'Selection from Correspondence Relative to the Traffic in Arms in the Persian Gulf, 1897-98. Part II' [‎41v] (28/52)

71
importation into Persia or British India to Muscat territory and its waters ;
and on the 13th of January 1898 His Highness issued a notification declaring
that arms or ammunition destined for Persia or British India and found in
Muscat waters would be confiscated. At various dates in December the
premises of certain merchants in Bushire were visited by Persian officers in
the presence of British consular officers, and stores of arms, &c., were seized.
The steamship “ Tresco ” arrived at Bushire on the 25th of December 1897, and
a few arms were also seized on board her, and the same operation was repeated
on the arrival of the “ Baluchistan ” in that port on the 1st of February 1898.
Previously to this the “ Baluchistan ” had been stopped on January 24th in
Muscat waters by H.M.S. “ Lapwing, 5 ’ which acted under the proclamation
of the 13th of January 1898, and on the 15th of 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 cases had been
fraudulently altered at Port Said on or about the 6th of January 1898, and
it decreed that they were therefore justly confiscated.
The owners of the S.S. “ Baluchistan 55 must have expected the fate which
they provoked. They also owned the S.S. “ Turkistan 55 which had carried
in February and in July of 1897 a quantity of arms to the Gulf, and the
S.S. “ Arabistan 55 which had sailed in September 1897 with several cases of
arms and ammunition. It is inconceivable that they were not aware of the
restrictions 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 instructions as will enable our steamer to have protection in
this matter.” They admitted that the Itesident had informed their agent
that “ the arms are liable to be seized and confiscated in Persian waters.’ 5
On the 24th of 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 13th of January their omission 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. 55
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 :
I. For some years past it had been evident that Muscat w^as becoming a
centre of trade ^ in arms and ammunition, and the Sultan was
anxious to stop its growth as dangerous to his own position. Re
bellions against his authority in Dhofar and at Mattra 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 importation of arms, but the Muscat Treaties of Commerce, of
21st September 1833, with the United States, of 19th March 1891,
with Great Britain, of 17 th 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 Muscat, and this course, after a discussion of some
months, was finally proposed to the Foreign Office on 1st December
1897, the very day on which the agent of the Persian Government
informed the Resident at Bushire of the orders which he had in
dependently received from the Persian authorities to make a seizure of
arms.
II. 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 the Shatt-el-Arab. In the case of
the Hari Prasad, and more recently in that of the Kalian Pasa which