Page 283 - Gulf Precis(VIII)_Neat

39
(v) Orders affecting Royal Navy vessels in the Persian Gulf, 1887.
47. In telegrams dated the 1st October and 6th November 1888, the*
Admiral, East India Station, had intimated
External A., March t8Sy, No. 151.
that the Senior Naval Officer in the Persian
Gulf complied with requisitions, but did not receive instructions from the
Political Resident there. The Admiral said that he could not accept a request
made by the Political Resident in the Persian Gulf as coming from the Viceroy,
and, further, that if three ships should be required in the Gulf, he (the Admiral)
must consider the arrangement lately made, by which the number of Royal
Navy vessels at the disposal of the Government of India had been reduced to
four, to have failed.
48. In replying to the Admiral, the Government of India observed that the
4th Article of the East India Station Standing Order, dated the 25th April 1882,
explained that the subsidised vessels of the Royal Navy were to be employed in
carrying out the requisitions of the Government of India, and clause 7 of the
article very clearly directed that the commanders of the vessels in the Persian
Gulf were to consider themselves at the disposal of the British Resident, or such
other local authority as the Government of India might appoint. These
directions had been repeated in paragraph 4 of the report of the Committee
recently appointed to consider the question of the subsidy to be paid by the
Indian Government for the Royal Navy vessels placed at its disposal by the
Admiralty.
49. Although it had been arranged that the four subsidized vessels
would ordinarily be stationed, one in the Bay of Bengal, one at Aden,
one in the Persian Gulf, and one at Bombay ready for service in the
Gulf, yet the Governor-General in Council considered that this implied
that the vessels might occasionally be all employed in any particular way
which the Government of India might deem proper. It was therefore
pointed out that the demand for a third vessel for temporary service in the Gulf,
should she be required there, did not affect the arrangement lately made for
reducing the number of subsidised Royal Navy vessels to four, or infringe any of
the conditions attached to the arrangement.
(vi) British vessels of war in Basrah waters, 1833.
50. The Turkish Minister for Foreign Affairs had telegraphed to the Turkish
Ambassador in London on the 7th March
Secret E.t September lS8j, Nos. 172-178.
1883 saying that the Governor-General of
Baghdad had informed him that a British man-of-war named England had
arrived at Basra on the 26th February, and he desired to know the reason for
the presence of the ship in Basra waters. It was afterwards reported that the
ship which the Turkish authorities complained about being in Basra waters was
H. M. S. Eclipse, which the Admiralty supposed had visited Basra like other
vessels of war at the instance of the Resident in the Persian Gulf. Earl Granville
informed the Turkish Ambassador of the matter and observed that
" In deference to the wishes of the Sublime Porte, British ships of war do
• As to our vessels goin® as far as Kumah, see proceed further up the Shat-el-Arab
Cluplcr X1V l*ian Kumah* but Her Majesty’s Govern-
"ment are not aware of any regulation pre­
cluding such ships from visiting Basra.”
(vii) Visit of H. M. S. "Sphinx ” to Rluhammerah in June 1889.
51. Certain false representations having been made at Tehran regarding the
visit of the Sphinx to Muhammerah,
External A., September 1889, Nos. 147-149.
the Charge d’ Affaires had communicated
to Amin-ul-Mulk the contents of a telegram received from Colonel Ross,
saying that the Spninx had returned to Bushire on the 13th and that she visited
Muhammerah to convey His Excellency’s and Saad-ul-Mulk’s instructions and
stayed there only a few hours. It was also pointed out to the Amin that the
Persian Foreign Office Agent when he hauled down the British fia* from a
British steamer, and was preparing to seize another British steamer, neve*? reported
1288F D