Page 535 - PERSIAN 5 1905_1911

ADMN. REPORT OF THE PERSIAN GULF POLITICAL RESIDENCY FOR 1910. 09
After light rcfrcshracDts and informal conversation, in which the Shaikh
further expressed his great gratification at the honour done to him, the Resi­
dent returned to H. M. S. “ Redbreast ”, the Shaikh’s band playing 44 God
Save the King ” as he loft the shore.
This was the first occasion on which the revised salutes allotted to .the
Shaikh and to his son were fired.
News of the investiture of the Shaikh with a British decoration appears
to have been telegraphed to the 44 Times ” from a correspondent at BasTao, on
October 15th, and attracted no unfavourable notice, but at Baghdad and Bao-
rah a considerable display of ifl-informed and malevolent criticism resulted,
arid the Ha!bl-ul-Matiri endeavoured to connect the Action of His Majesty^s
Government in the matter with the "note Addressed to the Persian 'Government
by His Majesty’s Government in connection with the safety of the Busbire-
Ispahan road.
The Shaikh’s relations with the Persian Government remained correct,
.and caused no anxiety throughout the
'Relations of the Shaikh with the Persian year, although the apprehension that the
Government.
Bakhtiari might succeed in themselves
dominating that Government, referred to below, was a source of much trouble,
and very nearly resulted in hostilities breaking out between the Shaikh and
the Bakhtiari. The action of the Persian Government in refusing to recog­
nize his agreement with the Oil Company, and in ordering him to repudiate
it, proved entirely abortive as might be expected.
Difficulties between the Shaikh and the Wali of Basrah, Suleiman Nathif
Bey, resulting in the bombardment of
Relations of the Shaikh with the Tcrks. Zain by the Turkish gunboat “ Jklarma-
fis,” engaged the attention of His Majes­
ty’s Government during the summer. The incident arose out of the demand
by the Wali of Basrah for the surrender "by the Shaikh of Muhammad-al-
Kanan, his brother-in-law, a tribal chief owning allegiance to him, and
residing at Zain in Turkish territory, but claiming to be a Persian subject.
The Wali accused Muhammad-al-Kanan of various offences, the principal
being an alleged threat to murder Muhammad'bin Mishri, a Turkish land-
owner'who had a dispute with his cultivators, who had Muhamraad-a 1 -Kanan’s
support. On the Shaikh refusing to surrender Muhammad-aUKanan, the
Wali issued orders for the bombardment and burning of his village and house,
which were in occupation of tribesmen owning allegiance to the Shaikh. -It is
uncertain " how far the Wali was acting under orders-from the Turkish
Government in doing so.
On the matter being reported to Government, His Majesty’s Consuls At
Basrah and Mohamraerah were instructed to bring about a settlement between
the two parties, and through the mediation' of Haji Rais,' the local question
was'temporarily settled by an exchange of notes between the Shaikh and the

After an examination of the pitperi in the case, which does not cAllfor de­
tailed notice here, His Majesty’s Go'rernment held the aotion';of the Turkish
Government to have been arbitrary and violent, and-commeiided the attitude
of moderation and restraint adopted by the Shaikh on our advice.
The Turkish view of the matter may be inferred from the fact that the
Council of State at Constantinople decreed, in August, that no more land
should be registered in the names of the Shaikh, or his representative," Mirza
Hamzah; or the latter’s servant, Mulla Mustafa. Subsequently, it appeared
that they were prepared to reconsider this decision, but the Shaikh considered
rightly in His Majesty’s Consul’s opinion, that the moment was unfavourable
for him to take the initiative 'in raising the question; arid no progress was
made towards a solution of this during the year.
'An awkward incident occurred, in October 1910, when date- groves in
Fadaghia on the Turkish side of the Shatt-el-Arab, owned by- the.Mishri
family, whose dispute was the primary cause of the Zain affair, were lootedjjy