مجموعة ٤٥/٢٨ "بلاد فارس. مفاوضات حول إبرام معاهدة أنجلو-فارسية؛ إلغاء المعاهدات الحالية." [و‎‎٥‎٠] (١٥٤/٩٩)

Yifhtch T&lght ev^ntufflly be tho ccu&e of* oorlouo dlsput&s*
**♦ JT3.8 Kr>jesty 9 s Oov^mmo^t, thorefore* are strongly of*
opinion that the proponed Treaty article should teke some such
foi'd as the followings** ‘’From the date or the entry into
M force of the present Treaty, and of the Treaty of ^omwerce
’and navigation al&o signed this day between the High
0onlineting Parties, the following Treeties, Oonvention© end
w /greeaents between the two High Contracting pertiea tshell
1 ooaee to be bindingjf 0
'* The Persian Oovernment have never put forward eny
rot-ac^if>ble objoctioTis to this course of action* The
objections mentioned by Teyrncmrtfiche in the course of hie
recent conversation v«ith you, and reported in paragraph 2 of
your despatch under reply, need not be regarded ns
insuperable* The Persian government may dislike the idea of ©
specific mention of the Angl^-^ereien Agreement of 1019, but
rino<5 there can be no doubt whatever that that pgreement is
* * ; • *• 1 "
not at present in force, there appears to His Majesty’s
Government in the united Kingdom no need foi* it to be
abrogated, and therefor* no need for it to be mentioned in the
proposed article. Teymourtache’s similar objection to a
specific mention of the slavery convention of 1883 is difficult
to understand, ind indeed seome merely frivolous, in view of
his own proposal mentioned in your despatch no* 101 of
February 2<ith, in which he himself actually proposes to
mention this convention in th© preamble to the proposed
Slavery retocol. j a- unam-rc of the reel reasons which
under!is the Pereien ooverament’o ob^eotiona to the proposal
of Hia Majesty’s Oovornment, but I would remind you that
Mr