Page 117 - Gulf Precis (V)_Neat

41

(2)
Tolograra, dniod the 6th Soptembor 1001.
Xo. 268.
From—His Majesty's Sccrotary of Stato for India, London,
To—His Excollcncy tho Viceroy, Simla.
“ In continuation of my secret telpgram of 30th August. Koweit. German Ambassador
has protested ngainst action of Perseus at Koweit: firstly, under treaty of Berlin on
assumption that we intend to proclaim Protectorate. lie was informed that report was
untruo and that we had no such intention. Secondly, on ground of refusal to acknowledge
Sultan’s authority with which we had stated that we did not desiro to interfero. He was
informed that no desiro to disturab tho status quo at Koweit.”
No. 269.
(3)
Telegram, dated tbo Gth Soptoniber 1901.
From—His Excellenoy tho Naval Commandcr-m-Chief, East Indian Station, Port Louis,
To—Tho Foreign Secretary, Simla.
In continuation of my telegram of tho 4th September. Senior Officer, Persian Gulf
informs me that, if political considerations prevent present fortifying or employment of troops,
and diplomacy fails to render action unnecessary, withdrawal of non-combatant inhabitants to
island in the Bay advisable to permit free exorcise of shell-fire and provont occupation of town.
-Wells aro situated threo miles outside towu, which is thus rendered equally uutenable for
■cither side.

(4)
Tolegrnm, dated tho 9th September 19fol. Vo. 271.
From—His Majesty’s Secretary of Stato for India, London,
To—His Excellency tho Viceroy, Simla.
“Turkish Ambassador has communicated protest, 1st against alleged British Protectorate
2nd, against Agreement which Porte asserted to be invalid, Sheikh being Turkish official aad
Koweit forming a part of tho Sandjak of Nojd, where Ottoman officials havo exercised
authority since conquest. They appealed to Treaty of guarantee for the integrity of Ottoman
dominions. Subsequently, in telegram of 5th September; O’Conor reports verbatim
message from tho Poi te that they are willing to give formal assurances that Koweit will
not be attacked by Turkey, provided that samo assurances are given formally to them as were
given to German Ambassador—see my telegram of 6th September. O’Conor replies that he
believed that he had already given similar assurances, but, in any case, His Majesty’s Gov-
ernment, though willing to respect the status quo, would not allow interference with Koweit.**

(5) No. 277.
Telegram, No. 1669-E.A., dated the 11th Sopterabar 1901.
From—Tho Foreign Secretary, Simla,
To—Tho Political Resident in tho Persian Gulf, Bushiro.
“Your telegram, 9th September. Koweit. Please specify character of communication
which you would propose to make to Amir of Nejd. What are condition alluded to in your
telegram of 8th August on which Mubarak was preparod to make terms.

(6)
No. 279.
Telegram, dated tho 11th September 1901.
From—Tho Political Resident in tho Persian Gulf, Buohirc,
To—Tho Foreign Secretary, Simla.
“ It is impossible for me to get reliable information, but I bear that the concentration o*
Turkish troops alluded to in my telegram, dated 8th August, is still going on. This con­
centration can only bo intended against Koweit, aud I think it advisable that Ambassador,
Constantinople, should be asked to ascertain from Turkish Arabia if concentration of troops
is a faot, and, if 60, to enquire from Porto what it means. The place oq Euphrates, whero
concentration is said to bo going on, is within short distauco from Koweit,5 which may any
day bo taken by coup de main** _____________
(7)
Tologmra, No. 16S2.E.A., dated tho 12th September 1901. No. 280,
From—Hie Excellency tho Viceroy, Simla,
To—nil Majesty's Scorctnry of Stato for India, London.
“ My telegram, 16th August. Kowoit. * Kemball telegraphs, Scptembor llth:—It is
impossible (see above) coup de main. What is O’Conor’s information on the subject ?**