Page 112 - Arabian Gulf Intellegence

70 BRITISH POLICY IN THE PERSIAN GULF.

changed into the establishment of a permanent peace upon the seas
On certain objections* being adduced to this proposition, he ur-ed the
extension of the truce, and suspension of hostilities, for twelve instead of
eight months, and Shaikh Khaleefa and the other parties consentin'? to
this arrangement, the truce was drawn out accordingly, and duly signed
by each. It was again renewed for the same period in the years 1839
1840, 1841, and 1842 successively, without the slightest demur or
objection.
Immediately, however, on the expiration of that for the year ending
m April 1840, and before time and opportunity had been allowed to the
■Resident to make arrangements for its renewal, Shaikh Sultan bin Suggur
attacked Amulgavine by sea (as well as land), and had nearly succeeded
in taking the place,f when the opportune arrival of the Resident per­
mitted of his successfully using his endeavours towards a reconciliation,
and the blockading force having been withdrawn, the Maritime Truce
was again established and subscribed to by all parties for another year.
Government had long deemed it advisable that the suspension of
hostilities should be rendered obligatory upon the several parties for a
more extended period than hitherto embraced within the annual truce.
In 1843, it became necessary to address strong and threatening
language to the Shaikh of Amulgavine, in order to induce him to fulfil
the agreement which had been entered into between himself and Sultan
bin Suggur, at the interposition and mediation of the British Resident,
in 1840, and make the requisite amende, by the destruction of certain
fortified works which he had by its terms been precluded from adding
to or erecting. One inducement to this chief to concede to this just

* In reply, it was pointed out to him the little prospect there existed of the maintenance of
a perpetual peace, with reference to the peculiar habits and dispositions of the Arabs : that
when a definite period was assigned, as in a truce, the several tribes were contented to allow
their feuds and animosities to remain in abeyance, under the idea that after a specified date it
would always be in their power to indulge their deeply rooted feelings of animosity, should
they feel disposed to do so. On the contrary, the circumstance alone of finding themselves
precluded, by the conditions of a treaty putting an end to all future hostilities by sea, from
avenging insults, or taking satisfaction for wrongs, whether real or imaginary, would so embit­
ter the sentiments of hatred entertained towards, each other, that a series of aggressions an
retaliations would speedily arise, which would only tend to defeat the very object for which
the peace had been negotiated.—(Extract of letter No. 11, Political Department, from Captain
Hennell to Government, dated 19th April 1830.)
f “ The Joasmee Chief was guilty of deception and cunning in thus taking advantage of the
interim which had been unavoidably allowed to ensue between the lapse of the truce o
1839-40 and its renewal for 1840-41, as he had replied in the affirmative to a commumca ion
from the Resident, requesting to be informed whether he was willing to renew t ic
the period of the ensuing pearl fishery.” He was, moreover, guilty of an in iac ion
the conditions of the Treaty of 1820, which forbade any chief engaging in hortUiw
the previous knowledge and sanction of the Resident, to whom he was t lerc y
snake application.

jj