'Persian Gulf. Turkish claims on the Arabian coast' [‎2r] (3/10)

The final result was that British naval officers were
given a certain liberty of action in regard to the Arab
coast. (P.O. to Admiralty dated 11 July 1881).
In 1881 trouble arose with Sheikh Jasim of El Bidaa,
Chief of El Katr. There has been a Turkish garrison
(350 men) at El Bidaa since 1872. (The position of the
Turks at El Bilaa frosa our poi*t e vi. tw is thru, dt-c -f bt
in the PoO. letter of 26 August 1893 • n so long as the
"Turkish ai thorites do not move beyond the limits of the
"town, the nominal suzerainty of the Porte is recognised;
w but any attempt to extend Turkish authority is resi8ted w ).
Sheikh Jasim who is still the de jure , if Sheikh Ahmad is
the de facto , ruler of El Katr, formerly (3 May 1881)
regarded himself being Wahabi , as a Turkish subject on
land, adding "the seas and what is connected with it are
under the British Government" t In point of fact, his father
had entered into an agreement with Colonel Pelly in 1868,
binding himself w on no pretence whatsoever at any time to
"put to sea with hostile intentions" and invariably to refer
disputes to the Resident. Some doubt, however, existed as
to whether this agreement was not personal to Sheikh
Jasim* s father; and, though Sheikh Jasim, on being infomied
that he would be held responsible to the British Government
for his conduct, expressed a desire to renew it, the n
Government of India considered it undesirable owing to his
relations with the Turks (28 April 1882). Irritated
probably at this rejection of his overtures, the Sheikh,
who had previously under pressure from the Resident given
up a maritime expedition he had contemplated against Katif,
proceeded to illtreat British Indian merchants resident at
El Bidaa: and ultimately the Resident had to proceed to the
spot