Page 302 - Gulf Precis (VII)_Neat

153
right in landed property in Persia, namely, the crown, the proprietor and the cultivators of
s the soil, and that in case the proprietor should wish to mortgage his village in order to
avoid dispute, he must previously obtain permission from the Royal Divan and the cultiva­
tors of the soil. This rule would appear to have been inserted more with a view to prevent
disputes, than with the object of making the legal transfer of landed property depend
upon the fulfilment of the conditions named.
The statement contained in this clause is, however, altogether erroneous. No such
conditions have ever been observed in the transfer of property amongst natives, the law
being that the owner of house or landed property is free to dispose, as he thinks fit, of all
that legally belongs to him, without the permission of the sovereign being asked, or the
villagers being consulted in the matter. The only formality required to establish the
legality of the transaction is that the title deeds, or deed of transfer or mortgage, should
be countersigned by one of the Moojtcheds, or chief priests.
These fraudulent bankruptcy regulations have, now been in force since 1843, and the
conditions specified in the supplementary clause of that agreement in respect to the
acquisition of real proj erty by foreigners have never been observed. In Azerbaijan,as well
1 other parts of Persia, Russian subjects, mostly natives of Georgia and the Russian
as m
provinces on the Caspian, have acquired possession of villages and estates, without any
question having been raised as to the fulfilment of these conditions; and British Indian
subjects have also been allowed in like manner to own lands and villages, the lega'ity of
their titles never having been called ir. question by the Persian authorities. The Persian
Government do not apparently, therefore, propose that the application of the condition in
question should be made retrospective ; and with regard to the future, it is extremely
doubtful if the Russian Government would now permit any arrangement made by tkeir
subjects with the owners of real properly to be set aside, because it had not been autho­
rized by the Shah or by the cultivates of the soil.
The Russian Charge d’Affaires has informed me that no reply was sent from his
Legation to the circular addressed on this subject by the Persian Minister for Foreign
Affairs to the Foreign Representatives here, copy of which was enclosed in my despatch
No. 39 of the 9th of March, it having been considered preferable to deal with individual
cases which might require official intervention as they occurred.
584. In 1885, the Foreign Office Agent at Shiraz informed the British Agent
that orders had been issued by the Prime
Secret F., May 1885, No*. 993-999.
Minister that in accordance with the holy
treaty, the subjects and dependents of friendly powers should not be owners of
landed property, in the Persian territories, except under the permission and
sanction of the Persian Minister for Foreign Affairs.
(lxxxii) Alleged misconduct of certain inhabitants of the island of Kish or Kais. The
claims of the Al-ali Arabs of Um-el-Kowein to certain interests in the island, x88o.
585. The island of Kais had been until the year 1879 under the Arab Sheikhs
of Charak. About the year 1849, the oppressive rule of Sheikh Mahomed bin
Khalifa, then Chief of Bahrein, led to the
Political A., January 1880, No*. 231-237.
emigration of several merchants of good
standing from Bahrein, most of whom settled for a time at Lingah. Among others
one Mashari bin Mahomed-el-Mashari, with others of his family, came to Lingah
and later on settled in El Kais, which island they gradually developed by
collecting divers and importing goods direct from India for sale to the increased
population. Since the murder of the late Sheikh of Lingah by Sheikh Yusuf
(see Section XII), the whole of the coast districts to the north of Lingah had
been the scene of complicated intrigue and confusion, and the island of Kais had
first attracted the attention and then the cupidity of certain officials. The
representative of the Mashari family, Mashari bin Abdul Latif, was probably
chiefly aimed at by the Persian oflicials (see Colonel Ross’s letter No. 99, dated
20th December 1879).
586. In April 1879, the Persian Government complained to the Minister
that certain British subjects, living in the
Political A., March 1880, Nos. 12-26.
island of Kish, harboured Persian refugees.
Colonel Ross, however, showed that the only British subjects in the island
were four Hindu banyas and khojahs, and their servants, that these men did not
harbour any Persian refugees, and that they had been carefully warned against
interfering in any political matters.