'Memorandum by the Rev. G. P. Badger on the Pretensions of Persia in Beloochistan and Mekran, drawn up with especial reference to her Claim to Gwadur and Charbar' [‎3v] (6/20)

6
At the outset, the latter succeeded in driving the Muscatees from Bunder Abbas
and Minau, but those places were subsequently recaptured by the Sultan s torces.
Eventually, however, the Persians got the upper hand, owing to the non-arrival of
Sewed Saeed’s Arab allies from the opposite coast, whose departure to his
assistance is alleged to have been forbidden, under threats of summary chastise
ment by Captain Jones, then British Resident at Bushire. In consequence of
this failure, Seyved Saeed was obliged to make the best terms he could wit
Persia, and a new treaty was drawn up between the two Powers regulating their
future mutual relations. 11 ht i\/r
Seyyed Saeed appears to have complained to the Honourable Mr. Murray,
then British Minister at Teheran, of the unfair conditions which had been exacted
from him by Persia. These grievances having been laid before Her Majesty s
Home Government, the late Sir James Outram, then in command of the Persian
Expedition, was directed to inquire into the subject with a view to British inter
vention, in behalf of the peace and tranquillity of the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. through the
medium of any new treaty which might be concluded between Her Majesty s
Government and the Shah of Persia. . . , . , ,.
Sir James Outram’s first report on the subject is contained in a letter
addressed to Lord Clarendon, dated 2d of March 1857. He writes The argu
ments set forth by Mr. Murray in his Despatch of the 18th of August 1856, m
behalf of the Imaum of Muscat’s continued occupancy of Bunder Abbas, deserve
the most serious attention in connection with the political and commercial interests
of Great Britain in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. . The condition, comprised under this para
graph was evidently framed with a view to secure those advantages, as well as to
support our ally the Imaum; but the stipulation is couched in general terms and
your Lordship will perceive, from the following remarks, that it will be a dehcate
matter to arbitrate between the two parties with a due appreciation of the claims
° f ea ?Mr. Murray, in his Despatch above cited, speaks of our ‘ having recognized
< Imaum’s rights and claims for half a century, and of the Indian Governments,
‘ in former days, having contracted a treaty with him, in which Bunder Abbas is
< distinctly named as being in his dominions like Muscat itself.’ I have examined
the treaty here referred to, which I apprehend to be that under date 12th October
1798 and I confess to not feeling justified in drawing such a conclusion from the
vague manner in which Bunder Abbas is spoken of as ( a port of the Sirkar
(meaning the Imaum), and.from the permission accorded to the English to establish
and fortify a factory An East India Company trading post. there. , . . ,
a your Lordship’s statement of the Iraaum’s tenure of the place, as conveyed
in your Lordship’s Despatch to Lord Wodehouse, dated 30th December last,
namely that he has rented it from the Persian Government for a long series of
years appears to be the correct state of the case, and accords with the information
conveyed in the annexed letter from Captain Jones, Resident in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. ,
to Mr Secretary Anderson, Bombay, dated 27th August 1856. From that docu
ment it would appear that a stipulation has been entered into by the Imaum with
the Persian Government, whereby the former now farms the fort of Bunder Abbas
and the adjacent islands of Kishm and Hormuz for a fixed rental of 16,000 tomans 10,000 Persian dinars, or a gold coin of that value.
per annum, besides other payments in the shape of largess and douceur; but
whether the contract is binding on both parties for one or more years, whether
the condition is expressed or not that it shall be renewed on the same terms or
on any other, or whether it comprises a lease for a number of years, is not plain,
and I have hitherto failed to obtain any conclusive information on the subject.
The annexed copy of a letter from the Imaum to Mr. Murray corroborates that
part of Captain Jones’s despatch above quoted, which reports His Highness’s
dissatisfaction with the terms of the compact. On the other hand, an impression
appears to prevail that the Imaum is pleased with his late bargain.”
F All Sir James Outram’s endeavours to obtain a copy of the treaty referred to
were unsuccessful, and Captain Jones either could not or would not aid him in the
matter The truth is, that that Officer’s proceedings, during the hostilities
between Persia and the Sultan of Muscat in 1855-56, were very questionable,
gidino- as he appears to have done, on his own authority, with the former against
the latter Moreover, it was Captain Jones himself who gave Sir James Outram
to understand that Seyyed Saeed was, in reality, pleased with the conditions of
his late treaty with Persia, though he pretended that he had been grossly
imposed on.