File 522/1922 Pt 4 'Persian Gulf: Bahrein: Internal' [‎104r] (212/616)

13
103
fm
n, hp rTOVer nment of Bombay instructed the Resrdent not to interfere with the
otwin o{ Bahrain, whether by Turkey or Persia, otherwise than by a pro-
eccupat ^ intimation that the matter had been reported to H. M.
(government and that aggression on the neighbouring tribes would be prevented
by force if necessary.
' While discussion on the subject was continuing the Turkish and Persian
agents apparently vanished from Bahrain.
T 18G1 t he Shaikh commenced hostilities against Hasa, but was brought
v bv the despatch of H. M. ships to the spot. He made sub-
t0 • „ and siened a convention in May of that year, acknowledging the validity
STe treatieTand conventions concluded with the British Government by h.s
nredecessors and undertook to recognise the jurisdiction of the British agent and
the Pohtieal Resident over British subjects of every kind in Bahrain, and to allow
the latter to reside in his dominions.
( W result of this convention was to assimilate the position of the Shaikh of
Bahrain! who was not a party to the Perpetual Treaty of Peace, to that of the
Trucial Chiefs.
In 1863 the Chief was again behaving badly and at the end of 1865 the
Resident seized one of his war vessels. The Persian Government who had in 1862
emnolained about a similar incident now complained again on the ground that
under Ibe agreement concluded by Captain Bruce m 1822 Bahrain was dependency
0fP 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
Bahrain in bygone days he could not now be regarded as having any rights in the
principality. This view was approved of by H. M. s Government in
37 At this time the Shaikh of Bahrain was paying a sum of $ 4,000 annually
to the WahabTs on account of Qatar but was held by the Government of India
to be independent as far as Bahrain was concerned. _
Owing to his treacheroi^ and piratical^destructhm^of Dohah an^^VVjikrah,
^ hSon oHhe^ritish lovtnment and his brother Shaikh Ali
waTappointed^m Us ^ and protest was again made by the Persian authorities.
38. A complaint in ^
was addressed by the Shah s 1 t g hiraz to Colonel Pelly, the Resi-
another was addressed by the rvarguz w+ P r« from the de-
dent at Bushire, and a third with which were enclosed two letters from^^
posed Shaikh of Bahrain, was lodged at t e around o{ CO mplaint was
1869 by the Persian Minister in Lo "^° ' rL sia P oi the British intention to
that no previous notice had been gi\en to
proceed against Bahrain. , . , , ,i
T i + « +V.O 9Qth Anril 1869, after consultation between the
39. In a reply sent on the 29th April i»o , Foreign Affairs, the
Secretary of State for India and the , p e ^® ikh y { f B f hrain had at different periods
Persian Minister was reminded that the Shaikh British Government, he
in the past entered into direct col f nl “ p g^hVovernment in holding the Shaikh
was assured that the sole objects of the Bn ^ ^ trade and the
to those engagements were the P^ention ^ P ; y ’ Great Bntain WO uld gladly,
maintenance of the police of the Gull, duties oi i ■ n a Dromise
if it were possible, divest herself in favour of Persia. Ty^^-oin a a a in become
was given that should punitive measures against the Shaikh oi ^ T / e ian Gov _
necessary H. M.’s Government would, if P ractlcable ’ be im-
ernment to be informed beforehand and that m cases , „ t f Tehran
possible in consequence of the delay which a reference to the Court ot iema ^
would involve, a full communication on the subject would be made
Government. _ u +
The object of this reply was to avoid causing irritation at Te ran, u i
not surprising that it was subsequently quoted agains u .
40. In the same year Shaikh Mohammed attacked Bahrain and Shaikh Ah
was killed in the defence.
MC531FB