File 364/1913 'Persia: situation in Fars (attack on 39th Central India Horse)' [‎21r] (46/522)

Enclosure No. 19.
Telegram P. 3 No. 28, dated and received the 18th January 1918.
From—His Majesty's Minister, Tehran,
To—The Political Resident A senior ranking political representative (equivalent to a Consul General) from the diplomatic corps of the Government of India or one of its subordinate provincial governments, in charge of a Political Residency. , Bushire.
His Majesty’s Foreign Office telegraphed as follows on January 17th'.
No. 25. Please act accordingly.
“ Consular Officers at Bushire and Shiraz should be instructed to report
monthly the number of caravans arriving and leaving and all cases of robbery
which occur.”
Enclosure No. 20.
Telegram P., No. 37-115, dated the 19th January 1918. rf ‘'
From—The Political Resident A senior ranking political representative (equivalent to a Consul General) from the diplomatic corps of the Government of India or one of its subordinate provincial governments, in charge of a Political Residency. , Bushire,
To—His Majesty's Foreign Office, London.
(Repeated to the Secretary to the Government of India in the Foreign Department and
His Majesty's Minister, Tehran.)
The possibility seems to be adumbrated by recent Reuters’ telegrams from
Tehran and London that His Majesty’s Government may have under lively
consideration the arguments for and against granting a further respite to the
Persian Government for restoring order on the Bushire-Ispahan road and
generally in this province. If such is the case it can only be in conjunction
with an extensive scheme for the financing of the Governor-General by the
Imperial Government.
Without reference to the prospects of any such scheme, I venture to urge,
in case any such project is in contemplation, the importance of our securing, in
return for such forbearance, the preliminary settlement by the Persian Govern
ment of various desiderata, the regulation of which would help to consolidate
our position and our legitimate interests.
So considerable a loss is involved both to our trade and to our good name
by any further exhibition of patience that it would appear gratuitously quixotic
for us to refrain from requiring the Persian Government, as a condition thereof,
to recompense us as far as lies in their power for the damage which their
impotence has wrought.
No difficulty or loss of authority is involved to the Persian Government by
the satisfaction of our requirements in these matters, and it is moreover not our
position vis-a-vis Persia that we seek to better thereby, but our position vis-a-
vis Foreign Powers. Persia should be interested little less than ourselves
in the strengthening of this latter position if, as she has every reason to
do, she now regards Great Britain as a friend whose policy it is to keep her on
on her feet.
The following are the desiderata which suggested themselves to me.
Firstly. —Documentary recognition of our prescriptive rights to control
the lighting, buoying and policing of the Gulf in the same way that our posi
tion has been recognized in respect of quarantine, in regard to which the posi
tion might with advantage be incidentally re-affirmed.
Secondly .—Documentary recognition, as a permanency, of the old pres
criptive postal rights and privileges which we still enjoy and an expression of
readiness to see the same rights applied to other Persian Ports of the Gulf as
occasion may require.
Thirdly .—Hndertaking to refrain from giving to any foreign subject, or
foreign Government, any lease or commercial or other concession in Southern
or South-Western Persia (i.#., in the area comprising the British and central
zones under the Anglo-Russian Convention) or in the Persian Islands of the
Gulf. Marling’s telegram August 27th, 1909, to Foreign Office (repeated to
Foreign, August 28th), affords a precedent for such a request in the undertaking
given by the Shah to the Russian Minister. Possibly this undertaking could