Page 338 - Records of Bahrain (3) (i)_Neat

p
320 Records oj Bahrain

1
In view of tho clear expressions used in your previous note, in which thu rights of
tho Persian Govornmeut over tho island in question have not bcou denied, I hopo you
will continue to follow tho former opinion of tho British Government in regard to the
rights of the Persian Government ovor that island, and you will not interpret Jiv
telegram addressed to tho trading classes in Bahrein to mean auything hut a mark df
friendship botwcou tho two Governments. Tho telegram in quostion docs not in any,
way compromise tho rights of tho Persian Government over the island. If thOr-Ji'
any statement to bo mado in regard to certain diflicultics about tho inhabitants of tlr.
island, it is a scparalo quostion, which must bo sottlcd according to justice.

Note.—I cannot find tho oxaot English toxt of tho Agreement referred to, but l
think the Graud Vizier refers to the ‘Vereomont mado in 1822 botwcon tho British
llesidont at Bushiro und tho authorities in Ears. This Agreomout was not ratified by
His Majesty's Govornmont, und tho llesidont was recalled.—A. 1C.

Annex.
Mr. R.Ginut Memorandum by Mr. Brant on Agreement with Persia of August 30, 1822, regarding
DufT, Bahrein.
Na 247,
Soptoin*
bor 2G, It is quilo truo that Captain William Bruco (ho was not at that timo Sir William)
100G signed, on tho 30th August, 1S22, an Agreement with His Itoynl Highness Iloosuin
Mr. G. Wil- Ally Mirzn, Prinoo of Shiraz. Tho Hud Article of this Treaty was as follows :—
lock, No. 1,
.Juuunry 25, “The Island of Bahrein, which has always been subordinate to tho Province of
1822. Pars and its possessors tho Beni Uttoobco Arabs, who lmvo of late been unruly mid
disobediont, and had applied to tho Commanding Olliccr of tho British forces for u
distinguishing flag ; this Hag, if it has been granted, to bo withdrawn, and no assistance
to bo rendered to tho Boni Uttoobco Arabs horcaftor."
Tho dith section of Articlo V contains an undertaking to give naval assistanco to
u Persian expedition against Bahroiu.
This Agreement was entirely contrary to the views of the Government at Bombay,
and lottcrs wero writton to tho Princo of Shiraz disavowing tho Treaty iu strong terms
and announcing tho recall of Captain Bruce.
Hot only did tho Indian Government disavow tho Treaty, but Mr. G. Willock,
British ltoprcsontativo at Tabrecz, reported that—
I “Mirza Baugur, Anhio, who had boon deputed to Court to obtuiu tho ratification
of tho Treaty, did not meet with a favourablo rccoption ; and Ilis Majesty tho Shall,
whilst refusing his accordance to tho stipulations, oxprossed his displcasuro thut the
Prince of Shiraz should have entered into any engagements with tho British Govern-
mout without his knowledge and injunctions.’*’
This Agreement was thoreforo disavowed by tho Indian Government in tho most
explicit manner, aud it appears to have failed to secure tho sanction of tho Shah.
(Signed) R. W. BltANT.
I Foreign Office, October 31, 1006.

.