Page 445 - Gulf Precis(VIII)_Neat

21
Messrs. Fracis, Times question the right of the Assistant Resident to tell them
not to deal in arms, and further ssert that the letter in question was really the work of
Mr. J. C. Gaskin, the Extra Assistant Resident and Vice-Consul, who signed it. The
original order on the application, which in my office is in Mr. Ducat's handwriting, and the
draft of the letter written on the order is in the writing of the head clerk.
Mr. Fracis, it will be seen, also complaints that his firm was not so favourably treated
in this matter as others, who were not warned against dealing in arms when they ask«.d
for our good offices.
I believe this is correct, but it is, 1 think, likely that independent information against
the firm of Messrs, Fracis, Times, who were well known to be largely engaged m the
arms traffic, and objections, after the Zobara affairs, to the importation of arms to Bahrein
and the Arab Coast were the reasons why Mr, Ducat treated them differently to other firms,
and made a special stipulation about the trade in arms when writing to Mr. Fracis. Mr.
Fracis asserts that it was done because Mr. Gaskin was interested in the other firms and
was opposed to his own. I do not know that there is any real ground for this assertion,
and the statement made to me by Mr. Gaskin, in my opinion goes to disprove it, as neither
he nor Mr. Sequeira, the other uncovenanted Assistant, appear to have taken any steps
to bring the evasion of theobjeciton made in Mr. Ducat's letter to the notice of my prede­
cessor, Colonel Wilson. If Mr. Gaskin was really hostile to the firm of Messrs. Fracis.
Times it is not clear why he allowed them to go on imparling arms to Bahrein in spite of
the letter of the 7th July; which he said to have inspired.
20. Apart from the question of the reason for Mr. Ducat’s special warning to Messrs.
Some of the Residency staff knew that Messrs Fracis, Times, it is clear that some members of !
Fracis. Times & Co. were importing arms with tho the Residency were undoubtedly aware of what
•ssistance of our agent in spite cf Mr. Uucafs ob- was going on, and knew of the connection bet-
I je '°n ’ ween Mr. Fracis and Agha Mohamed Rahim. I
cannot, however, think that it had ever been brought to the nonce of my predecessor,
Colonel F. A. Wilson, or of his First Assisstant, and until that is established, 1 consider
the Residency cannot be said to have been cognisant of the fact that which the First
Assistant had requested them not to engage in. As far as I personally am responsible,
I am able to say that 1 took the matter in hand as soon as I got to know of it, and heard
nothing from my predecessor when I took over charge which would lead me to think that
he was cognisant of the real state of affairs at Bahrein.
21. The Sheikh attached the arms in January while I was at Maskat and the Mekran
The Sheikh attached the arm* in January 1898. Coast. 1 he fact was mentioned by Mohamed
Account of my own visit to Bthrein in February* Rahim in a letter to his nephew, who was then
at Bushire, and he informed Mr. Fracis and Gaskin, who told my First .Assistant, Mr.
Prideaux. The latter reported the matter by a telegram, which I received at Jask on
the 28th January I arrived at Bahrein on the 4th February, and I saw the Sheikh on :
board the Lawrence the same afternoon. I landed the next day, and inspected the godowns
where the arms were stored in the morning ; I thought at first of putting the Residency
seals on the doors of the godowns, as we had done at Bushire, but soon found that there
were serious objections to my doing so, as a thorough examination of the arms, which was
absolutely necessary, if I sealed the doors, would take several days, and, moreover, it was
impossible for me to arrange for their safe custody. 1 told the Sheikh, therefore, that as
he had attached the arms he must remain responsible for them till the question of the jus­
tification of his action was settled. 1 am confident that the Government will approve of
my action, which was, I believe, the only course open to me at all the time.
22. Though I had nothing to do with the attachment of the arms, there were reasons
The British authorities had nothing to do with against their release until the question of the :
the attachment of the arm*. Sheikh’s justification for his action and the ap­
peal of Messrs. Fracis, Times against it had been fully investigated, and as 1 had gone
to Bahrein chiefly to ask the Sheikh to agree to measures for stopping the arms traffic,
I could not at the same time have pressed him to set free a large quantity, which he !
maintained he had a right to confiscate, until 1 received the orders of Government.
Mr. Fracis has referred to my not again landing, and to the delay there occurred in
giving him my memorandum. This was due to the state of the weather, which prevented j
my again visiting Bahrein. The weather only moderated in the evening of the 7th, when
an agent from Mr. Fracis came off, to whom the paper was given. Mr. Fracis, though
I warned that delay in submitting his appeal against the attachment of his arms would act
prejudicially to his own interests, did not address me till April last. His contention
that his claim lies not against Sheikh but against the British Government appeared
! inadmissible, and I informed him, in reply, that this was my opinion, sending him at the
same time copies of the letters I had received from the Sheikh and Agha Mahomed
Rahim. His reply to this letter reached me at Shiraz late in September, and I took up,
the further inquiry immediately on my return to Bushire, after the arrival of Agha
Mohamed Rahim and his nephew, who were summoned from Bahrein.
23. I found on my return that Mr. Fracis had written to my First Assistant, asking
for information regarding the case betweeu himself and Agha Mohamed Rahim, and
C927FD