Page 268 - Records of Bahrain (3) (i)_Neat

258 Records of Bahrain

No. 244, doted Dushire,tho 4th June 1905*
From—MAJOR P. Z. Cox, C.I.E., Offg. Political Resident in the Poraian Gulf,
To—S. M. FRASRR, Esq., C.I.E., Secretary to the Government of India In the
Foreign Department, Simla. '
I have the honour to acknowledge tho receipt pf Foreign Department letter
No. 1873-E. 13., dated 17th May, regarding Bahrein affairs, and to submit the
further report called for in paragraph 8 thereof.
a. Before dealing with the questions of reform under consideration, I beg
to offer some explanations regarding one or two points which have given Govern­
ment cause for remark, in the hope of removing misunderstanding it any exists.
I regret in the first place that the digression in paragraph 4 of* my letter of
nth March as to the possibilities of Bahrein as a centre of fritish influence in
tho Persian Gulf should have appeared
• We did nol i»y 10.
C[u«okJ. strikingly • irrclcvcnt. With reference to tho
paragraphs preceding it, I would explain that while I knew there were considered
to be objections to the modification of our attitude in regard to Bahrein, on the
score of temporary political expediency, I did not realise that the suggested con­
version of a partial into an effective protectorate over the islands was in itself
distasteful to His Majesty's Government, and foreign to the policy which they
arc pursuing in the Persian Gulf.
It was rather in my mind when I wrote that since I have been at Bushire,
His Majesty’s Primo Minister in a public speech circulated to the world' by
Reuter, referred to Bahrein as being virtually a British Protectorate or words to
• No. 403in Secret e., Mttcb 1905. Noj.369- that effect, and also that on f aist January
03. last the Government of India expressed
the opinion to the Secretary of State that the present opportunity seemed par­
ticularly favourable for proclaiming our Protectorate.
I learn too from my record, that a little later, on aand February 1905 His
Majesty's Minister for Foreign Affairs intimated to the Turkish Ambassador
that it was a matter of common knowledge that " the island (of Bahrein) and
its natives arc under British Protection "; and on the same page of the: record
I read that His Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople informed the Sublime
Porte categorically on 12th August 1835 that all Turkish claims to Bahrein
"'which is under the protection of the Queen of England " were totally inadmis­
sible.
I now realise that at the time of addressing the Government of India bn
i ith March I did not adequately appreciate the width of the Gulf which diplo­
macy places between the interpretation of the expression " under the protection
of " and " under the protectorate of
3. Referring now to tho question of the Bahrein Customs I have to regret
too that my express reason for omitting mention of it, was not apparent to tho
Government of India as I thought it would be. I beg to explain’it'.-
In doing so I wquld first invite reference to the two telegrams marginally
Foreign Dtpailmcnt No. D., dated 6tb noted. In the latter I CXprCSS’fcd the
Not. jji *od >651" jaouary 190$. opinion or tho hope that even if the seiz­
S«««r T... M»uh
1601. NO. Reildaol'a reply dated ^th ure of the Customs did riot constitute
January 1905. part of his punishment, tho thorough bring­
ing of Sheikh Esa to his bearings would cause him to accept his Political Agent s
advice regarding to Customs when next it was offered, after a convenient inter­
val of time.
Subscquently in the telegram which was repeated to me under Foreign
Department No. 744*E. B., dated 18th February, the. Secretary of State for
India observed—
" If is not considered expedient by His Majesty’s Government to sanetjon
the measure which you propt'bse'in connection witli the occupation
See No*. <r6«od 41 7 l»Se<rel E.; Maroh 1903. of the CuslOUl HoUSC J for
No*. 369*4)9. ^ ^ this reason that the connec­
tion of Sheikh Ali’s lawlessness and his uncle’s inability to control
46