PZ 4718/1934 ‘Historical Memorandum on Bahrein.’ [‎18r] (35/48)

33
with the ill-treatment of the ('■!,.r m o,, „,,i - . ,, m , . ,
Ambassador was informed bv Lord Lansdn^ 60 ’t) *1 .^ ur ^ ls ^
matter of common knowledge and welfknoTf th , at w , as ? P 0 - *» Con-
Government thet u;=. M • . » ,, kn0WU to the Turkish stantinople,
uovernment that His Majesty’s Government had direct N °- 59 ° {
relations with the Sheikh of Bahrein ; that the island and 22 - 2 - 1906 -
its natives were under British protection; and hat
Majesty s Government were within their rights in takiL
Smr bt T redreSS ■ f0r the 0Utrage comm itted there 8
On the Ambassador reverting to the subject later in 1905
he was informed (20th May 1905) that His Majesty’s
Government must decline to entertain any further renresen-
tations from the Turkish Government on the subject.
Reassertions of Persian Claim, 1905-13.
n t ^ e a § ain rcflBSGrtcd tliGir clsiin.
On the 19th hebraary 190b, m reply to a further reiteration
which appears to have been based on the treaties of 1809,
1814 and 185/ the Minister at Tehran informed the Persian ig9 1 Q 06
Government that “ The Treaties of 1809, of 1814 and of 1 1 ° 6 '
185/ on this subject have always been scrupulously observed
by His Majesty s Government, but have no bearing on the
present question. His Majesty’s Government have never
admitted the ownership or sovereignty of Persia over
Bahrein, feuch a claim is in their view entirely inadmissible.
His Majesty’s Government consider the island of Bahrein
and its inhabitants to be under British protection, and must
decline to entertain any further representations on the
subject. I am further to mention that this reply has
invariably been made to the Ottoman Government, who have
on several occasions advanced a claim to Bahrein.” The
Note concluded by a reference to the Persian appeal for our
assistance in 1904—05 and quoted m extenso the telegram of
reassurance (paragraph 121 above) to the Persian inhabitants
of Bahrein then sent on behalf of the Persian Government.
125. On 13th September 1906 the Persian Grand Vizier
revived the Persian claim in a letter referring to Captain
Bruce’s unauthorised agreement of 1822. He was reminded
in reply that that agreement had been expressly disavowed
by His Majesty’s Government and that Captain Bruce had
been recalled. In a supplementary note the Grand Vizier’s
attention was drawn to the fact that the then Shah himself
had “ refused to recognise ” the stipulations of the Treaty of
1822, which had never been ratified, and had “ expressed
his displeasure that the Prince of Shiraz should have
entered into any engagements with the British Government
without his knowledge or instructions.”
126. On the Ala-es-Sultaneh reviving the Persian claim,
on the ground of the Agreement of 1822, in August 1907,
his attention was drawn in a Note dated 13th August 1907
to the Notes referred to in the preceding paragraph; and to
the fact that the Agreement had been disavowed alike by
His Majesty’s Government and by the Shah. The Note
added that “since 1822 the Turkish Government have
raised claims on Bahrein, and, like the Persian Govern
ment, have been informed that Bahrein is under British
protection.”
127. In 1908 the Persian Government, in a correspondence
regarding the punishment of a Bahrein subject at Lingah,
intimated that instructions had been sent to Lingah that
reparation should be made, but added that His Majesty s
Minister would admit that “ the proprietary right of the
Persian Government over the island is not a matter to be
disputed ” The Note was returned as inadmissible to the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. A modified version was sub
sequently accepted by His Majesty’s Government, which
was acknowledged by a Note from His Majesty s Minister,
2953
Teh. Desp.
No. 3 of
3.1.1907.
Teh. Desp.
No. 61 of
27.3.1907.
Teh. Desp.
No. 179 of
15.8.1907.
Teh. tel. 95
of 11.4.1908.
Teh. Desp.
No. 10 of
22.1.1909.
1 -'1