ملف رقم ٦٠٠ لسنة ١٩٠٥ الجزء ٥ "المنطقة الداخلية لعدن: معاهدة مع سلطان بلحاف" [و‎‎١‎٣‎٠] (١٥٢/٤٣)

3. I am at the same time to request your opinion as to the course which
in the light of further information which may be submitted in reply to the last
paragraph and of the summary of the case which follows should be pursued.
The position of affairs at the present moment appears to be as follows
“ Sultan Saleh, whom, since 1894, we have recognised as the titular Sultan
and whose recognition as such we have endeavoured to enforce, hns not only,
during the whole of that time, failed, adequately to impress his authority upon the
tribesmen and to maintain order in the Sultanate, but has no w, in direct violation
of the terms of the treaty concluded with Balahaf, entered upon an agreement
with Shehr and Mokalla to sell his share in the port of Balahaf. Meanwhile
Sultan Mobsin, who, between the years 1894 and 1902, had managed to
re-assert a preponderating share in the authority over the tribes and in
the administration, and who, as a result of the unlawful seizure of the
dhow Fateh al Salam in 1902, was required to tender his submission and
pay up in full the amount plundered from the dhow, has at last come into
Aden, tendered his submission in full, undertaken to abide by the existing order
of things, should the Government be determined to maintain them, and has
offered fairly satisfactory guarantees of his intention to abide by his under
taking. His brother Ahmed has, therefore, been released. Luring the inter
val the port of Balahaf has, as a coercive measure, been from time to time
closed more or less effectually, and this closure has no doubt had its influence
upon the ultimate submission of Mohsin. ,,
4. The question now for determination are—
(1) whether the settlement come to in 1894 and reiterated in 190 ^
but which has never been effectually carried into operation,
should be enforced ; and
(2) if so, what arrangements should be made in order to ensure that its
maintenance should be made effectual.
The situation kns been materially changed by the action hotli of Sultan
Mohsin and of Sultan Ghalib. The present seems to be an opportunity of
re-considering the arrangements approved by the Government of India in 1&94.
The first essential condition of any settlement would have to be the recogni
tion by whoever may be appointed titular Sultan, of the fact that he is so
appointed with the sanction only of Government and that his position will
only he recognised during the pleasure of Government, that is to say, so long
as he observes the obligations which follow such recognition. It seems in
these circumstances to he a question whether the proper course would not
he to summon to Aden the Sheikhs w ho may be shareholders in the port
of Balahaf in order that they may elect, in the Resident’s presence, their
Sultan whose name would then he reported to Government for approval.
Whoever might be selected, the opportunity could be taken not only to
re-affirm the existing treaty, but to obtain (a) from the individual Sheikhs
a written undertaking that they w r ould abide by their selection loyally; and
(b) from this nominee documentary admission of the fact that his nomination
was valid only during the pleasure of the British Government. W ketker
the interest which Sultan. Ghaiib has endeavoured to establish by his transac
tion with Sultan Saleh should or should not be held to jutify the consider
ation of his claims or possibly to require his presence at Aden at the
time when the Sheikhs will be summoned is a matter upon which the Governor
in Council will be glad to be furnished with your opinion.
No. 2241, dated Aden Residency, the 16th April 1905.
From—M ajor-General H. M. Mason, Political Resident, Aden,
To—The Secretary to Government of Bombay, Political Department.
In reference to your No. 1806, dated the 18th ultimo, concerning Balahaf
affairs, I have the honour to inform you that I am arranging for my First
Assistant Resident to visit Balahnf on the 1st proximo, with a view to holding
33
344]? D