Page 64 - Historical Summaries (Persian Gulf) 1907-1953

H

68

nising the suzerainty of tlio Turkish Government,
but practically independent undor their own
Chiefs,” and in a lutor paragraph ho emphasizes
tho nominal character of the suzerainty.
Colonel Polly wrote as far hack as 1803, hut
his definition of tho status of Koweit expresses in
a nutshell tho attitude IIis Majesty’s Government
have consistently adopted on tho question.
Iu July 1S97 ller Majesty’s Ambassador at
Constantinople was instructed that—
"Her Majesty's Government have uever admitted To Sir P. Currie.
that Koweit is undor tho protection of tho Turkish No. 307, July 17,
‘
Government, Hut sinoo it is practically under Turkish 1807.
influence, it is doubtful whether wo could deny tho
latter.”
On the 23rd January, 1890, the Sheikh signed
an Agreement (to ho kept absolutely secret)
pledging himself not only to cede no territory,
but to receive no foreign Representative without
British sanction. In return for this ho was
promised tho good offices of ller Majesty’s
Government, and a payment was made of India Office,
16,000 rupees from the Bushiro Treasury. September 4,
The conclusion of tho Agreement, howover,
involved a serious question regarding the property
of the Sheikh in Turkish territory. Aliens are by
Turkish law precluded from holding landed pro­
perty, and it was feared that, if tho Sheath were
suspected of having agreed to a British Protec­
torate, the Turkish authorities would attempt to
dispossess Mubarek of his property near Fao.
The hope was, therefore, holdout that the British luclosm* in
Government would “do what they could” to February 14, law.
protect him and his brothers in the matter.
In 1901, rumours of Turkish concentration
threatening Koweit raised the larger diplomatic
question.
In July 1901 Sir F. Loscelles had had a con­ 1901.
versation with Dr. Rosen, of the German Foreign
Office, upon the prospects of tho Anatolian
Railway and the general situation.
An expression used by his Excellency describ­
ing tho Sheikh as “ technically a subject of the
Sultan but enjoying a considerable amount of
independence,” which on a previous occasion had
passed without comment (see Sir F. Lasccllcs'
No. 150 of the 35th June, 1900), now drew
from tho German Representative an assertion
that tho Sheikh was “ merely a subject of tho
8ultan.”