'Selection from Correspondence Relative to the Traffic in Arms in the Persian Gulf, 1897-98. Part I' [‎22v] (44/54)

38
Political
1820/98.
materials of all descriptions, nor is any stigma attached to them for so doing.
In what respect then does this trade differ from the supply of war vessels
to Japan, or rifles, &c. to China or Djibouti and the Transvaal; whilst the
trade now under discussion was with Persia and Muscat, two countries with
which we are in profound peace ?
If our Government desired to stop the trade, why did they not say so to
shipowners, who more than once have consulted them respecting the traffic ?
Even then the question arises of the scope of their power at Muscat. If
our Government wishes to stop shipments from this country, they cannot
prevent foreign vessels carrying on the trade, and the effect would merely
be that a lucrative Birmingham industry would be ruined, to the benefit of
Belgian and German makers, who are already largely interested and will
delight in this check to British commerce.
(Signed) Eracis Times & Co.
W. Dixon & Co.
Livingstone Mmii & Co.
Malcolm, Brunker, & Co., Limited,
E. W. Brunker, Managing Director.
G. M. Carlman & Co.
Adams & Co.
No. 41.
Enclosure in Eoreign Office Letter of 7th March 1898.
Eoreign Office to Messrs. Eracis Times and others.
Eoreign Office,
Gentlemen, 7th March 1898.
I am directed by the Marquess of Salisbury to acknowledge the
receipt of your letter dated the 25th of Eebruary 1898 regarding certain
measures taken in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. and on Persian soil to prevent the
importation of arms and ammunition, which have had the effect of interfering
with the traffic in those articles conducted by your respective firms.
The main contentions put forward in the statement which accompanies
your letter are as follows :—
That there has been “ absolutely no secrecy about this traffic ”;
That British officers both at British ports and in the Gulf have been
cognisant of the trade and have practically permitted it;
That the Persian Government directly sanctions the trade and benefits
thereby;
That British interests are not affected injuriously by it; and
That a lucrative Birmingham industry will be ruined by such inter
ference.
I am to state in reply that Lord Salisbury is unable to admit that no
secrecy has been practised in the conduct of this trade. The contents of
cases containing rifles and cartridges have habitually been concealed in the
bills of lading under the misleading description of “ merchandize or ‘‘ hard
ware ”; the names of the consignees have been withheld by consigning the
articles “ to order,” and the information recently given in answer to direct
inquiries on the subject has been unsatisfactory and incorrect.
The allegation that the trade has been recognised by British officers in
Persia rests upon the fact that it is mentioned in certain Consular reports.
These reports, however, expressly state that the traffic was prohibited by
lawful authority but that the prohibition was evaded by the collusion of the
local Customs officials.
The Memorandum adds that “ before shipment a special examination of
“ each package is usually made at Manchester by our Government officials
“ and permission for their shipment accorded; ” and the question is put
whether there can be justification for the action of Her Majesty s Govern