File 1421/1908 Pt 3 'Persia: oil; negotiations between the Shaikh of Mohammerah and the Anglo-Persian Oil Co.' [‎260r] (85/338)

CONFIDENTIAL.
Sir G. Barclay to Sir Edward Grey.—(Received January 9, 3'30 p.m.)
(No. 9.) ^ Tehran, January 9, 1911, 3‘5 p.m. , ^
YOUR telegram No. 8 [of 6 th January] and your despatch No. 201 [of l 1 !ft
19th December]. ^ p i, t> •
Announcement that it is intended to deduct surcharge from profits ot tne i ersian
Government would evoke indignant protest from Persian Government, who, in regard , \
to Abadan agreement (see Mr. Marling’s despatch No. 71 [of 14th May]), even contest '
right of Sheikh of Mohammerah to transfer his lands at all, and would certainly
cTfortiori not recognise any rights as conferred by firman A Persian word meaning a royal order or decree issued by a sovereign, used notably in the Ottoman Empire (sometimes written ‘phirmaund’). except such as appertain
to private landowners in Persia, as against which the company’s rights are only
conditioned by paragraph 2 of article 3 of its concession.
To take matter out of sphere of private negotiations between sheikh and company
would lead to conflict between Persian Government and sheikh, which, in view of
former’s present suspicions and jealousy of our relations with sheikh, they would
especially welcome, as they would ostensibly be acting on behalf of a British interest.
It would therefore seem the less inexpedient of the two alternatives to postpone if
possible any explanations [?] to the Persian Government until payment is due and the
deduction actually made. This, however, if Persian Government had had no voice m
the matter, would be high-handed and hard to justify if the question went to arbitration
as provided in article 17 of concession. # .
Whole question is very awkward one, and, if company persists, whichever .
alternative is adopted bids ‘fair to provoke triangular duel between sheikh and
ourselves
In these circumstances I trust company may be strongly pressed to defer, unless
arrangements can be made with sheikh without raising the question of surcharge,
representation on lands of the sheikh until they become more essential to its prosperity
than appears at present. . . A ,, , it
1 invite consideration of Cox’s letter to acting consul at Mohammerah of
6 th November]" enclosed in my despatch No. 228 [of 18th December]. ~ - >
Pending your reply I postpone sending any instructions to consuls.
(Repeated to Bushire, No. 5.)
[152—33]