'A Précis of the Relations of the British Government with the Tribes and Shaikhs of 'Arabistan By Lieutenant A T Wilson, Acting Consul for Arabistan' [‎37v] (79/143)

60
The latter attempted to avoid discussing the Question by claiming that
communications should be addressed to him through the Persian Consul at
Basrah, and not direct. As, however, the Wall insisted on raising the ques
tion, and announced his intention of taking the island by force, Shaikh
Miz’al accepted the challenge, collected, some thousands of his Arabs on the
Persian mainland opposite the island in dispute, and awaited the arrival of
the Turks.
The latter’s gunboat arrived in due course full of troops, but when the
Wall saw the numbers of Arabs collected on the bank, evidently with a view
to resisting any attempt to seize the disputed land, he changed his mind and
passed down stream to Fao. Next day the gunboat returned and found the
Arabs still ready, and engaged as before in vociferous war dances, so he
went on to Failiyeh, where he landed and interviewed Shaikh Miz’al, and
asked him the meaning of the massing of his Arabs opposite the island.
The Shaikh tried to avoid the issue by saying that they had been sent to catch
partridges alive for the Zill-es-Sultan, but when the Wali insisted on a reply
Miz’al declared roundly that the island was Persian and should remain so as
long as he had breath in his body : he further asserted that it was so recog
nized by the Anglo-Russian Commission, but there is no evidenee available
of this. The W r ali seemed to have felt it impolitic to take further action, as
he withdrew, and thence forward the island has remained in Persian hands.
Lpon Miz’al’s assassination in 1897, he was succeeded by his brother
Khaz’al, who devoted all his attention to the cultivation of political relations
with the British, and who spared no pains to strengthen his military position
concurrently with his political connections. He bought more land in Turkey
and extended his influence in the town of Basrah where his representative
Mlrza Hamza (a Turkish subject) enjoyed a reputation as arbitrator in dis
putes of all kinds which sometimes quite eclipsed the Turkish Courts of Law,
then notorious even amongst Turks for their venality and inefficiency.
The importance of the Turks, and the antics of their constantly
changing W 7 alis, made it difficult for the Shaikh to treat them very seriously,
and the accusation levelled against him by Turks, that he got his way by
bribery and corruption of officials has probably a substantial substratum of
truth, since this proceeding is necessary in order to get anything done in
Turkey, to this day. o j &
Another and more serious accusation is that he gave asylum to bad
characters, and encouraged them to plunder Basrah, himself sharing in theii
booty. This accusation likewise contains an element of truth, although it is
in its main outline untrue. The complete incapacity of the Turks to deal
with Arab pirates and house-breakers led them to solicit HajI Jabir’s inter
vention on numerous occasions in dealing with their own subjects, and not
it was arranged that HajI Jabir should give them a domicile
in Mohammerah territory, in order better to supervise their movements.
Shaikh Miz’al moreover finding Turkish authorities unable or unwilling
to co-operate with him m capturing and imprisoning miscreants, adopted
k nOW Vi^ rien ^ a me ^°d of taking them into his pay as retainers, so
that they would be always under his eye and being in receipt of a regular
salary, would be relieved of the primary temptation to rob. This method
which was continued by Shaikh Khaz’al was indubitably effective as far as
Mohammerah wa^ concerned, and the capture of such men by the inefficient
lurkish police, if outlawed, being practically impossible, it was the only one
ff ri , n !. an L pr ?l peCt ° f SU f ess - Tt had > and sti11 has > the disadvantage that
it laid the Shaikh open to the charge of harbouring known criminals and even
t ough the said criminals have probably done nothing more serious than rob,
and though their acts have not his cognizance or approval, the charge is
difficult to meet. rr >
Such accusations were brought against Shaikh Khaz’al in 1906 in connec
tion with the murder of Mr. Glanville at Ma’gil near Basrah in 1906, but
the correspondence on the subject is illustrative rather of the inefficiency and
corruption of the Turkish authorities, than of the Shaikh’s remissness his
reluctance to take active measures to apprehend the men accused by’ the
lurkish authorities of complicity in the affair being due to a well-founded