Page 436 - Gulf Precis(VIII)_Neat

la

consular officers, and stores and farms, etc., were seized. The S. S. " Tresco ”
arrived at Bushire on the 25th December, 1897, and a few arms were also seized on
board her, and the same operation was repeated on the arrival of the “ Baluchis­
tan ” in that port on the 1st February, 1898. Previously to this the " Baluchis­
tan " had been stopped on January 24th in Maskat waters by H. M. S. “ Lapwing"
which acted under the proclamation of the 13th January, 1898, and on the 15th
April, 1898, a court appointed by the Sultan found that the arms and ammunition
seized on board were intended for Persian ports although the marks on
the case had been fraudulently altered at Port Said on or about the 6th January,
1898, and it decreed that they were therefore justly confiscated.
The owners of the S. S. " Baluchistan ” must have expected the fate which
they provoked. They also owned the S. S. " Turkistan " which had carried in
February and in July of 1897 a quantity of arms to the Gulf, and the S. S.
“ Arabistan ” which had sailed in September, 1897, with several cases of arms
and ammunition. It is inconceivable that they were not aware of the restric­
tions and dangers of the trade. In fact on the 23rd of December, four days
before the " Baluchistan ” sailed from Marseilles, and long before it reached
Port Said, or Jibuti, they wrote to the Foreign Office referring to the orders given
by the Persian Government, and asking Lord Salisbury “ to give such instruc­
tions as will enable our steamer to have protection in this matter." They
admitted that the Resident had informed their agent " the arms are liable to be
seized and confiscated in Persian waters." On the 24th December they
were asked by the Foreign Office to give certain detailed information as to the
consignee’s names and other particulars. This, however, was an inconvenient
request with which they did not comply, and on the 13th January their omis­
sion was referred to in these terms :—
“ In the absence of that information there is nothing to show that the shippers and
exporters were not at the time of exportation alive to the risks which they have incurred
by engaging in a trade which is contrary to Persian law and regulations.
British interests.—It is convenient here to summarise some of the reasons
which induced the British Government to come to an agreement with the Persian
Government and to assist it in enforcing the Persian regulations.
1. For some years past it had been evident that Maskat was becoming a
centre of trade in arms and ammunition, and the Sultan was anxious to stop its
growth as dangerous to his own position. Rebellions against his authority in
Dhofar and at Matha had proved that the tribesmen were armed, and the British
Government had given advice and even lent its active aid in restoring the
Sultan’s authority. It was at first proposed to put a heavy tax on the importa­
tion of arms, but the Maskat Treaties of commerce of 21st September 1833,
with the United States of 19th March 1891, with Great Britain of 17th
November 1844, with France, and the rights of other most favoured nations
were found to be opposed to this solution. The alternative of prohibiting the
export of arms to the Gulf from Great Britain was considered and rejected.
There seemed then no other course open save that of stopping the trade with
Persia and India through Maskat, and this course, after a discussion of some
months, was finally proposed to the Foreign Office on the 1st December, 1897,
the very day on which the agent of the Persian Government informed the Resi­
dent at Bushire of the orders which he had independently received from the Per­
sian authorities to make a seizure of arms.
2. Amongst other events which served to call attention to British interests in
the matter were several piratical attacks on British Indian vessels trading with
the Gulf and Shatt-ul-Arab. In the case of the “ Hariposa" and more recently
in that of the " Kahanposa,” which was attacked on the 2nd December, 1897,
near Saihan Point, the fatal use of firearms and our failure to secure satisfaction
for the piracies convinced Government that steps must be taken to protect
British commerce by dealing with this question. There were precedents for
such action, because in 1892 the Sultan of Maskat had, in the interests of
Germany, been induced to prohibit the re-exportation of arms from Maskat for
the coasts of Africa and in the previous year their exportation to Gwadur was also
prohibited. Now, British interests in the Gulf are bound up with peace, because
we have a network of Indian treaties with the tribes for what is called the