‏"ملخص الأحداث والتدابير الرئيسية التي اتخذها سمو نائب الملك اللورد كرزون من كيدلستون، نائب الملك والحاكم العام للهند في إدارة الخارجية. ‏I‏. يناير ١٨٩٩-أبريل ١٩٠٤. ‏II‏. ديسمبر ١٩٠٤-نوفمبر ١٩٠٥. المجلد IV. بلاد فارس والخليج الفارسي". [ظ‎‎١‎٣‎٧] (٣٨٦/٢٧٩)

the status quo on which he has based a representation to the Porte referred to in
his despatch dated the 4th April 1902, No. 2. But he thinks that it would
he possible to press for the withdrawal of the Turkish post from the island and
to inform the Porte after some months, if this representation should produee no
result, that unless the Turkish force is withdrawn, we shall be constrained to
support the Sheikh in establishing a post on the (? the island). He suggests,
however, that the whole force will probably be removed before very long if the
question is allowed to lie dormant as the number of troops in occupation has
been reduced during the last two years from 20 to 6, and he asks that it may
be ascertained definitely whether any Turkish troops are still on the island.
Please furnish this information and let me have your opinion on Sir N.
O’Conor’s views. He also points out that the Turks will take it as a practical
abandonment by His Majesty’s Government of the Sheikh’s claim to Urn Kasr
if we ask only for the evacuation of Bubiyan without mentioning the former.
10
Telegram No. 1358-.E.A., dated Simla, the 27th April 1904.
From-w-His Excellency the Viceroy,
To-*—His Majesty’s Secretary of State for India, London.
Bubiyan Island. Please refer to your telegram dated the 22nd April 1904,
Enquiry has been made through the Besident in the Persian Gulf whether
there are still Turkish troops in the island. The case of the Government of
India is stated in paragraph 5 of our despatch, dated the 4th February 1904.
Sheikh Mubarak’s claim to Um Kasr has been weakened by acquiescence in
the occupation of that place by the Turks, who have constructed a considerable
fort there apparently in infringement of the status quo. As His Majesty’s
Government were only prepared in 1902 to resist Turkish advance on Subieh,
I did not suppose that the Sheikh’s claim to Um Kasr would be supported, more
especially as it rests mainly on his ancestral connection wit h the place which
ceased in the 17th century. His claim to Bubiyan is much stronger, while
Turkish claims andt de facto postion there are much weaker. Moreover there
is substantial geographical distinction between the mainland, where the Turks
have long been in the neighbourhood, and the island where they are not known
ever to have been at all. I would urge that the matter be not allowed to rest
and that the Turks should either be required to withdraw their troops and
destroy their post on Bubiyan and to recognise this as an integral portion
of the Sheikh’s possession, or that he should be allowed to erect a post on the
island as proposed by us. His claims to Um Kasr might be utilised to secure
this result. If the present position continues much longer after matter has .
been prominently brought to notice during my tour to the Gulf it will hereafter
he almost impossible to assert the claims of the Sheikh to the island, on which
our right to be consulted in any railway scheme affecting Khor Abdulla could
most easily be based Our influence in Koweit and the neighbourhood will
certainly be weakened, if we do not secure the Sheikh’s rights about which he
spoke to me.
11
No. 7 (Confidentiahs-Marine), dated Simla, the 9th October 1902,
From—The Government of India, Marine Department,
xo——The Right Hon ble Lord George Francis Hamilton, His Majesty’s Secretary
of State for India. J
We have the honour to address Your Lordship on the subject of placing
armaments on board vessels of the Royal Indian Marine, with special reference
to the use of the Lawrence in the Persian Gulf. We have not overlooked the
fact that the Lawrence was built on the understanding that the duties to he
performed by her should be strictly non-combatant, nor that when last the
question was raised. Lord Kimberley in his Military despatch No. 7, dated 12th t -
January 1893, refused to allow the armament which had been provided for