File 522/1922 Pt 7 'Bahrain: Persian claim to sovereignty; Persian Treaty negotations 1929-1930' [‎557r] (1118/1126)

^§Mestv’s Govern aS ®P enc * ent ru krs, it was thus not necessary for His
bTiecorded &Wa h C ° nSent ° f Persia before such recognition could
of their I h L 0 ^n° th f arg “ ad y anced b y *6 Persian Government in support
the end of the is^ statemei ! t t hafc the sheikhs of Bahrein at some time later than
-p • n ^ cen tury declared in writing their entire submission and fidelity
fr r 1 er ^ an ^ x 0 vern ment 5 and that they paid tribute to the Persian Government.
f Ug ^ i^ lan 1 Governmen t do not give any details in corroboration of this
assertion, and although it would probably be difficult at the present day to prove
tne authenticity of any documents which may be in their possession, Hi/Maiesty’s
overnment peifectly preparea to admit the possibility that such documents
may exist, -they do not, however, consider that the existence of such documents
or even evidence, were this forthcoming, of payments by the Rulers of Bahrein to
e Government of the Shah can be regarded as establishing the validity of Persia’s
claim. They have always been well aware that the unfortunate rulers of the islands,
sui rounded by warlike and more powerful States which menaced their independence,
professed on various occasions during the first sixty or seventy years of the
19th century an unwilling allegiance to Muscat, to Persia, to Turkey, to the rulers
of the mainland of Arabia, even to Egypt—to any Power, m short, who would agree
to offer them protection and seemed at the time in a strong enough position to do
so; and that at different times for short periods they paid tribute to Muscat, Egypt,
or the Wahabi Arabs of the mainland. Any argument based on payment of tribute
would, therefore, be available in support of a claim to sovereignty over Bahrein by
any of the States to which tribute was, in fact, paid, and, in any case, it is evident
that this timid and vacillating policy pursued on occasion by his predecessors cannot
be held to affect the position of the present sheikh, who is firm in his determination
to resist the Persian Government’s claims, and has empowered His Majesty’s
Government to refute them on his behalf, in virtue of the treaties which give them
the right of defending Bahrein from external aggression.
9. In view of the fact that the Persian Government do not base any part of
their claim on the alleged recognition of that claim by His Majesty’s Government
in the past, it seems unnecessary here to reply in detail to the various arguments
by which the Persian Government endeavour to show that their claims have received
British recognition in the past. I have already, in my note of the 18th January,
1928, explained that it has never on any occasion been the intention of His Majesty’s
Government to admit the validity of Persia’s claims, and I must now ask the Persian
Government to believe that a further full and careful examination of the con
temporary records confirms that statement in its entirety. Ever since the year 1820,
when His Majesty’s Government first entered into special treaty relations with the
Sheikh of Bahrein without any reference to the Government of the Shah, they have
acted on the assumption that the sheikh is an independent ruler. In 1822, when
Captain William Bruce was recalled for having negotiated the terms of an agree
ment with the Prince Governor A Prince of the Royal line who also acted as Governor of a large Iranian province during the Qājār period (1794-1925). of Shiraz without their authority, the main reason
recorded for his recall and for the prompt disavowal of this tentative agreement is
that “it acknowledges the King of Persia’s title to Bahrein, of which there is not
the least proof.” No clearer statement could possibly have been made of the views
held by His Majesty’s Government at that date, more than a century ago; they have
never since seen any reason to alter their opinion.
10. The Earl of Clarendon’s note of the 29th April, 1869, to which the Persian
Government devote so large a part of their note now under reply, was certainly
never intended to bear the interpretation now placed upon it by the Persian Govern
ment As was pointed out in my note of the 18th January, 1928, it admittea that
the Persian Government had advanced a claim to Bahrein, it stated that due con
sideration had been given to their claim, but it did not admit that their claim was
valid. It even affirms the intention of the British Government to continue to hold
the sheikhs to the treaty engagements which had been entered into with them as
mdenendent rulers. His Majesty’s Government are entirely unable to admit that
an implicit acknowledgment of the validity of the Persian claims is constatuted by
tl'e reference in that note to the considerations which led to the establishment and
the maintenance of those treaty relations; nor can they agree that the ilependence
or otherwise 0 f Bahrein on Persia can in any way be affected by the fact that m
entering upon and maintaining their treaties with the sheikhs they were principally
moved by a desire to suppress piracy and the slave trade and to maintain the police
-.-I B 2
[716 s—1J