File 815/1917 Pt 2 'Persian Gulf: Lighting & Buoying. General Expenditure.' [‎164v] (333/668)

5. The Colonial Office representative stated that King Feisal would be gr eat i
disturbed by anything which seemed to point to the cessation of the special inter J
taken by His Majesty’s Government in the Gulf, bo far as commercial and eeonom
considerations were concerned, he stated that only 30 per cent, of the trade crossing
the bar of the Shatt-el-Arab concerned Irak. He admitted that the maintenance of a
safe waterway down the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. was essential to the development of the graidk*
and cotton resources of Irak.
6 . The Admiralty quoted figures showing that in 1922, 530 British ships used the
Gulf as against 22 foreign vessels. They also pointed out very emphatically the
importance to naval operations of the oil supplies from Abadan, constituting half of
the fleet consumption for a year, and stated that it was essential in the interests 0 f
that supply that the safe navigation of the Gulf should be secured and should be
retained under the control of the British Government. It was made clear, however
that they could not on these grounds contemplate any contribution from naval funds
towards the cost of the lighting and buoying service, and that any advantages accruing
to the Navy from the maintenance of that service must be regarded as offset by the
\Navy’s hydrographic work generally.
7. The Board of Trade representatives stated that from their point of view the
v^ ue of the service was navigational simply. 1 he Board’s interest was merely in
the maintenance of an efficient system of lighting and buoying for British shipping.
It was elicited that no lighting and buoying service outside the British Empire is
supported from the General Lighthouse Fund, which is under the control of the
Board of Trade, except at Cape Spartel, for the lighting of which there is a system of
international contribution under international agreement.
8 . The Treasury view was that the circumstances which led to payment for this
service being made from British funds had been entirely altered by the war, and that
it was now in principle desirable that British funds should be relieved of this charge,
9. The discussion then turned to a consideration of methods whereby, if the
service were still to be maintained, the Government could be relieved of a part, if not
the whole, of the cost.
10 . The first suggestion made was _ that the dues levied at Basra should be
specially increased so as to enable a contribution to be made towards the cost of the
lighting and buoying service. It was pointed out that this could be effected without
difficulty, as most of the vessels using the Gulf went on to Abadan or Basra.
Reference was made to the view taken by the Foreign Office in 1911 that dues could
not be levied on foreign shipping without raising the question of international control,
and the Foreign Office representatives expressed the opinion that the risk of raising
that question should not be run. It was suggested, however, that the levying of dues
at Basra in British mandated territory, or even at Abadan, would not involve the
question of international control, as presumably the levying of dues at ports in
Persian or other foreign territory would. It was not found possible without further
investigation to make any kind of estimate of the amount which might be levied at
Basra by means of an increase of dues or a special due towards the total cost of the
service, which, including capital expenditure, has averaged about £ 40,000 a year over
a period of years.
. no rei alternative discussed was that the large British shipping companies
w 10 were mam y interested in the trade of the Gulf might be asked to take over the
service and maintain it in the same manner in which the British India Company
mam ainec a cw uoys m the Gulf before special political considerations led to the
lw ,r tl0U 01 the Bn , t ! S1 aQ . (i . In( lian Governments. It was thought very unlikely
It wa, 6 akll'toh'Tl n ’r J '!i be l W ' l ! m « to Ulic lertake the responsibility and the expense^
■ • ia le uhaudrmnient of the service to-Britieb eompatties, e
securing the maintenance of the system of lighting and buoying might impair tie
sKfe-Tsar*' »»*•
concerned T V o 88ea was tilat of applying to the companies m^
Bucknall tl e L lnd u a bteam Navigation Company, Messrs. Ellerman and
Persia Steam N-ivimit^ D ^°-B er sian Oil Company, and possibly the Bomnay
cost undertaken ^ ^ om P an > T » referred to above) for a contribution towards
> dertaken by the Government of maintainino- the service This possibility was
11 be 0 regarded as additional to *
to pay twice over T/w ' T at ,? asra ’ as tbat would mean asking the same interes
the P amount whTch lach of tV! t0 ^ difficult to make any kmd of assessment j
these companies might be asked to contribute.