File 930/1912 'Mohammerah - Khoremabad Railway' [‎173v] (353/396)

52
lias been pointed out to them, and emphasis has
been laid on the impossibility of inducing such
capital to do for Russian trade in the north what we
cannot induce it to do for British trade in the
south.
His Majesty’s Government have, however, given
the Russian Government an assurance that, m the
event of Russia making a line from Julfa to join
the Mohammerah-Khoremabad Railway, they will
consider how far it would be possible to encouiage
British capital to share in the enterprise. The
Russian Government have also been told that, if
they can interest British capital in a line they desire
to construct from Enzeli to lehran, there would
not be any objection on the part of His Majesty s
Government,—indeed, on the understanding that
the Russian Government would not oppose a line
from Mohammerah to Khoremabad, His Majesty s
Government would give every encouragement to
such a project. _ .
Besides the Enzeli-Tehran line, the Russians
have, in contemplation a line from Julfa to Tabreez.
They desire this for strategical, as well as com
mercial, reasons.
Sir E. Grey’s telegram to Sir G.
Buchanan, No. 49, 14th February 1911.
Pol. 3019/11.
Sir E. Grey’s telegram to Sir G.
Buchanan, No. 55, 17th February 1911
Pol. 3046/11.
British Aide-memoire dated 18th March
19H.
(Appendix VII.)
Pol. 3289/11.
Sir E. Grey’s telegram to Sir G. Bu
chanan, No. 99, 24th March 1911.
Pol. 3229/11.
Sir G. Buchanan’s telegram No. 70,
26th March 1911.
Pol. 3229/11.
Sir G. Buchanan’s telegram No. 65,
22nd March 1911. Pol. 3207/11.
Sir G. Buchanan’s ielegram No. 71,
26th March 1911. Pol. 3229/11.
Sir G. Barclay’s telegram No. 117,
10th April 1911. Pol. 3320/11.
64. In conclusion, attention is called to the
published opinions, summarised in Appendix IX.,
of certain authorities on the questions dealt with in
this Memorandum, viz. —
Published opinions of certain
Authorities.
Parliamentary Debates.
(1.) Lord Curzon, especially as to the difficulty
of a line between Bushire and Shiraz, the favourable
prospects of a Mohammerah-Burujird-lehran line,
and his description of the track Bagdad, Herman-
shah, Burujird, Ispahan, Yezd, Kerman, _ and
Seistan, as the true line of Trans-Persian railway
communication.
(2.) Colonel C. E. late.
(3.) Colonel Sir T. Holdich, especially as to the
climatic difficulty in the v r ay of lines along the
Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. , and his preference for an inland line
—Yezd, Kerman, Bam, Panjgur, Las Bela to Karachi
or Bombay.
(4.) Sir H. Norman, M.P.
(5.) Lieutenant-Colonel A. C. late, especially as
to the importance of “internationalising a Irans-
Persian railway and its branches, his agreement
with Sir T. Holdich regarding a Kerman-Bampur-
Panjgur alignment, and his belief that the line
might pay commercially. (He prefers the name
“ Indo-European ” to “ Trans-Persian.”)
(6.) Mr. H. F. B. Lynch, vdio prefers a line
through the Karun Valley.
(7.) Captain J. H. F. Lakin, 92nd Punjabis.
It may be added that important debates took
place in Parliament in the spring of 1911 on the
subject of the Bagdad Railway and our position in
the Middle East, reported in the “ Parliamentary
Debates ” marginally quoted*
* Lords, 2nd March 1911, V ol. VII.,
pp. 573-612; 6 th April 1911, pp. 1078-84.
Commons, 23rd March 1911, \ ol, XX1IL,
pp 623—658. See also 8 th March 1911,
pp. 1271-75, 1281-85, 1292-1300,1327-42.
India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. ,
20th June 1911.