'NOTE ON BRITISH MISSION AT TEHERAN.' [‎204v] (2/4)

2
Government for the transfer of Aden, Zanzibar, &c to the I^riaA Govern
ment and of the Persian Mission, to some extent, to India. lie saw,
,< inrenard to the control of the British Mission at Teheran, I have only to observe that the
weight of competent opinion appears to recommend the transfer of at least a portion of its d .
to nhTan"pSn^v^the S p^nt iirrangements seem certainly anomalous, lor whilst
, j.v. rs r,*, u-, •‘-gszr irr:--?..”
* ‘‘Total cost:- £ * Excellency is so well aware ot* the reasons which
1835 to 1873 - ■ - 5 io,ooo t0 t j ie Mission being placed in charge ot the
Imperial Government in 1H36, and the conflicting
5io ooo action and opinions which have prevailed since that
npriod. more especially in 1859—60, that I need
Paid by England
India
60,000
- 450,000
in'possession of the Parliamentary Report of 1870-71 on the Diplomatic and
Consular Services, and of the opinions expressed by Lord Lawrence, the late Earl ot Mayo,
Sir Henry Rawlinson, and other high authorities on this subject. . . _ * u f *1
“I observe that the Government of your Excellency’s predecessor, in the Despatch o ic
19th April 1872 under review, allude in strong terms to the expediency of the transfer now pro
posed in consideration of the close connection existing politically between India and Persia, the
necessity for placing our relations with the Shah on a firmer footing, and the vastly increased
interest and bearing which the rapid course of events in Central Asia and Persia are acquiring on
the political and commercial concerns of your Government.
“ I request to be informed, therefore, whether the opinion of your Excellency s Government is
the same as that expressed in 1872 and anteriorly, or whether you would prefer to suggest any
alternative arrangement, such as is indicated in the recommendations of the Parliamentary Com
mittee. Or possibly your Government might consider that Indian reqiiiiements would be suffi-
ciently provided for at Teheran by your appointment of an additional Secretary ot Legation, who,
although subordinate to the head of the Mission, would supply the necessary information^ on all
questions of Indian policy, and would further conduct the Mission’s correspondence with the
various authorities in India.
« x should be glad to know whether your Lordship considers that the Consulates at Teheran,
Tabreez, and Resht, as well as the control of our relations with the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. , should rest, in
the event of transfer, with the British Indian Minister at Teheran, or otherwise.”
7. To this Lord Northbrook’s Goyernment replied (Kith August 1875):—
“ 14. We have given the fullest consideration to the proposal that a portion of the duties connected
with the British Mission at Teheran should be transferred to the supervision of the Secretary of
State lor India. We are generally of opinion that it would be inexpedient to disturb the relations
that now exist between the Mission and the Foreign Office. The officers who represent foreign
interests at the Court of Teheran are members of the regular diplomatic service of their respective
countries, and if a different practice were followed in the case of the representative of Great Britain,
it is doubtful whether he would not lose in influence and prestige with the Court to which he is
accredited, and with his diplomatic colleagues. There are also few important steps which could
be taken with respect to Persia and the countries adjoining it, which would not ultimately demand
a reference to the Foreign Office; while the progress of events in Persia and the evident wish
which the Shah has displayed to be included within the circle of European Powers, afford some
grounds for thinking that the purely Eastern methods of diplomacy which have been so ably
advocated by Sir Henry Rawlinson may, in the course of years, become less adapted to the
to the requirement of the Persian Court than in former days. But we consider, nevertheless, that
the interests of India should be represented at Teheran ; and we are therefore prepared, in modi
fication of the views expressed in the Despatch of the Government of India, No. 26, dated the
19th April 1872, to suggest that a Secretary of Legation and a Military Attache should be ap
pointed by the Government of India. The Secretary of Legation, while subordinate to Her
Majesty’s Minister, would be in possession of the views of this Government: on questions affecting
Indian interests, and would be recognized as the adviser of the Minister on such matters. We
also think that, in consideration of the large sum paid from Indian revenues towards the expenses
of the Mission, the suggestions which have been made for furnishing presents on a more liberal
scale, in accordance with oriental custom, and for entertainments in view of cultivating friendly
relations with Persian nobles and gentlemen, are deserving attention.”
8. In consequence of this adverse opinion of the Government of India, Lord
Salisbury did not submit his intended proposal to the Foreign Office for the
transfer of the Mission to the 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. , hut pressed for the appointment
hy the Government of India, without additional charge to the Indian revenues
of a Secretary of Legation as well as a Military Attache. He added, how
ever, “ The proposed appointment of Indian Officers to the Teheran Mission,
though in itself desirable, hy no means disposes of all the considerations
which appeal to him (Lord Salisbury) to recommend other and larger
“ measures.^ It will still leave in existence the anomalous arrangement
undei which the Mission is in the main paid for by one Government and
“ directed by another.”
9. Ihe Foreign Office (25th February 1876) objected on various grounds to
the appointment of an Indian Secretary of Legation, but suggested that the