Page 175 - Gulf Precis (VII)_Neat

I

31
fact, appointed Haji Ahmed, once a Minister of Saiyid Salim, to the charge of
Dandar Abbas and its dependencies with the view of forwarding its own enterests.
The Indian Government on hearing of this, instructed the Resident not to take
any steps in the matter till it should be clear who should eventually be ruler of
Maskat, as the reasons still existed which had induced it to desire that Bandar
Abbas should be attached to that principality. The Secretary of State in his
despatch No. 7, dated 30th July 1869, whilst admitting that Azan bin Ghias had
no claim whatever to a continuance of the lease, did not desire that the Govern­
ment of India should trouble itself with the matter.
XVIII.—Proposed renewal of the lease during the reign of Saiyid Turki, 1871-72.
129. When Saiyid Turki came to power, he applied for Colonel Pelly’s
assistance in arranging for the lease of the Bandar Abbas districts. Colonel
Pelly asked the instructions of Government. In a despatch No. 30 of 23rd
May 1871, to the Secretary of State, the Government of India wrote:—
" As regards the lease of Bandar Abbas, we have to remind Your Grace that in our
Secret despatch No. 31, dated 27th May 1870, we solicited the instructions of Her Majesty’s
Government on the question whether we should hold out to Azan any hopes of the exercise
of our friendly offices with Persia for the purpose of obtaining the restoration of the
lease of Bandar Abbas. To that despatch no answer has arrived. The present claimant,
Saiyid Turki, is not a descendant of Saiyid Salim, and,I therefore, he cannot claim under
the lease of i86S;and although lie is a son of Sultan Said, with whom the engagement
of 1855 was contracted, yet the agreement of 1868 having been made with dc facto
Government of the day at Maskat, may not unreasonably be considered to have superseded
that of 1855. and, in virtue of the termination of the engagement of 1868, Persia has already
entered into possession of Bandar Abbas.
For these reasons we consider that we should be justified in declining to interfere in
behalf of Saiyid i'urki any more than in that of Azan bin Ghias. At the same time the
British Government might, in our opinion, advantageously and without committing itself
to interference, make an endeavour to sound the Persian Government as to the likelihood
of a restoration, as a matter of favour, of the lease to Saiyid Turki, who has always been
supposed to be a favourite with His Majesty the Shah."
130. With reference to the despatch No. 27 of 23rd May 1871, to the
Secretary of Stale, the India Office addressed the Foreign Office :—
“The Viceroy enquires whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to exercise
their good offices with the Government of His Majesty the Shah of Persia to obtain the
restoration of the lease of Bandar Abbas to Saiyid Turki. With reference to this question,
1 am to state that the Duke of Argyll was prepared to recommend the renewal of the lease
in favour of Saiyid Azan bin Ghias, had he remained supreme at Maskat. And His Grace
is of opinion that there are still stronger reasons for using our friendly offices on behalf of a
member of the family of Saiyid Said. He would, therefore, suggest that Lord Granville,
if he should see no reason to the contrary, should place himself in communication with
Mr. Alison, with a view to his obtaining from the Persian Government the restoration
to the present Ruler of Maskat of the privilege in question."
131. The Foreign Office, accordingly, issued in July or August 1871, a
despatch to Mr. Alison, Her Majesty’s Minister at Tehran.
“The Governor-General of India has called the attention of Her Majesty’s Govern­
ment to an application which has been made by the present Ruler of Maskat to be
recognized as such by the British Government, and that they should use their influence
with the Persian Government to obtain for him a renewal ol lease of Bandar Abbas."
"Various changes have taken place in the Government of Maskat since the lease was
renewed in 1868 to the then existing Ruler, the Persian Government appear to have con-
sidered that agreementas terminated by those changes, and to have again entered into
possession of Bandar Abbas. It will, however, be known to the Persian Government that,
whereas some objection was raised at the time to renewal of the lease to Saiyid Salim
on the score that he had obtained sovereignty of Maskat by usurpation and violence, no
such objection can be urg.d against the present Ruler, who is a son of Sultan Said with
whom the Persian Government entered into an engagement in 1855, that he should farm
the port of Bandar Abbas uuder certain conditions at an annual rent of 12,000 tomans.
" Under these circumstances I have to instruct you to use your good offices with the
view of obtaining from the Persian Government the restoration to the present Ruler of
Maskat of the privilege granted to his father iu 1855.”
132. On 23rd September Mr. Alison reported that the Shah would not
consent to release Bandar Abbas to the Imam of Maskat and that Haji Ahmed
Khan had been received lately at Shiraz with honour and reconfirmed.