Page 254 - Begrave Thesis_Neat

in the Administration Council were not accepted. The Party gave the Ruler ten days

to reply. Gault blamed the new strike on rumours in the souq to the effect that

Belgrave was to be retained. 721 The Political Agent reiterated his belief that the

main reason for the NUC’s opposition to the Administration Council as he saw it was

that it had ‘done good work’ and that the Party ‘cannot claim any credit for what it

does’. Additionally, he pointed out, the NUC had been ‘under attack by its more

extreme followers for failure to produce results’. 722

On the issue of the postponement of council meetings boycotted by the NUC

the Political Agent minuted a heated tête-à-tête he had with the Adviser. Belgrave

attacked HMG’s approach with the NUC and in response Gault explained his position

to the Adviser saying that

the advice we were giving [to the Administration] was to appease the
Committee of National Union because we felt that it was necessary to
do so in order to gain time for the reorganisation and development of
the police force and to prevent a complete breakdown in the
meantime as between the Ruler and his Government and the
Committee of National Union but we saw no other way. 723

Gault notified Riches that he suspected that Belgrave seemed to wish to remain in

Bahrain during the upcoming winter. 724 Riches blamed Belgrave for upsetting the

‘delicate compromise’ that was reached earlier to ease his exit and to allow Smith to

take over. It was mainly due to the Adviser’s ‘bungling’ and ‘his apparent intention

not to retire till next year’ as Riches observed. Based on a conversation Riches

alluded to between Burrows and Sir Harold Beeley, the Assistant Under-Secretary

721 TNA, FO 371/120547, Despatch 608, Gault to FO, 9 July 1956.
722 TNA, FO 371/120547, Despatch 613, Gault to FO, 10 July 1956.
723 TNA, FO 371/120547, Minutes between Gault and Belgrave, 10 July 1956.
724 TNA, FO 371/120547, Despatch 620, Gault to FO, 10 July 1956.

© Hamad E. Abdulla 233