'Persia, Herat, and Seistan' [‎85v] (14/28)

14
made no objection to the provisional character of
the arrangement suggested.
“ Besides the above I have touched on the
following points, which have not been yet referred
to the Shah, but to which the Minister for Foreign
Affairs did not express any objection:—That Persia
should give a preponderating influence, and ^ be
guided by our advice in important political
questions. The construction of a wagon road from
Bushire to Teheran, and from. Ispahan to Shuster,
in connection with free steam navigation on the
Karim; and finally, that in the event of any of the
above conditions being unfulfilled, of its being
found that the continued occupation of Herat by
Persia was incompatible with the security of our
Indian frontier, or of its being deemed requisite, in
consequence of the possible occupation, of Merv by
Itussia, that the arrangement should cease, it should
be set aside, and Persia would then revert to her
stipulations with England under the Treaty of 1857.
My conversations with the Minister for Foreign
Affairs have had no official character, and he does
not suppose that I am speaking about Herat under
instructions from your Lordship. I am to see His
Highness again, I believe, but it may take some
days before I can ascertain the definite views of the
Shah on the subject.”
On the 29th October Mr. Thomson sent a further
telegram* on this point to the Marquis of Salisbury.
He said:—
<f I have had an interview of over three hours
with the Minister for Foreign Affairs. His Highness
informed me that the Shah accepted the eight
numbered conditions in my telegram of yesterday ;
the others, he said, he had not yet referred to His
Majesty.
He, however, re-discussed the whole subject,
proposing in No. 1 to insert that the temporary
occupation should be 4 with a view 3 to its being
ultimately confirmed permanently, when the con
fidence of Her Majesty’s Government should have
been acquired. He objected strenuously to binding
the Persian Government to c be guided ’ by our
advice, but agreed to consult and advise on im
portant questions. He further objected to its being
specified that, in the event of the Persians bavin 0 *
to withdraw from Herat, they should revert to their
1857 treaty engagements. This objection was pro-
bably based on the supposition that this arrange
ment would definitely supersede the old treaty
arrangements. If insisted upon he will, however,
probably yield this point.”
. reference to these telegrams Lord Oranbrook
directed that a letterf should be addressed to the
Foreign Office containing the following observa
tions:—
“ Her Majesty’s Minister at Teheran suggests as
one of the conditions upon which Herat might
without danger to British interests, be provisionally
entrusted to the guardianship of Persia, that the
* From Foreign Office, 29th October
1879.
»
t Sir L. Mallet to
1st November 1879.
Foreign Office, dated