
presencecf a Political representative of the British Government, but distinctly as a sign
of our occupation of the place. These are, I think, the facts necessary to denote our
position at Bassidorc as patent and open to any passer-by to mark.
5. As regards the second head noted for consideration, to enable Government to
A-—E*tract from a letter from tho Governor of judge fully as to the position hitherto assumed
Hominy. In Entice Regent of Fnrs, dated 30th by British anthority regarding Bassidorc, I
October 1822. find it necessary to quote the marginally noted
B. —Extract from a demi-official Idler from correspondence extending over a number of
Cclotu 1 Polly, to His Excellency Mr. Alison, years, and 1 append copies to facilitate refer­
dated 2:nd October 1864. ence.
C. —Extract from a letter from Colonel Pclly;
to iiovernmcnt of Bombay, No. 65, dated ibth 6. I think a perusal of these papers will
.November 1864. suffice to show that the Political officers of
P.—Letter from Government of Bombay, to Government habitually considered Bassidorc as
Colonel Polly, No. 957, dated 27th March 1SG3, British soil, and acted, as occasion required, on
and accompaniment. that assumption with the approval of Govern­
E. — Resolution of Bombay Government, No. ment. In recent years eases have not occurred
1305, dated 16th May iSGS, and its accompani­ to bring the subject prominently forward, but I
ment. do not think there is anything on record which
F. —Letter from Government of Bombay, to would show that the previous procedure should
Government of India, No. 201, dated 3rd October be abandoned. It is certain also that our Arab
186S, paragraphs 5, 6, and 7.
and Persian neighbours have habitually looked
G. —Letter from Government of India, to Gov­ on Bassidore as a British possession. I sub­
ernment ol Bombay, No. 1297, dated 6th No vcm-
ber i8c8, Foreign Department, Political. mit then that Colonel Pridcaux was warranted
in the statement be made, to the effect that
Bassidore has always been regarded in the Persian Gulf as a British dependency.
7. Presuming that it is sufficiently shown that British authorities have assumed
Bassidorc to be British soil, and habitually acted on that assumption, we come to the third
head of enquiry, namely, our title to possession. It appears that our occupation of
Bassidore dates from the year 1820, when the then Sultan of Maskat verbally made the
port over to the British. This cession was confirmed in 1864 by the Sultan’s son and
successor, as will be seen by reference to the Convention No. XLIl, Articlc6, at pages
105 and 106 of Vol. VII of Ailchison’s Treaties (Edition of 1876). These grants, and such
prescriptive right as our undisturbed occupation of nearly sixty years may be held to confer,
constitute our title to possession.
8. On the other hand possibly the Persian Government might, if the question were
raised, dispute the right of a Sultan of Maskat to dispose of Bassidorc, on the score that
his tenure ol the island of Kishm at the time did not convey to him sovereign rights. From
enclosure A I infer that in 1822 Persian authorities did prefer some claim. I think in this
connection it might be fairly urged that the Persian Government have been fully aware
all those years of our assumption of the prerogatives of possession at Bassidore and have
by silence acquiesced.
9. There is the further question of the expediency or convenience of the occupation of
Bassidore, on which 1 may be permitted to remark.
10. As matters now stand and with no Residency steamer in the Persian Gulf,
Bassidore is little use to us. and I think it would be mainly on the ground of its being a
place under our flag that its continued maintenance should be supported.
11. Other places* could be found equally, indeed more, convenient for coaling
stations, and if it were a question to abandon
• For instance. Kenjjim Island, where we have 0Uf ciaims to possession of Bassidore, it would
a telegraph station. be in rcspcctful opinion equally a question
as to whether we should not abandon the station altogether. Indeed, if we were in
future to consider and deal with it as Persian territory, it would be perhaps the only mode
of procedure open.
12. Holding the opinion that we have acquired sufficient right to treat Bassidore as
British territory, I naturally consider that we should hold it as such, unless or until "C
cou Id acquire an equivalent more suitable to our requirements under our flag.