PZ 4718/1934 ‘Historical Memorandum on Bahrein.’ [‎15r] (29/48)

■
1
m
27
i p °n him the government of Bahrein and with this
he Khan hoped to be able to come to terms with the
Chief then in possession of the place. But in this
matter the sole object of all concerned would seem to
has e been to carry out the policy of the Persian Govern-
inent at .rf lre , 1 T n . Wlt ^ 0ut reference to the interests or
wishes of Her Majesty s Government in that quarter.”
^ n Sth April 1870 the Minister at Tehran addressed
the loiiowing despatch to the Government of India :
. <£ reference to my despatch of the 6th instant,
in which I stated that the Minister for Foreign Affairs
had mfoimed me that Ah bin Ivhalifa had lepeatedly
made overtures to Persia admitting his allegiance to the
Shah, X have the honour to report to Your Excellency
that Mirza bayed Khan has just sent to inform me that
he was mistaken in making this assertion, and that he
finds on enquiry that the letters to which he referred
were not from that Chief, but from Md. bin IThalifa.”
Views of Government of India, May 1870.
96. The Government of India, commenting on these facts,
remarked that Mehdi Khan appeared to have left Tehran
with a general discretion as to which of the various Sheikhs
should be recognised as ruler. “At the capital no more
definite plan appears to have been resolved on than that
measures should be adopted to establish the Sheikh’s
assumed right of sovereignty over the island.”
97. The Government of India proceeded that they had
already pointed out that any disposition to admit the claims
of Persia would probably lead to the revival of similar
claims on the part of Turkey, a result which had in fact now
been brought about (cp. paragraph 99 below). “ This (i.e.
the Turkish) claim rests on no better foundation than that
of Persia. It was summarily rejected by Lord Palmerston
in 1851 and in our opinion should not again be reopened.
With equal reason the Wahabi Amir and the Sultan of
Muscat could claim the sovereignty of the island, if the
nominal and temporary tender of allegiance, in times ^of
difficulty, and as a security against foreign intervention, be
considered sufficient ground on which to base such preten
sions. On the same ground indeed we might claim Bahrein
as a part of the British dominions. But, as we have
repeatedly observed, the real status of the island, and the
only one’which we have recognised and admitted, or are
prepared to recognise and admit, in all our dealings in the
Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. and our negotiations with the Chiefs, is that
of an independent State, subject neither to Persia nor to D 2 g
Turkey, neither to the Wahabis nor to Muscat, nor yet to of 20.5.1870.
the British Government.”
Review of Discussions of 1868-70.
98. The matter ultimately lapsed. But from the facts
and the correspondence summarised above it will be seen m
the first place, that there appears to be no foundation for the
alleged overtures to Persia by the ruling Sheikh, Ah bin
Khalifa, or for the statement that the I ersian ag was fly g
;“ h .*d:r; merries i»S j .i™»
restoration Secoa y, office ^ of Her Majesty s
Note sent by t p g ian Charge d’Affaires on 29th April
Government to afford some justification for
1869 were widely ^ and wllile the
the interpretatio ph confirme d in their view by the
Persians may f™"' , „ Maiesty’s Minister against
absence o “y fm Khan, the terms of that Note do
not, C fact constitute more than a recogmtron that