"ملخص لعلاقات الحكومة البريطانية مع قبائل وشيوخ عربستان. بقلم الملازم أ. ت. ويلسون، القائم بأعمال القنصل في عربستان" [و‎‎٣‎٨] (١٤٣/٨٠)

61
belief that the men named were wanted by the Turks for reasons other than
those alleged. 1 2
T} 16 charge brought against him and his predecessors of having used
robberies at Basrah as a means of bringing pressure to bear on the Turkish
authorities when the latter were acting in a manner inimical to the interests
* r a 1 ? ? h0Se > hls Govemm cnt, was considered to be well founded bv
Mr. McDouall but the need for such a drastic remedy will, it is to be hoped
not occur again, although it cannot be said that recent Walls have adopted a
conciliatory attitude in their relations with the Shaikh. In proportion as
1 is Majesty s Government, or that of the Shah, are able to bring effective
pressure to bear at Constantinople to prevent the Turks from acting in a
manner hostile to the Shaikh s interests, the latter will be able to settle his
affairs on the river and the frontier amicably and without resort to the more
primitive methods described above.
The Kut-i-Zain incident of April 1910, involving as it did the question
of the Shaikh s tribal rights, and the nationality of his tribesmen in Turkish
territory, was of considerable importance. Lapse of time and a renewal of
friendly relations between the Shaikh and the then Wall, Sulaiman Nazlf
Bey, brought the incident to an inconclusive termination, and the
endorsement recorded by His Majesty’s Government to the Shaikh’s atti
tude of restraint on that occasion should not be allowed to obscure the fact
that the questions raised by the Turks have not been settled. These com
prised :—
(1) The right of tribesmen of the Shaikh, being in Turkish territory,
to Persian nationality.
(2) The right of the Turkish authorities to demand the extradition
and surrender of Persians accused of offences committed in
Turkish territory.
From the administrative and legal point, however, two important issues
were definitely settled in connection with the dispute.
(1) His Majesty’s Consul, Basrah, asserted to the Acting Wall on May
5th the right of His Majesty’s Government to intervene to
protect the Shaikh. 3
(2) As a result of the incident or, perhaps of this assertion of our
right to intervene, the Council of State declared that, in future
no more land in the Basrah district was to be registered in the
names of Shaikh Khaz’al or his agent Mirza Hamzah or of the
latter’s agent Mulla Mustafa. 4
At the close of 1910, His Majesty’s Government had not yet decided 3
what communication should be made to the Porte in regard to our right, or
rather obligation, to protect the Shaikh of Mohammerah. This fact, however,
cannot be unknown to them in view of Mr. Crow’s declaration referred to
above, and of the fact that in connection with the Faddaghiyah incident in
October 1910, when it seemed possible that the Turks might take aggressive
measures against Mohammerah, a British gun-boat was despatched without
delay to that place.
The Faddaghiyah incident, which arose out of the Kut-i-Zain incident,
may be briefly described as follows :—Certain cultivators, Persian subjects,
living in Turkish territory at Faddaghiyah had a dispute with the
Turkish owners of the land, who were the members of the Mishri family.
The latter used their influence to have the said cultivators ejected by the
1 The correspondence on this subject was forwarded by the Political Resident in the Persian Gulf to His
Majesty’s Legation and the Government of India under his No. 1914-5 of 16th July 1910, and will be found
printed in the Proceeding’s of the Government of India in ^he Foreign Department.
2 Vide correspondence forwarded by the Political Resident in the Persian Gulf to the Govemment of India
under his No. 1194 of 15th May 1909, and reproduced in the Proceedings of the Government of India in the
Foreign Department. , _ . , ,
3 Vide his Despatch No. 26 of 14th May to H. M. s Ambassador, Constantinople, reproduced m the Proceed
ings of the Government of India in the Foreign Department for May 1910.
4 In consequence of this decision the Shamshamiyah land purchased by the Shaikh in 1909 (».a.) was
refused registration.
4 It was ultimately decided to make no communication.