Page 48 - Historical Summaries (Persian Gulf) 1907-1953

42

opinion that, while Bahrein should bo acknow­
ledged to possess cortain rights in regard to
pasturage, &c., those rights should not be held as
empowering tho Sheikh to put to sea for tho
purpose of coercing any port in El Kntr. lie
regarded 1Cl Odoid as properly belonging to Abu
Dthabj.
In a Memorandum by tho Bov. Afr. Badger on
Turkish claims to Oman, ho wrote that thenalivo
annals of tho provinco incontestably prove that
it became independent of the Bagdad Khali late
in tho 10th century, and had never since been
subject to foreigu rule except to the Persians for
a short tirno. He went on to say that tho samo
was true of the Arub Chiefdoms in tho Persian
Gulf, and that their independence was virtually
admitted by Turkey in 1817.
On tho 7th May, 1883, Lord Granville wrote
toMusurus Pasha that “ tho claim of the Porto to
rights of sovereignty over tho EL Katr coast has
never been admitted by llor Majesty’s Govern­
ment.”
In 1895 His Majesty’s Government forcibly
dispersed, in the interests of the Bahrein Sheikh,
a settlement of malcontents who hud established
themselves at Zobara, on the El Katr coast,
under the Turkish flag (see p. 31). The Turks
protested, but His Majesty’s Government staled
in reply that they did not recognize Turkish
jurisdiction on tho El Katr coast (note vcrbulc of
the 12th August 1895).
The present position is, therefore, that we have
refused to recognize Turkish authority in El
Katr, although we have acquiesced in the con­
tinued presence of a Turkish post since 1872 at
El Bidoa. We did, however, object to an attempt x\fr. Tow-nicy,
by the Turkish Government to appoint a Mudir ember- 8
at Wakra, a point south of El Bidaa; and after l'joi.
jconsiderable pressure they cancelled the appoint­
ment.
The Government of India were not completely
satisfied with this result, and desired to round off
their relations with the various Arab Chiefs by
making an agreement with the leading Sheikh
of El Katr.
A former Agreement was concluded in 18GS
with the then Sheikh, by which ho bound himself
to tako no hostile action by sea, and to refer all
disputes to the British ltesident. On the death India office
of this Sheikh, his successor, Sheikh .Tasim, applied j)05
for a renewal of the Agreement, but this was

li