'File 19/191 I (C 27) Bahrain, Persian Claim To' [‎7r] (22/478)

*7
7
under the agreement concluded by Captain Bruce in 1822, Bahrein was dependency
of Persia.
The Government of India informed the Minister at Tehran of the facts of the
case, and stated that whatever might have been the pretensions of the Shah to
Bahrein in bygone days, he could not now be regarded as having any rights in the
principality. This view was approved of by Her Majesty's Government in 1867.
37. At this time the Sheikh of Bahrein was paying a sum of 4,000 dollars j
annually to the Wahabis on account of Qatar, but was held by the Government of !
India to be independent as far as Bahrein was concerned.
Owing to his treacherous and piratical destruction of Dohah and Wakrah, the
chief towns of Qatar, in October 1867, Sheikh Mohammed of Bahrein was deposed
in 1868 by the action of the British Government, and his brother, Sheikh Ali, was
appointed in his place, and protest was again made by the Persian authorities.
38. A complaint, in which Bahrein was claimed to be the property of Persia,
was addressed by the Shah's Minister to Her Britannic Majesty's Minister in
Tehran; another was addressed by the karguzar at Shiraz to Colonel Pelly, the
Resident at Bushire; and a third, with which were enclosed two letters from the
deposed Sheikh of Bahrein, was lodged at the Foreign Office on the 13th April, 1869,
by the Persian Minister in London. A principal ground of complaint was that no
previous notice had been given to Persia of the British intention to proceed against
Bahrein.
39. In a reply sent on the 29th April, 1869, after consultation between the
Secretary of State for India and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the
Persian Minister was reminded that the Sheikh of Bahrein had at different periods
in the past entered into direct communication with the British Government; he was
assured that the sole objects of the British Government in holding the sheikh to those
engagements were the prevention of piracy, of the slave trade and the maintenance
of the police of the Gulf, duties of which Great Britain would gladly, if it were
possible, divest herself in favour of Persia. In conclusion, a promise was given that,
should punitive measures against the Sheikh of Bahrein again become necessary. Her
Majesty's Government would, if practicable, cause the Persian Government to be
informed beforehand, and that in cases which this might be impossible in consequence
of the delay which a reference to the Court of Tehran would involve, a full communi
cation on the subject would be made to the Persian Government.
The object of this reply was to avoid causing irritation at Tehran, but it is not
surprising that it was subsequently quoted against us.
40. In the same year Sheikh Mohammed attacked Bahrein and Sheikh Ali was
killed in the defence.
The British Government blockaded Bahrein, captured and deported the sheikhs
concerned in the attack and replaced Sheikh Ali by his son. Sheikh Fsa. (The latter
has reigned for fifty-eight years, and was in 1923, four years ago, deposed by us from
the actual control, his son. Sheikh Hamad, the present sheikh, being made deputy
ruler in his place.)
41. In the same year, 1869, the Persian Government were informed of the
action taken and the usual complaint followed.
The Government of India replied to the Secretary of State, pointing out that
the Persian Government had no navy and was incapable of assisting the British
Government in maintaining the peace at sea, while, had they had a navy, it would
only have meant that they would have been embroiled with the Sultan of Oman, with
the Arab principalities, with the Wahabi power and with Turkey, all of whom were
antagonistic to her; indeed, the assertion of claims by Persia had already caused the
revival of similar obsolete claims by Turkey and the other Powers.
42. In a despatch of the 27th May, 1870, the Government of India observed :—
" If we are no longer prepared to continue the performance of the tasks we
have undertaken we must withdraw altogether; but the consequences of such
a step would be so disastrous, not only to our national honour but to the peace
of the Gulf, to the prosperity of the tribes inhabiting the littoral, and to the lives
and prosperity of our subjects who during the peace of the last fifty years have
settled on the shores and embarked enormous capital in the pearl fisheries and
the trade with the mainland, that we cannot contemplate this course as one of
which Her Majesty's Government could for a moment contemplate."
43. A protest was also entered by the Turkish Minister in London against the
proceedings of the British authorities in Bahrein, which were represented as acts of