'Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf. Vol I. Historical. Part IA & IB. J G Lorimer. 1915' [‎1257] (1412/1782)

1257
without casualties, but the rigging of the " Success " suffered cousiderable
damage.*
V\ hen day broke on the 12th of April it was found that the Persians 12th
had placed their lieet beyond reach of the British by retiring into a
shallow place, apparently within the embouchure of the Karun river;
and at 6 a .m . the Eagle' weighed anchor and,—to the surprise, it
■\vould seem, of the crew of the Success/'' who did not yet know that
the Agent had decided to renounce his share in the defence of Basrah,—
led the way down the Shatt-al-'Arab. At three in the afternoon three
Persian Gallivats were sighted advancing up the river; but these, as the
Anglo-Turkish vessels drew near, wisely took refuge in a creek. Two
houis latei thiee other Persian craft were met, approaching from the same
direction, one of which fired a couple of shots at the British ships and
then immediately put about and went down-stream with her consorts,
clearly with the object of keeping at a safe distance so long as daylight
lasted.
The Anglo-Turkish squadron anchored for the night, but was under 13th
way again on the morning of the 13th at 4 a.m . By noon the bar at
the mouth of the Shatt-al-'Arab had been crossed; and an hour later the
ships lay to, while the Turks and Arabs on board the Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. ^s ketches, to
the number of about 230, were being transferred to the Turkish Gallivats
and the ketches manned instead by crews from the "Eagle" and
Success. The Cxallivats then sailed for Kuwait, which was at this
time a dependency of Basrah, and the British ships and the ketches shaped
a course for Bushehr, where they arrived on the afternoon of the 15th
of April.
* It is difficult, on account of the strong personal interest of those by whom the
affair has been described, to know exactly what happened between the British and the
Persian squadrons on the 11th April 1775. Brief accounts by Mr. Moore, the British
Ageiiu, and by bhaikh Nasir of Bushehv, the Commander on the Persian side, are extant
(see pages 292 and 296—297 of Mr. Saldanha's Summary of Events, 1600—1800)-,
but in the text the journal of Mr. Parsons has been followed, as being probably a more
impartial authority than either. Mr. Parsons acted during the day as Lieutenant on
board the "Success," supplying the place of the officer who had been injured by an
explosion on the 26th of .March and who was still dangerously ill; and he had at least
an excellent opportunity of observing the incidents of the fight. Mr. Moore 's account
differs from that of Mr. Parsons chiefly in conveying the impression that the engage-
ment was entirely at long ranges and that the British ships did not suffer any damage.
According to Shaikh Nasir's version, it was the British who began the battle; the
vessels from Bushehr town, by his orders, took no part in the firing ; and the only
shots discharged on the Persinn side were a few from Gallivats under the command of
Mir'Ah of Kharag. The Shaikh further asserts that the British remained at anchor
where they were for a whole day after the encounter. The difficulty about Mr. Parson'?
aoount is the smallness of the damage done in an artillery contest at close quarters.