Page 48 - The Persian Gulf Historical Summaries (1907-1953) Vol IV_Neat

42

opinion tlint, while Bahrein should he achnow-
lodged to possess certain rights in regard to
pasturage, &c., those rights should not he held as
empowering tho Sheikh to put to sea for the
purpose of coercing any port in El Knlr. Ho
regarded El Odeid as properly belonging to Abu
Dthabi.
In a Memorandum by tho Bov. Mr. Badger on
Turkish claims to Oman, he wrote that the nativo
anuals of tho provinco incontestably prove that,
it became independent of the Bagdad Khalifate
in the 10th century, and had never since been
subject to foreign rule except to the Persians for
a short time. He went on to say that tho samo
was true of tho Arab Chiefdoms in the Persian
Gulf, and that their independence was virtually
admitted by Turkey in 1817.
On the 7th May, 1880, Lord Granville wrote
toMusurus Pasha that “ tho claim of the Porto to
rights of sovereignty over tho El Katr coast has
never been admitted by I lor Majesty’s Govern­
ment'.”
In 1695 Bis Majesty’s Government forcibly
dispersed, in the interests of the Bahrein Sheikh,
a settlement of malcontents who had established
themselves at Zobara, on the El Katr coast,
under the Turkish flag (see p. 31). Tho Turks
protested, hut His Majesty’s Government stated
in reply that they did not recognize Turkish
jurisdiction on tho El Katr coast (note vcrbulc of
the 12th August 1895).
The present position is, therefore, that we have
refused to recognize Turkish authority in .151
Katr, although we have acquiesced in the con­
tinued presence of a Turkish post since 1872 at
El Bidaa. We did, however, object to an attempt jfr. Townloy,
by the Turkish Government to appoint a Mudir ember 8
at Wakra, a point south of El Bidaa; and after jyoi.
considerable pressure they cancelled the ajipoint-
meat.
The Government of India were not completely
satisfied with this result, and desired to round off
their relations with tho various Arab Chiefs by
making an agreement with the leading Sheikh
of El Katr.
A former Agreement was concluded in 1SGS
with the then Sheikh, by which ho hound himself
to take no hostile action by sea, aud to refer all
disputes to the British ltesident. On the death India office
of this Sheikh, his successor, Sheikh .Tasim, applied 5Lu'uao ’ao.'Vb,).o.
for a renewal of the Agreement, but this was