'Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf. Vol I. Historical. Part IA & IB. J G Lorimer. 1915' [‎1517] (1672/1782)

16
' ""wdl
116 .1
ices,
^ kh
'otletrt,,
•'itase? i
'«%
013 OD
lt!llc «^softi e u. ■
kfatioi
^oediiodfci
■rs
tli«8 jtjMj
'istracw on tieja;);;.
ssmiiifr
'tis conndiiaiii
bs dne to eitraR,
lie woii TOE..:
ion at Fao. wfes-
ier-i!i-i
"Grifoii",aii(i "fe
;f eofeofi ' ■ j
eiied sk( to is k
f, imaifWj lis"
iit if
uii^it of ttf'
1517
he had received no official information of the intention of the British
officers to visit the fort; that he had orders from his military superiors
at Basrah not to allow any one to enter or approach the fort; and that
there was a quarantine cordon. The matter was also reported by the
British Consul at Basrah to Constantinople with the result that
Commander Boldero was admitted to the fort on the '2"2nd March, and
that an assurance was subsequently given that the lurkish officer
responsible for the firing had been removed from his command and
gentenced to six month's imprisonment.
At the time of Commander Boldero's visit the Fao fort, though it was
not a large work and had been under construction for nearly four years,
was still incomplete; the embrasures were unfinished, no shields were in
position, and there were no mountings for guns. In 189-2 and 1S93 work
on the fort was resumed in a desultory fashion, with the consequence that
in August of the latter year the British Ambassador at Constantinople
expressed to the Porte a hope that they would <• give orders for the prompt
"discontinuance of the work in question, for, should the fort be completed
" and steps taken towards arming it. Her Majesty's Government would
<f regard such action as one of hostile preparation which th*y would be entitl-
« ed to resent, and which would justify them in taking necessary measures
" for counteracting it In November 1893 the British objections were
renewed, and an assnrance was received that orders for stopping the work
wonld be Issued ; bnt it was not actually discontinued until May 189 k
The fort remained unarmed with artillery, and in 1905 the strength
of the garrison was only about 45 rifles.
It mav he mentioned that the Persian Government, throughout the
controversy, showed entire indifference on the subject of the fort, and
that the whole burden of opposing its construction was consequently
borne by the British Government.
Between 1890 and 189t small military guard-houses were built by
the Turks on Shamshamiyah Island; at Knt -az-Zaiii, on the
Turkish bank, nearly opposite to the mouth 0 ,e amn ' ® n< a
another place on the Turkish side, apparently Gat'ah between Kut -az-
Zain and Daw.sir. These erections were of burnt brick one soorey high,
n* flip too£ 1 liBrB was tcilk in
with a loopholed P a ' ,a P et SU " 0 ™ 1U ® ort simllar ' to that at Fao, at or
1890 of the construction of a Turkish tort, si
near Kut-az-ZUn; but this scheme was not carried into e ec .
X In 1891 the Tukish Government proposed to transfer the Basrah
quarantine station to Fao. The ostensible object was to preven evasion
1890-94.
1905.
Other
Tavkish
posts on the
Shatt-el-
'Arab,
1890-94.
Projected
transfer
of the Basrah
w