'Précis of correspondence regarding the affairs of the Persian Gulf, 1801-1853' [‎77r] (153/344)

Part V—Chap. XXX.
133
4
CHAPTER XXX.
persian complaints against mr. bruce.
269. Mr. Bruce, Eesident in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. , was now a persona ingrata
to the Persian Government, especially the
Volume 33 9 of 18 , page . Prince of Fars. Repeated complaints were
addressed by them to the Bombay Government and to the Envoy at Tehran.
The charges against Mr. Bruce and his rejoinder to each are printed below :—
Charges.
Mr. Bruce the British B-esidentat Bushire,
who so long has resided in Persia, and who
is well aware of the existing relations between
the two Empires, has always experienced on
one part every consideration connected with
his official capacity. He ought in consequence
to have been arduous in the support of the
existing amity; on the contrary, he had
committed acts which ill accord with the
intimacy of the connection between
the two States; he has ever offended
against the interests of his own Govern
ment. Mr. Bruce was acquainted that
at the request of the Imam an expedition
had been fitted out for the punishment
of the people of Bahrein, and that His
Royal Highness the Prince of Shiraz had
undertaken this scheme; he went to Bahrein,
and was the mediator of a peace between the
Imam and Uttabi Shaikhs and stipulated
fur the motion of a standard on that island.
2nd. —The ships of the people of Lin
gua who were obedient and faithful in
the service of tributary to the Persian
Government were sailing with merchandize
from Bussora. Mr. Bruce ordered the arms
of 300 of their men to be seized and took
fourteen of these boats, as storm happened
and cut their masts and they were lost.
3rd. —At the Port of Charak, of which
the inhabitants if they had committed any
fault were amenable to the Prince of Shirar,
be burnt ships ; these acts he has certainly
Observations and reply,
I can offer no specific reply to an accusation
so general as that by which the charges against
me are introduced, but I appeal with confidence
to the Government whose records afford ample
means of defending me against this calumny.
It is well known that His Highness the
Imam of Maskat has fitted out several expedi
tions with the view of accomplishing in conjunc
tion with Persia the reduction of Bahrein, but
these expeditions invariably failed in consequence
of His Highness the Prince of Shuar not per
forming his part of the engagement in regard
to the quota of troops to be furnished. The
Imam in consequence was constrained to make
the best terms he could with the Shaikh of
Bahrein before British squadron left the Gulf,
but whilst I was at Bahrein I was so far from
acting as mediator that the time was exclu
sively occupied in demanding that some pira
tical boats should be given up. If by the
motion of a standard it is meant that a British
flag was ever hoisted on the Island of Bahrein,
the Government is well aware that nothing of
the kind ever took place. It is true that the
Shaikhs of Bahrein and the Imam of Maskat
wished Sir W. G. Keir and myself to guarantee
the treaty between them, but the request was
not complied with.
2nd. —It might be sufficient to state that
when the occurrence alluded to in the charge
Mr. Bruce was residing at Bushire. He happens
however to know that Captain Loch seized the
boats referred to, many of which belonged to
piratical ports on the Arabian side of the Gulf.
The Port of Lingua with several others on the
Persian side of the Gulf were so well known to
be in league with the pirates, that Sir W. G. Keir
was instructed by Government to visit it and
destroy its boats. The boats which Captain
Loch captured were taken as far as Khen, and
Captain Looh then withdrew his men from
them and directed them to follow him to
Ras-ul-khima, being anxious himself to join the
expedition, instead, however, of following his
instructions, they steered for the ports they
belonged to respectively, but now lost in a gale
before they could reach their destination.
5^.—In reply to this charge it might be
sufficient to state that I have never been at the
Port of Charak. The Shaikh of which however
had committed a most violent act of piracy on
s I