'The Seven Independent Arabian States [Yemen, ‘Asir, Hijaz, Najd, Kuwait, Jabal Shammar and al-Jawf]' [‎187v] (374/680)

'
20
VIII.—1861-67.
From the Convention of 1861 to the Punitive Expedition of
August 1868.
Persian Protest (1862).
73. In January 1862 the Persian Minister
Lord Cowley 73. In January 16^ tiie i 'ersian ^ Minister m Paris
to F.O., protested to Her Majesty's Ambassador in Paris against the
7^7 1862 seizure of the Hamrah. He was informed in reply that Her
F.O. to Lord Majesty's Government could not recognise^any claim on the
Cowley, part of Persia to question their proceedings in regard to
No. 209, Bahrein, and must therefore decline to offer him any
22.2.1862. explanation on the subject of his complaint.
Persian Protest (1866).
Lor. 1,891. 74. Between 1863 and 1865 the Sheikh continued to
misbehave, and in the latter year his ship, the Dinar, was
seized under the instructions of the Resident. The Persian
Government in 1866 made a complaint in regard to the
Dinar proceedings on the ground that Bahrein under
the unratified agreement of 1822 was a dependency of Persia.
The Government of India, after ascertaining from the
Government of Bombay From c. 1668-1858, the East India Company’s administration in the city of Bombay [Mumbai] and western India. From 1858-1947, a subdivision of the British Raj. It was responsible for British relations with the Gulf and Red Sea regions. the nature of the agreement of 1822,
Lor. 1,691. communicated the result of their enquiries to the Minister
at Tehran, and added their own opinion that " whatever
might have been the pretensions of Persia or the grounds of
the same to the sovereignty of Bahrein in former days, the
Shah could not now be regarded as possessing in point of
fact any rights in the principality." This communication
was approved by Her Majesty's Government in the same
year, and the matter appears to have dropped.
I.O. to
G. of L,
No. 37 of
28.2.1867.
Lor. I, 892.
Nature of Relations between Bahrein and Wahabi Amir (1867).
75. In 1866-67 the Resident, on the instructions of the
Government of India, investigated the relations of the Sheikh
of Bahrein and the Wahabi Amir. He reported as a result
that the Sheikh claimed to be independent so far as his
islands were concerned, and that the annual tribute of
4,000 dollars " which he indubitably paid " (cp. paragraph 50-
above) to the Amir was on account of the possessions held
by him in Qatar on the Arabian mainland, the object of the
payment being to secure those possessions against attacks by
Arab tribes under Wahabi influence. The Government of
India,^ in the light of the Resident's investigation, expressed
the view in March 186< that the Sheikh was independent of
all other Powers in respect of his insular possessions and
owed fealty to the Wahabis only in regard to Qatar.
Summary, 1861-67.
76. This period is marked by assertions of the Persian
claim in 1862 and 1866. Her Majesty's Government on
both occasions made it clear that they could not regard that
claim as well founded.
Investigation show r ed that the tribute still paid (1867) by
the Sheikh to the Wahabi Amir was in respect of Bahreini
possessions on the mainland of Arabia, and not in respect
of Bahrein, which the Sheikh held independently of all other
Powers.
IX.—Discussions and Incidents, 1868-70.
*7. Questions of considerable importance as bearing on
the status of Bahrein arose in 1868—70 consequent on-—
{a) the disciplinary action taken by the Government of
India against the ruling Sheikh Md. bin Khalifa,
-view of his breaches of the Maritime Truce of
lo-O, which resulted in his flight from Bahrein
— September J 868 and the succession as sole
Sheikh of his brother, Sheikh Ali bin Khalifa;
[b) the punitive action taken at Bahrein by the Govern
ment of India in November—December 1869,
consequent on the invasion of Bahrein by the
ex-^heikh Md. bin Khalifa, the murder of Sheikh
V :■* r-;