"الملف 26/185 V (F 96) شيخ المحمرة" [و‎‎٩‎٩] (٤٧٢/٢٠٥)

203.
. 4039/155/34)
r
FOREIGN OFFICE, S .W .I.
« \
29th Au^st t l944.
regarding 5i0 a^gurancea given by His Majesty's (xoveroflant
to the .late aneikh of Hohanjrnerah and the bearing of these
assurances on the present claims of 3hei*kh Chassib.
2m The history of the two letters referred to in paragraph
of ; that despatch is as follows* The officiatiag. iiesident m
the Persian uralf dubciitted to the aoveru^iaent of India on the
14th ^pife.nber, IQ*!, the draft of a. special letter to the
Sheikh 'of- M>hafflBer2i to be despatched in the event of the
outbreak of war between Grreat Britain and Turkey • This draft
the text of which is enclosed, was approved by the Joveraaeni
of India on the 26th September* 19^4 with jLha -aubatitution
of the words "date gardens iiicn you novs possess" for ^your
•date gardens'* in tne last paragraph, attd the oioniasion of
the words '•for ever** In this amenaed f(mji the lett- r was
delivered to the Sheikh on the 3rd Novemoer, 19i4«
3# Subsequently, after th^occupatijn of Basra. Sheikh
Khazal asked that the wordi% of tlie letter should be revised*
In the foru originally sanctioned, the letter contained a
reference- to the co-operation expected f rom the Sheikh in
the event of iter being needed in connexion vath the capture of
Basra* The «>heikh urged that, as occassion ii did not arise
for the fulfilment of this obligation, -it seamed somewhat
inconvenient and superfluous for it to be mentioned in a
communication fchich would become an important and permanent
recordi he therefore begged for a raarised lotter from ^hich
the passages relating to Basra s-hould be omiited*
A. Accordingly Sir Percy Gox, after obtaining approval of
the Viceroy, sent to Sheim Khazal the letter lated 22nd
November, 1514, the text of which ii knoT#to you.
- S »
5. rha aovorumeat of India will doubtless be ii a position
to supply a certified cop/ of Colonel Unoz'a letter of the
3rd liovsmb^r, 1914. It iss sufficient to remark here that it
is not surprisioij that the second lettir did not to
the first, or that the first letter was not included in. the
rinted collection to which raference is made in paragraph 2
of Sir Reader Bullard's despatch. The second letter replaaed
the first letter, and if there were any ad vintage to be
-•ained. we could maintain that the first lett r tnerafore had
no validity.
6. You are familiar with the apneral course of events
aubseuueut to ! the rise of Rez® Shaa vlster --sz-- Shah/, and
with their relation to the undertakings of. His -ajesty'a
Government to the ohaikh of ilohaa'aerah. rnia history is not
closely relevant" to the present issue, but it should pernapa
be mentioned that His liajeaty's Government could, had they
wished, ha e made the Sheikhas disregard of tneir advice in
1924-25 (when he deliberately broke tne conditions mentioned
3
not*