Page 189 - Gulf Precis (VII)_Neat

45
Abbas lease, that it is not alluded to in the lease now signed the day before yesterday,
, .... and that the events of the next ten or fifteen
v,hhUx™Ko!*99%t'd 17U1'°S *ptVmber .86s[ ‘ years will show that consideration of trade
Proceedings No 104 in Political A., October intercommunication and policy all point to our
i£68. Nos. 104-109. upholding Maskat in her possession, not only of
Angaum, but of Gwadur and her other territories on the Mekran Coast."
177. In their letter No. 790, dated 21st July 1868, to the Bombay Govern­
ment, the Government of India made the following observations :—
" In my letter No. 634, dated 19th June, you were informed that His Excellency in
Council could not approve of intervention on
868PN°oVe3;XNO 34 *n PoI,ucal A*’ August conditions which do not recognize the sovereign
1 • 0,# 3 ’ rights of Persia over the territories embraced
in the engagement of 1855. These territories include not only Bandar Abbas. Kishm,
Hormuz, etc., but also all their dependencies. In your letter No. 283, dated the 31st
December 1867, the Bombay Government reported that the Island of Angaum as forming
part of the territory attaching to Bandar Abbas cannot be regarded otherwise than as a
Persian possession. Indeed, throughout the whole correspondence the sovereign rights of
Persia over Angaum have never been questioned, and the course of our negotiations has
culminated in our asking for and obtaining the consent of the Shah to the establishment of
a telegraph station there.
“Under these circumstances, and presuming that Colonel Pelly was in possession of
the instructions of 19th June previous to his arrival at Shiraz, His Excellency in Council
fails to understand how Colonel Pelly could reconcile it with his duty to permit the rights
of Persia over Angaum to be questioned."
• Proceedings No. 33 in Political A., August 178. The following telegram* was des­
1868, Nos. 32-36. patched to the Bombay Government by the
Government of India on the 30th July 1868:—
“The Governor-General assumes that the convention between Persia and Maskat re­
ported by Colonel Pelly disposes of the whole question regarding Bandar Abbas, including
Angaum. If not, the Governor-General can say nothing further until any doubts in respect
to Angaum be cleared up, and with this object the Governor-General is ready to hear all
which can be urged in favour of Maskat claims. The Governor-General has no wish to
consider that the island belongs to Persia, unless it has hitherto been treated as Persian
territory, but, so far as the records in this office afford information, such would seem to be
the case, and it was distinctly stated to be a Persian possession in the Bombay letter of
31st December last, repl)ing to questions of Government of India. The Government of
India caunot empower Colonel Pelly to treat in favour of Maskat with Persia until this
point is settled, if further intervention is necessary or if anything has arisen to place the
claims of Maskat in a new light."
No. 104 in Political A., October 1868. Nos. 104* 179. In their letter No. 199 of the 17th
109. September 1868 the Government of Bombay
observed as follows :—
“The Government of Incfia do not seem to be justified in assuming that the conven­
tion recently reported by Colonel Pelly to have been concluded between Persia and Maskat
disposes of the whole question regarding Bandar Abbas, including Angaum. It disposes
of the lease of Bandar Abbas, but makes no mention of Angaum. The doubt still
remains whether the island is included in the lease, in like manner as a similar doubt has
been cxpiessed in regard to the convention of 1855.
“ It no doubt was stated in the letter of this Government, No. 283 of the 31st Decem­
ber last, that the island ol Angaum, as forming part of Bandar Abbas, cannot be con­
sidered otherwise than as a Persian possession. But at an earlier date, in their letter
of 16th November 1867, No. 1133, to which the above letter of the Bombay Government
was a reply, the Government of India had assumed, as a matter beyond dispute, that
Angaum was a dependency of Bandar Abbas. Indeed, this Government had proposed
on the suggestion of Mr. Alison to treat with Maskat in reference to Angaum, until the
receipt of the despatch from the Government of India of the 16th November 1867.
" It may be conceded that the geographical position of Angaum would appear to
justify the opinion that it is a dependency of Bandar Abbas; its size as compared with the
island it adjoins would appear to lead to the inference that it would be included without
special mention in the lease under the title of Bandar Abbas, Kishm and their de­
pendencies.
“ But since the date when these view were expressed by the Government of Bombay
and the Government of India, Colonel Pelly has reported that in the course of the pro­
ceedings relative to the Bandar Abbas lease it had been made apparent to him that the
title of Persia to Angaum was not and never had been admitted by the Government of
Maskat. The island is certainly not included by name in the lease of 1855, an£l 1S not m
the map of Bandar Abbas territories.
S640FD