"الشيخ علي بن أحمد" [ظ‎‎٣] (٦٣٠/٦)

6. Referring to paragraphs 7 and 8 of Foreign Departme-nt letter -mder
reply, it will 1 think now be clear to Government that the proposal re^ardine a
V azier was made on the supposition that Sheikh Esa would be compelled to
accept him, and his appointment was not associated in any way with the question
0 ij 5 ! 01118 contr . ; anc ^ ^ concur with Government in thinking that the Sheikh
would be no more likely to accept willingly a nominee of ours as his Vazier than
as t e superintendent of his Customs. The difference that the two proiects
presented to my mind was, that having regard to the views of His Majestv's
Secretary of State in the telegram above quoted, the appointment of an Arab
Vazier to keep order in Manamah had more close connection with Sheikh Ali's
lawlessness and the inability of Sheikh Esa to control him, and lay the disinterest
edness ot our motives open to less suspicion than did the assumption of British
supervision or control over the Bahrein Customs.
7. Before giving a final answer to the three questions
■ (a) How the Sheikh may be expected to regard the different proposals
for reform. r r
(6) How far he is likely to prove amenable to the authoritative "adTice
and innuence of his Political Agent.
(c) In what manner pressure should, if necessary, be applied.
I would prefer to visit Bahrein again if possible. Unfortunately at oresem
the port is plague-infected and to go there means 9 days' quarantine on return.
Meanwhile I shall communicate with Captain Prideaux and act on the in
structions conveyed to me in paragraphs (5) {d} and (c) and 9.
No. 250, dated Bushire, the 4th June 1905.
From—M ajor P. Z. Cox, C.I.E., Officiating Political Resident in the Persian
To—S. M E raser, Esq., C.I.E., Secretary to the Government of India in the
Foreign Department, Simla.
I have the honour to refer to my letter No. 180, dated 23rd April last with
enclosures regarding Shiekh Ali bin Ahmed of Bahrein.
2. The reply given by Captain Prideaux to Sheikh Ali as directed in nara-
ulr 6 aD0Ve ter was glven as from himself or me, and Sheikh- Esa
andbhiekh Ah seem to expect a categorical answer from Government en the
subject, and are frequently pressing for it, •
I am addressing two other communications to the Foreign Department this
Residency Nos. 244 and 249.
day regarding Bahrein Affairs which should,
would be convenient if Government could/after consideLg thehtolet'me'havo
byThe y BaVrt gr b a oatT, r 4 d ;h g " time t0 Write t0 ^P^ 11 Prideau *
been "given, nmnely^ rt^^^eBrilfsh^Overnment^irgrea^an^mrrctfu^bu^Uiat
we 8 c^SStuTe! 0 3 BritiSh Man - 0f - War iS the 0nl ^ C0nditi0n,0 " whi ch
Telegram P., No. 2348-E.B., date the 17th June 1905.
From-The Secretary to the Government of India, Foreign Department, Simla,
To— M ajor ^ Z ^ C ox , C.I .E., Officiating Political Resident in the Persian
You are authorised to reply iJ Sheikh Esa in the sense of paragraph q of
your letter No. 250 of 4th June regarding Sheikh Ali of Bahrein. . P 3
You may add that the Government of India concur in the remarks contained
ut^Aprj? paragraph 3 of Ca r ain P^deaux's letter to Sheikh Esa, No. 120 of
48
/ . , • *
G- C. Press, Simla.—No. C-373 F. D.—11-7-05.—54..—R. S# W.