Page 370 - Gulf Precis (III)_Neat

72
(lx) CLAIMS OF CERTAIN TRUCIAL CHIEFS AGAINST THE PERSIAN GOVERNMENT.
! THE RIGHT OF THE BRITISH REPRESENTATIVES TO ACT FOR THEM, 1903.
178. In May l!;03, the Resident requested Sir A. Hardinge, to make
representations to the Persian Government and secure ro>tonition of certain
arms of tho Chief of Abu Thabi seized by the Customs officials, and satisfactory
settlement of two other cases relating (a) to the alleged murder of Abu Thabi
subjects on pearl banks by residents on ike Persian Coast, (6) to a claim of tho
Chief of Shargab’a uncle to date gardens at Lingali.
The Government of India in requesting Sir A. Hardinge to interest him­
self in these matters, stated that the maintenance of the Resident’s prestige
as representative of the Trucial Chiefs in such cases was a matter of the
highest importance (telegram, dated 9tk June 1903).
179. On the 22nd June 1903 Sir A. Hardinge telegraphed to us that the
Grand Vizier had ordered the restoration of tho confiscated arms of the Sheikh
of Abu Thabi, and an enquiry into the two other matters.
180. It appears, however, that Sir A. Hardinge when writing to Colonel
Kemball on 29th May 1903 was ignorant
Secret E., October 1903, Nos. 60*65.
of the agreements signed by the Trucial
Chiefs in 1892. The Resident therefore sent to him a copy of the agreements
and stated that they gave the British Resident the right to represent cases on
behalf of tho Truoial Chiefs to the Persian authorities.
181. The Government of India endorsed this view and stated in their
telegram, dated 26th August 1903, to the British Minister that wider our
treaties with the Trucial Chiefs our representatives have full righls of acting
for them with the Persian Government.
181-A. Sir A. Hardinge replied that being now in possession of a copy of
Secret E., April 1904, Nos. 45*46. the agreements of lfc92, he would, unless
he received contrary instructions from
the Marquess of Lansdowne, take the same line in the case of the subjects of
the Trucial Chiefs properly so-called, as in the case of Bahreinese subjects,
that is, maintaiu the right of His Majesty’s Legation to interfere in their
behalf (despatch ISo. 34, dated lbth September lb03).
(x) STATUS OF THE ARAB STATES FOR THE PURPOSES OF ARTICLE II OF THE
ANGLO-PEUSIAN DECLARATION OF JTU FEBRUARY 1903.
182. In September 1903, apparemly before he received our telegram, 14th
September 1903 (see paragraph 180), Sir
Seeret F.. Deoember 1903, No». 60*81.
A. Hardinge addressed the Grand Vizier
relative to the meaning of the expression “ countries placed under the protection
of the British Government” for the
8#oret E., Auguit 1903, Noi. 280-313.
purposes of the Anglo-Pcrsian Tariff
Agreement of 1903.
183. He then held that it applied to “ countries not forming part of the
British Empire, but whose foreign relations are to a greater or lesser degree
regulated by the British Government and towards whom ibat Government has
assumed certain special and definite responsibilities which may be conveniently
summed up in the term ‘protection.’” He further remarked:—“ To take a
concrete instance in the immediate vicinity of Persia, some of the petty Arab
States on the southern shores of the Persian Gulf olearly come within the
definition, and may properly be regarded as * foreign ’ for the purposes of the
declaration of 9th .February 1903.”
184. In 1904, with reference to a question raised by tbe Colonial Office
on the status of the Federated Malay
8ecret E., July 1906, No. 119.
States, M. Naus conceived some doubts
as to whether the.sovereign power in those States was theoretically vested in
the local Sultans or in His Majesty, this being in his view the point upon
which the question whether they were a colony or a foreign protected country
turned.
185. He explained that bis object was to guard himself against making
an admisston'wkicli might commit him to the recognition as “ colonies ”
eutitled to grant England preferential treatment of such States as Afghanistan
and the territories of the Trucial Chiefs.