"وضع باسعيدو" [و‎‎٤‎٥] (٩٢/٨٩)

Ip.
34.
P.G.13 the Resident, Sir Percy Cox, to warn a Persian customs
p•119•
officer who had interfered, that "he has no business in
British t erritory, and if he persists he should not he
allowed to come within British territory".
48. In November 1926, the Foreign Office remarked
P.O. to in a letter to the India Office that in view of the effect
1.0. 6th
I\iov.l926, on the status of Hen jam of admitting the Persian claim to
P.5847/26.
Basidu "it would be dangerous to allow doubt to be cast on
the validity of the British rights to Basidu whi*h rest on
undisturbed occupation over a long period".
49. in 1928, consequent on a suggestion that the
Persian Government were likely to make an armed descent on
Easidu, the Charge d'Affaires at Teheran was instructed to
make representations to the central Customs authorities and
if necessary to warn.the Persian Government that any
molestation of British Basidu "which has been a British
station for 100 years, would be a complete negation of
x
Minister of Courts promise to Sir R.Clive". The Senior
: Naval Officer was simultaneously instructed to resist by
to maintain
the status force in the last resort should this prove necessary any
quo in the
Persian landing of armed Persians in Basidu.
Gulf during
the contin- 50. In February 1930, on a Persian customs patrol
uance of
treaty dhow carrying a customs officer from Lingah to examine the
negotiations.
books of the Mudir at Persian Basidu, and anchoring off the
British area, the officer in charge of the guard in British
P.2556/30. Basidu, Lieut.Gretton, requested the official from Lingah "to
move his vessel out of British waters". The Persian
official stated that he had not had any instructions from
Tehran as to anchoring in territorial waters, that he did
not know that he had anchored in British waters, and that he
had anchored in the same place several times before without
protest. He added that he was prepared to move if he had a
written/