"البحرينيون خارج البلاد" [و‎‎٦‎٧] (١٧٦/١٣٣)

No. 1058 (Confidential), dated Bashire, the 23rd April (received rst May) 1911.
From— Lieutenant-Colonel P. Z.Cox, C.S.I., C.LE., Political Resident in the
Persian Gulf,
To— The Hon’ble Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Henry McMahon, K.C.I.E.,
C.S.I., Secretary to the Government of India in the Foreign Department,
Simla.
With reference to the correspondence ending with my telegram No. 319,
dated the nth April 1911, I have the honour to forward, herewith, copies of the
Despatch No. 33, dated April . s „ from correspondence noted in the margin, which
His Majesty’s Consul, B^srah. has taken place between His Majesty’s
,r0m H!S Ambassador, Constantinople, and His
Telegram No 41, dated 13th-15th April iqit, Majesty s Consul, Basrah, on the subject
Ap"ul9"Mrom of ‘he treatment oi three Bahreinese by the
His Majesty’s Consul, Basrah. Vali of Basrah,
No. 23.
Sir,
Basrah;
April nth t igi 1 .
In continuation of my despatch No. 15 of the 30th ultimo, regarding the
three Bahreinese imprisoned by the Vali, I have the honour to report that the
Alay Begi disgraced and humiliated them unnecessarily, while in confinement, by
making them sweep his room and clean his tables and furniture, abusing them
at the same time for changing their Ottoman nationality. This complaint was
brought to me by friends of the prisoners and afterwards confirmed by themselves
on their release. The object of this treatment of respectable land-owners seems
to have been to compel them in their distress to accept the Ottoman taskeres
offered them. There have been other cases in which pressure has been brought
to bear on Bahreinese at Basrah by the local authorities with the same object—
and, in some instances, they have yielded to the demands of the Turks.
On receipt of Your Excellency’s telegram No. 36 of April 3rd informing me
that instructions had been sent to the Vali on the 2nd instant to release the
prisoners on bail, I sent my dragoman on the 5th instant to His Excellency to
enquire if these instructions had been received and carried out.
As reported in my telegram Mo. 74 of April 5, the Vali said that the Consul
must be wiser than the Minister for Foreign Affairs, as he was aware it was
a criminal case and a Vali has nothing to do with Courts of Justice and, although
he had got the telegram in question, he had paid no attention to if and had
merely put it in his bag. The Vali added that the Minister for Foreign Affairs
was a fool (budala) to have given such instructions and the Ambassador should
not accept such an answer, and he thought the Minister for Foreign Affairs must
have*been laughing at the Ambassador, as the former knew that in their Consti
tutional days there could be no interference with the proceedings of Courts of Jus
tice. The Vali concluded his remarks by saying, if the dragoman had the right
to attend in such cases, the Minister of Justice should issue instructions accord
ingly.
I had already instructed a lawyer to watch proceedings on behalf of the
Bahreinese and to assist them in drawing up petitions and other Court matters.
The matter proceeded and, after examination before the Mustantiq, two of the
men were discharged on April 6th, there being no case against them. The papers
of the third, howeverj were sent to the Public Prosecutor, by whom the prisoner
was changed—I quote textually—“with a seditious attempt to induce the inhabi
tants (presumably of Hamdan) to put themselves under British protection and
with disturbing the security of the Vilayet of Basrah by this attempt ’’ There
seems to have been no evidence whatever against the prisoner and the alleged letter
asking, I am informed, some one in Bahrein for passports, is stated not to have
been in the hand-writing of the accused. The charge was a grave one coming
und^f the Supplement to Article 54 of the Penal Code, for which the maximum
penalty is death and the minimum penalty five years’ imprisonment.