'Précis of correspondence regarding the affairs of the Persian Gulf, 1801-1853' [‎80r] (159/344)

Part V—Chap. XXXII.
139
CHAPTER XXXII.
(I) QUESTION OF REMOVAL OF THE DET VCIIMEflT PROM
HIS1IM DISCUSSED; (II) RUI'TURE WITH PERSIA
IMMINENT; (III) DETERMINATION TO SEND REIN
FORCEMENTS TO RISIIM; (IV) REMOVAL FROM RISHM
DETERMINED.
276 The question of withdrawing our detaehment from Kishtn soon foreed
Somlay Government to the Gcver„ m ent of itself upon Government It was found
India, dated 9th March 1822, No. 469, Vol. 91 from despatches received from ills Majes-
of 1822, page 93. ty's Charge d'Affaires at Teheran that after
every argument in favour of our retaining Kishm had been urged on the
Persian Government with the utmost force and ability, the King of Persia
struck to his resolution not to acquiesce in the measure. He had, however,
made a reference to England and was determined to wait the result. In these
circumstances the Bombay Government presented the following considerations
for orders of the Government of India. All the officers who had been in the
Gulf and consulted by the Bombay Government agreed that a station there
was absolutely necessary to prevent the revival of piracy. The Superintendent
of Marine considered it possible to protect our trade by means of a sufficient
number of cruizers even if there were pirates in existence, but as this bad
not yet been tried, no success could be counted on. It might therefore be
calculated on that if we withdrew from the Gulph, we shall at the end of a
few years be obliged to send another expedition.
277. But however desirable it might be to retain Kishm, we could not
overlook considerations of justice and policy towards Persia: the King of
Persia had not yet shown any proof of his title whatever to Kishm except its
alleged authority, on which ground he had also claimed Mask at and the whole
province of Oman. Even the argument mentioned by His Majesty's Charge
d'Affaires do not establish the claims of Persia. Sir John Malcolm on his first
mission solicited a grant of Kishm from Persia, which was refused. If it had
since appeared that Persia had no title to the territory so solicited, what
should prevent our applying to the right owner. Still less did a casual expression
of one of the Imam's officers destroy his master's right if he ever had one.
The Governor of Bombay in Council was not acquainted with the nature of
the Imam's rights either to Bunder Abass or Kishm, but supposing them equal
there seemed abundant reason why he should waive his claim to Bunder Abass,
an integral part of Persia and within reach of Agha Mahomed Khan's army ;
and retain it to Kishm, which was probably beyond the reach of that monarch's
power. A claim, however, to which His Majesty's Minister at 1 eheran attached
importance ought not to be hastily set aside, and supposing the King of Persia
to possess any reasonable ground of pretension to the island, it would be un
friendly, at least, to oppose it by military occupation. It seemed incumbent on
us to avoid giving the Shah this ground of disquiet, if we could do so without a
very serious sacrifice of our own interests. It may be a question whether this
alarm would ever gradually be removed without leaving any bad impressions.
The Bombay Government, however, inferred that His Majesty's Charg6
d'Affaires was of opinion that it would not; and the Governor in Council
certainly thought the experiment ought not to be tried.
278. On balancing therefore the possible loss and expense by allowing
piracy to revive against the certainty of giving umbrage and alarm to Persia,
the Governor in Council was induced to attach most importance to the latter
evil as affecting our general politics; while the other was more partial in its
operation. As far as regards ourselves the Governor in Council was of opinion
that it was expedient to withdraw the station. He does not advert to the uses