مجموعة ٣٠/٩٠ "المطالبة الفارسية بجزيرة البحرين" [و‎‎٤‎٠‎٨] (١٠٦٢/٨٢٨)

7
Stated that ° ft i ° f • Prmce Re g eut °f Fare (which
iaiea tiiat it is not the intention of this Governmprn tn
of the aD Per P shn e ''uY'T™ °. f the Several P «^r S and States
a ^ewa^of ^ 0 ”^“ than be —-ary to prevent
the flag [granted to the Uttabis] to give 3 offefce^Peraia 11
as there 1S not the smallest connection between it and
on the part “the‘ rvT'p 81 pretolsio11 to superiority
Muscat and the She n fp Government”), the Imam of
scat, and the Sheikh of Bahrein, and as a mark of dis-
refffdTt 1 ! he i WaS r, 0 ™ 1 £rom his appointment. With
e ard to the clause of the agreement affecting Bahrein the
Government of Bombay remarked: “It acknowledges the
King of Persia’s title to Bahrein, of which there is not tbf
vTthmft? ’ Tk 0h * he British GOTe ™“®nt cannot assert
he U ta 3 ^‘T'p 8 ° f the a Imam f° f MuSCa « a “ d
the Uttabis. ... On the Persian side, the Shah not only
let used to approve the arrangements which had been made
but expressed his displeasure that the Prince of Shiraz
should have entered into any engagement with the British
Government without his knowledge and injunctions The
agreement was thus repudiated by both sides.
GrOvt. of
Bombay to
Capt. Bruce,
No. 1491 of
1.11.1822,
para. 6.
Teh. Desp.
No. 1,
25.1.1823.
Bahrein—Muscat Disputes.
22 i f y 1 i 822, if ? 0t earlier ’ the Sheikhs of Bahrein had
ceased to observe the engagement undertaken by them in
lo^O to pay an annual tribute to Muscat. In August 1822
an attack by Muscat on Bahrein seeming in consequence
imminent, the Governor of Bombay, in letters to the Sheikh
and to the Imam of Muscat, suggested that if this tribute
was of ancient origin it should be regularly paid, but that
otherwise it should be dropped. In January 1823 the
I olitical .Resident (Lieut. McLeod) visited Bahrein to
leassure the Sheikhs in regard to the unratified treaty
concluded by Captain Bruce with the Prince Governor of
k-hiraz, and to inform them that that treaty was of no effect
and that no chang-e of policy was contemplated by Govern-
ment. In the spring of 1823, on rumours of a contemplated
joint attack on Bahrein by Persia, Muscat and the Arabs of
the mainland, the Minister at Tehran was asked at a suitable
juncture to dissuade the Persians from disturbing" the
tranquillity of the Gulf.
Lor. I, 851.
Govr. to
Imam,
19.8.1822.
Govr. to
Sheikh,
19.8.1822.
Precis, 307.
Lor. I, 850.
Resdt. to
Govt, of
Bombay,
No. 8,
27.2.1823.
Lor. I, 852.
Govt, of
Bombay to
Teh.,
No. 394,
26.3.1823.
23. In February 1824 the Resident composed for a period
of two years the acute internal disputes between members of
the ruling house which were for many years a feature of the Lor. I 351 .
history of Bahrein. In 1825 the Governor of Bombay
personally remonstrated with the Imam of Muscat on aii
endeavour by the latter to interfere in the question of the
Bahrein succession consequent on the death in that year of
Sheikh Salman, who had ruled the Sheikhdom since 1796 (in Lor. I iii x
association in his later years with his brother Abdulla). Tabled ’
Reassertion of Persian Claim, 1825.
24. In 1825 an intimation was made by the Political
Resident to the Prince Governor of Fars, who had been
meditating an expedition to subdue Bahrein, and whose
Minister had requested the Resident to give directions to
the Sheikh to strike the dag which the British Government
had authorised the Uttabis of Bahrein to dy. “He was
informed that no control was assumed over the people of