مجموعة ٢٨ /٦٧ "بلاد فارس: تقارير سنوية، ١٩٣٢-" [و‎‎٢‎٣‎٠] (٦٤٤/٤٥٩)

1
allow the Residency to manage it on condition that a sum equivalent to the normal
subscriptions was paid to them. It connected the houses of a number of British
residents. With the consent of His Majesty’s Government in the United
Kingdom and of the Government of India, the exchange was duly handed over in
November, without payment. The Iranian authorities allowed the retention of
one private line connecting the two offices of the residency.
17. In September the Iranian authorities took exception to correspondence
addressed to the political resident in the Persian Gulf, Bushire, and Sir
Trenchard Eowle again took such action as was possible to prevent his being so
addressed.
18. Difficulties were raised by the Iranian Government early in the year in
connexion with the delivery of a bag to His Majesty’s Consulate-General at
Bushire, apparently arising from the fact that it had not been personally taken
from ship to shore by the captain of the British vessel carrying it, who alone held
a courier’s passport, but had been carried ashore by the local agent of the shipping
company. A second somewhat similar complaint was subsequently made by the
Iranian Government, and this time it became clear that both complaints referred
not to diplomatic bags, but to ordinary mail-bags, which had been taken ashore bv
the Residency launch. An apology was conveyed for the misunderstanding which
had led to this. Lengthy oral discussions as to future arrangements ensued with
the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, who were finally requested to give formal
approval to the arrangement hitherto in force by which the agent of the shipping
line brought the bags ashore. No reply was received, but no further difficulty
was experienced.
Lights and Buoys.
19. Early in the year a note was received from the' Iranian Government,
regarding questions arising in connexion with the installation of new lights in
the Persian Gulf. In some respects this communication was not unsatisfactory.
Thus the note said that instructions had been issued that whenever a new light
or buoy was installed, a warning notice would be published. But as a reply to
the representations which His Majesty’s Legation had been making on the general
question of lighting and buoying in the Gulf, it was disappointing. The only
part of its contents applicable to the general question was the repetition in
writing of the assurance already given orally that no steps would be taken for
the removal of an existing light until the light to replace it was completely ready.
Even this was a little ambiguous, seeing that removal devolved upon British
authorities. No answer was given regarding three points which had been raised
semi-officially, namely, co-operation with the Bombay Lighting Committee of
Shipowners, the dues to be paid by Admiralty oilers, and the limitation of dues
to the amount necessary to cover operating costs and the depreciation of the
lights and buoys in service. Nor was there any reference to a suggestion which
had been made to the Iranian Government to the effect that the details of the new
arrangements to be made might be settled by a meeting of qualified experts on
both sides.
20. The Foreign Office did not feel that any useful purpose would be served
by pressing the Iranian Government either as regards the above three points,
or as regards the suggestion of a meeting of experts. On the latter point they
were mindful of information received from Sir John Ward, who was of the
opinion that the Iranian Government would never consent. Sir John Ward also
explained that the lights which were being erected by the Iranian authorities
had been supplied by reliable firms, and that great care had been taken in their
selection.
21. In 1937 His Majesty’s Legation, on instructions from the Government
of India, had asked that further particulars, namely, the height above high-
water and the candle-power, should be given in notices concerning lights. The
Iranian Government eventually agreed to this, part of the long delay being due
to the fact that they lost the relevant papers for about five months. In their
reply, which was not received until September, they also agreed that one month’s
notice would be given before a new light entered into service. They also referred,
rather vaguely, to the proposed meeting of experts in technical questions, and
admitted that such discussion might possibly from time to time be arranged.
[19400] c* 2 ^