مراسلات مع أ. ج. بلفور، السير ر. وينجيت، اللورد ألنبي، اللورد ميلنر وآخرين في مصر [ظ‎‎٣] (٣٠٠/٦)

4
We do not appear to have replied fully as to these Red Sea lights, but we should
have some ground for contending that they were Turkish Government constructions,
and are therefore forfeit by the war. We could add that, so far as these particular
lights are concerned, the company took no practical steps to act on their concession,
and can have no claim to the actual possession of these four establishments, though,
if they can show that they are being deprived of any legitimate working profits—as
shown below they will be unable to do so—we might consider compensation for the
remaining years of the contract between now and 19^1. (The French, Government say
they have no knowledge of any but the 1881 concession.) As a matter of fact, the
concessionnaires obtained another general renewal in 1913, under usurious conditions,
for twenty-five years from 1924 onwards. This we declined to recognise ; moreover, as
will be seen later, they did not obtain the Red Sea and Fao lights, the only ones with
which we are here concerned. We shall therefore be the more justified in taking the
line suggested.
The foregoing is written on the assumption that it would be greatly in our interests
to have in our hands the working of these lights, and that any other control in the Red
Sea is to be deprecated.
The case in regard to lights in the Persian Gulf forms part of the history of the
same concession, but may be treated separately. It is certainly simpler.
The Turkish concession of 1881 has always remained a dead letter in this respect.
In 1909 the only lights regularly exhibited in the Persian Gulf were at Rnweit and
Fao. The former had been installed by the Indian Government, but at Fao the lights
were maintained by the Turkish authorities and were too feeble to be of service. It
w r as not till 1911 that the Turkish Government made arrangements for the construction
ot a lighthouse at Fao. Moreover, in the Convention signed by the Turkish Minister
of Finance and Collas on the 14th Aprd, 19L3, prolonging the period of the Collas
Lighthouse Concession, it was stipulated (Article 4) that the Turkish Government
should pay for all expenses in connection with the tour Red Sea lighthouses and of the
lighthouse at Fao. These, therefore, appear to have remained outside the company’s
. concession. Finally, the Fao lighthouse is included in the list annexed to the Shatt-el-
Arub Conservancy Declaration of the 29th July, 1913, which was communicated to the
French Government, and in winch they officially signified their concurrence. This alone
destroys any French claim, as the owner is therein definitely stated to be the Turkish
Government. We have pointed this out to them, adding that the light has now passed
by act ot war from the hands of the Turkish Government to those of His Majesty’s
Government, and that we are unable to admit any claims by the company as regards
lights and lighthouses in the Persian Gulf. This attitude must be maintained, but it
is doubtful whether it will be better to insist on French acquiescence at Paris, or to
make no further allusion to the matter and assume such acquiescence, especially as we
are in possession. The latter course is recommended.
V .—Western Frontier of Egypt.
This frontier has never been demarcated, though there has been considerable
correspondence on the subject, both with the Turkish and Italian Governments.
In 1904, however, we informed the Porte that it was “indisputable that the
western frontier of Egypt has always been considered as beginning at Ras Jebel
Solium, the headland to the north of the harbour; to follow the crest of the ridge ;
and then to run in a south-south-west direction, including the Oases of Siwa and
Jaghbub. This view we subsequently and consistently upheld against the Italians,
who w r ere repeatedly feeling for a claim to Jaghbub, a high place of the Senussi. For
some time it was considered that this oasis was of no particular importance to us, and
that we might perhaps let the Italians have it in return for an adequate quid pro quo.
The Egyptian Government, the War Office, and the Admiralty then united in con
sidering that the object to be aimed at w r as the possession of Port Bardia, which offers
the only potentially good harbour between Alexandria and Tobruk. They also agreed
that without Port Burdia the harbour or anchorage of Solium was useless to us, as it
was commanded by the high ground that terminates in Ras-el-Milh. Our aim was
therefore to extend our claim to that point/he., to the whole gulf, and not only to the
harbour of Solium.
We only became clear in our own minds on this desideratum after Cyrenaica had
passed from Turkey to Italy. We came, however, to the secret conclusion that the
claim could not be established as such on any valid evidence, and especially in view of