'Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf. Vol I. Historical. Part IA & IB. J G Lorimer. 1915' [‎891] (1046/1782)

India, by
^ the Sli^
deration.
D Section wit| 1;
^ and of »| s
^plained, sy^
higher autkritj, |
idition of residing (
allowance from |
case of force fe.
'I not to let tin;
en received, lie p,
ich, after abloodk
■chief with all lii
proceedings of lli
Uatif or Daman,
:raderg of Hasa,a
to expel the 16%
ject of hospitelitr,
ras made soon A
jred by the Bnts
3d nor the valo^
unmad-bin-'iM^
jf Bahrain in ^
1, after theap^
^ the "Hamni
j of the new &
hich he in^^'
Viceroy'
rigour
that od
Bushehr,
891
Various claimB arose against the Shaikh, of which one was in 1864
investigated by the Resident and settled by an agreement in writing,
executed by the Shaikh and his brother, to pay a sum of 17,000 Qrans.
In the spring of 1865, on again visiting Bahrain, Colonel Pelly found
that the compensation promised had not been paid, and that on the
contrary a further sum of 3,000 Qrans had been extorted by the ruler
from the Hindu complainants. The Resident on this occasion confined
himgelf to a written remonstrance; but in December of the same year,
having failed to convince the Shaikh after a week's argument of the
necessity of fulfilling his engagements. Colonel Pelly caused the Bahrain
war Baghlah Large trading vessel. " Dinar," of 500 tons and pierced for 10 guns, to be seized.
Hardly had the Resident recommended to Government the sale of this
vessel for the benefit of the British Indian claimants thai the Bahrain
authorities came to their senses and satisfied the demand against them;
but in the meantime the Baghlah Large trading vessel. had been severely damaged by a hur
ricane, while in tow of the " Berenice,"" and foundered on reaching port,
apparently at Bushehr.
The Government of India directed that the " Dinar JJ should, if practi
cable, be restored to the Shaikh, and an attempt was made to fulfil their
instructions; but the vessel sank and was lost on hei way back to
Bahrain. A general order was issued by Government, in connection with
this case, that the Resident should not in future undertake the confisca
tion of vessels belonging to chiefs on his own responsibility.
The Persian Government, who in 1862 had protested against the Reassertion
seizure of the Bahrain war vessel " Hamrah," now complained of the p^ r ^ n
proceedings in regard to the " Dinar " on the ground that Bahrain, under Government
the Agreement concluded by Captain Bruce in 1822,* was a dependency to rain! 111
of Persia. 1866-67.
The Government of India, to whom the alxusion was unintelligible
referred to the Government of Bombay From c. 1668-1858, the East India Company’s administration in the city of Bombay [Mumbai] and western India. From 1858-1947, a subdivision of the British Raj. It was responsible for British relations with the Gulf and Red Sea regions. and were informed of the nature
of Captain Bruce's Agreement and of its having been at the time instantly
repudiated. Upon this the Government of India acquainted Mr. Alison,
the British Minister in Persia, with the circamstances of the case and with
their own opinion that, whatever might have been the pretensions of
Persia (or the grounds of the same) to the sovereignty of Bahrain in
former days, the Shah could not now be regarded as possessing, in
point of fact, any rights in the principality.
This communication to the British Legation at Tehran was approved by
Her Majesty's Government in 1867, and the matter apparently dropped
■
♦ Ftde page 849 ante.