ملف رقم ٧٥٧ لسنة ١٩٠٩ "الخليج الفارسي: تركيا والعدوان التركي (احتلال جزيرة الزخنونية. الموقف تجاه قضايا القرصنة. المدراء في الزبارة والعُديد والوكرة) العلاقات البريطانية مع تركيا في الخليج الفارسي" [و‎‎٩‎٨] (٤٩٥/٢٠٠)

3
pointed out that the Porte, if they thought they could count upon the
support of any Foreign Power in asserting then* supremacy over the island,
would not lose the opportunity of doing so. In this connection it should be
mentioned that an inquiry was received from the French Government in
,July last as to bringing Bahrein within the jurisdiction of their Vice-
Consulate at Bushire, the reason given being that French subjects have come
to establish themselves on the island and carry on pearl fishing. The
Government of India were in favour of postponing the reply to the French-
request, and this view, as far as this Office is aware, has been accepted by
the Foreign Office.
In August 1904 the Government of India were authorised, with a view to
strengthening our position with the Sheikh, to appoint an officer of the
Itegular lolitical Service as Resident, in place of the existing Agent who
was of a lower official status. A small guard of Native Infantry was also
sanctioned, and it was arranged that a suitable vessel should be placed at the
disposal ol the Political Officer to be used if necessary in the suppression of
piracy in the shallower waters of the coast. Sir N. O’Conor, who was
consulted, replied that he had felt strongly for some years past, that we were
losing the opportunity of asserting our supremacy in Bahrein, that he
sincerely welcomed the proposals of the Government of India, and that he
undertook that the Turkish Government should raise no serious difficulties.
The above statement may perhaps suffice to explain the position of Bahrein
in connection with the present question of the action to be taken in
consequence of the outrages committed by retainers of the Sheikh’s nephew
on certain German and Persian subjects. The German case has already
been met by the punishment of the offenders and the payment of compen
sation. In the Persian case the Sheikh seems recalcitrant. There seems no
objection to the proposals made by the Government of India with a view
to obtain redress and to ensure order in the future, except as regards the
recommendation that we should seize the Custom House and not give it up
till the Sheikh accepts British management of his Customs. At present the
Customs are farmed to British Indian banias, with the result that the Chief
only receives a revenue of rather more than a lakh, which is a third only of
the estimated yield of an efficient system. In their Despatch of 21st April
1904, the Government of India explained that the Sheikh had on several
occasions promised not to renew his leases to the farmers when they fell in,
but that he had tailed to keep his word when the time came; and they said
that they regarded the question of Customs reform as a test case of the
nature and degree of the influence which the British Government may
reasonably claim to exercise over the Sheikh. A compromise would be to
insist on the Sheikh cancelling the leases (with compensation to the
farmers), and assuming the administration himself. This would assimilate
the Bahrein practice to that of Muscat, where the Sultan has abolished the
farming system, but has consistently refused to put the administration under
British control, retaining the management in his own hands. The adoption
of this change by the Sheikh of Bahrein might or might not lead to Ids
agreeing subsequently to placing the administration under a British
official.
El Katr.
The notification to the Porte of 12th August 1895 (mentioned above)
sufficiently establishes the fact that His Majesty’s Government do not
recognise Turkish jurisdiction over the Katr coast. But the force of the
statement is somewhat modified by the fact that since 1872 there has been
a Turkish gamson at El Bidaa. In lb68 we concluded an agreement with
the then Sheikh (the father of the present Sheikh), by which he bound
himself to take no hostile action by sea, and to refer all disputes to the
Resident in the Persian Gulf. Sheikh Jasim, the present Sheikh, on
succeeding his father, applied for a renewal of the Agreement, but this was
refused (in 1882) on the ground of the nature of his relations with the
Turks.
Sheikh Jasim is now of a very great age, and the virtual ruler is his
brother, Sheikh Ahmed, with whom the Government of India are exceedingly