Page 64 - The Persian Gulf Historical Summaries (1907-1953) Vol IV_Neat

68
nising the suzerainty of the Turkish Government,
but practically independent under their own
Chiefs," and in a lator paragraph ho emphasizes
the nominal character of the suzerainty.
Colonel Polly wrote as far hack as 1803, but
his definition of the status of Koweit expresses in
a nutshell the attitude His Majesty’s Government
have consistently adopted on tho question.
In duly 1S97 Her Majesty’s Ambassador at
Constantinople was instructed that—
“Her Majesty's Government have uuver admitted To Sir P. Currie,
that Koweit is under tho protoetiou of tho Turkish No. 807, July 17,
Government. Put. sinco it is practically under Turkish
influence, it is doubtful wholhor wo could deny tho
latter.”
On the 23rd January, 1890, the Sheikh signed
an Agreement (to bo kept absolutely secret)
pledging himself not only to cede no territory,
but to receive no foreign Representative without
British sanction. In return for this he was
promised the good otliccs of Her Majesty’s
Government, and a payment was made of Iudia Office,
September 4,
15,000 rupees from tho Bushiro Treasury. 1S90.
The conclusion of tho Agreement, however,
involved a serious question regarding the property
of the Sheikh in Turkish territory. Aliens arc by
Turkish law precluded from holding landed pro­
perty, and it was feared that, if the Sheyvh were
suspected of having agreed to a British Protec­
torate, the Turkish authorities would attempt to
dispossess Mubarek of his property near Fao.
The hope was, thercfoic, holdout that the British Inclosurc in
Government would “do what they could” to February 14,1 m
protect him and his brothers in the matter.
In 1901, rumours of Turkish concentration
threatening Koweit raised the larger diplomatic
question.
In July 1901 Sir F. Lascelles had had a con­ 1901.
versation with Dr. Rosen, of the German Foreign
Office, upon the prospects of the Anatolian
Railway and the general situation.
An expression used by his Excellency describ­
ing the Sheikh as “ technically a subject of the
Sultan but enjoying a considerable amount of
independence,” which on a previous occasion had
passed without comment (see Sir F. Lascelles’
No. 150 of the J5th June, 1900), now drew
from tho German Representative an assertion
that tho Sheikh was “ merely a subject of tho
Sultan.”