'Memorandum on Persian Railways' [‎100r] (11/84)

/
iro
(P. 61.)
Sir H. D. Wolff’s Despatch No. 261,
8th August 1890.
(P. 48.)
He considered that a minimum guarantee of
4 per cent, might be provided by ( 1 ) the increase
oi me Customs consequent on the new traffic, (2) a
low transit due to be raised per ton on all goods
going through the country by the line, and his
Despatch concluded with the following words
“ ^ 1 cann ? t llel P thinking that the formation of
( the Committee in Russia is a proof of the desire
u the commercial classes in that country to avail
themselves of trade routes which cannot be
overlooked.
„ “ fhe Government of Russia might perhaps be
„ P ers Haded to see the advantages to lie derived
<t trom thls hue of railway, which would be very
u great on her side, and the course to be taken
u woul<l he such as to preclude the idea of stra
tegical rather than trade purposes.”
In a subsequent despatch Sir II I). Wolff
forwarded a report by Mr. Macqueen, Civil
engineer, on the suggested railway between
Cnzeli and Mohammerah.
Views of Her Majesty’s Government
as to Russian Railways in Persia.
Sir H. I). Wolff’s Despatch No. 137.
21st April 1890.
(P. 45.)
Lord Salisbury’s Telegram, 19th May
1890. J
(P. 51.)
8 . In April of the same year a report was made
by Sir II. I). Wollf to the effect that the A baza
Commitiee were said to have in contemplation a
Ime from Tiflis to Tabriz, Tehran, and Bunder
Abbas. ^ On the 19th May the views of Her
Majesty’s Oovernment were explained to him in a
comprehensive telegram of which the following is a
paraphrase :—
„ " dli reference to your despatches and other
correspondence on the subject of railway con-
cessions in Persia, there are tliree possible
contingencies to be considered : —
In the first place, it is by no means improbable
u tiiat . the Russians will attempt to construct a line
u P^ssmg through Khorasan in the direction of
t< H<uat. I hey may employ Government funds
t( U P 011 sucl1 a n enterprise. In this case 1 can only
instruct you to offer the most strenous resistance,
although L feel some doubt as to whether you will
u Anothei line which the Russians may wish to
u aiake is that from their own frontier to the
Persian capital. It is not necessary that you
“ should oppose it, but merely insist that a similar
“ concession should be granted to us in the south,
‘ which should correspond in value and importance
“ w,tl1 liic Russian line, and should be decided on
“m consultation with Her Majesty’s Legation.
The Russian Government would hardly be willing
“ defray the expense of construction in this
t instance, and it is very doubtful whether the
money could be raised in other quarters.
f< I here remains, as the third contingency, the
^ Imc which you have mentioned, running across
Persia from the Caspian to Bunder Abbas on the
^ ^ ersian Gulf. I feel certain that the Russian
“ Government would not devote public funds to
“the construction of such a line; it would be