'Selection from Correspondence Relative to the Traffic in Arms in the Persian Gulf, 1897-98. Part I' [‎25v] (50/54)

44
connection with the measures which have recently been taken to prevent the
importation of arms and ammunition into Persia and places on the Persian
Gulf.
I am to inform you in reply that a copy of the statement enclosed by you
will be forwarded to Her Majesty’s Resident at Bushire, and to Her Majesty’s
Charge d Affaires at Teheran for their observations.
It impossible for lord Salisbury to admit that the traffic in arms to
Persia was^ not prohibited since, early in 1896, his attention was drawn to a
case in which arms belonging to a British firm were detained by the Persian
authorities at Bushire because they had been landed at that port in spite of
the prohibition of the Persian Government. It is also impossible that Her
Majesty’s Government should object to measures being adopted by the Sultan
of Muscat, at the request of the Persian Government, for enforcing that
prohibition.
I am, &c.,
Messrs. Pracis Times and Company.
Political
1854/98.
No. 47.
Enclosure in Foreign Office Letter of 18th March 1898.
Foreign Office to Mr. Hardinge, Teheran, dated ISth March 1898.
(Telegraphic.)
No. 23. Messrs. Fracis Times & Co., one of the firms whose rifles have
been seized, have addressed to us letter of protest in which, among other
arguments, they state that they established agency An office of the East India Company and, later, of the British Raj, headed by an agent. at Bushire in 1887, and
that since that time they have constantly shipped to that port arms and
ammunition which have been so described in Custom House returns and
ships’ manifests, have been examined by Persian Customs authorities, and
paid Customs duties. 1 hey state further that all this was well known to
British Consul-General, and that they never had any intimation that there
was, or had been, any prohibition of the import of arms and ammunition into
Bushire, that no notice to that effect is to be found at Custom House or
elsewhere, nor had they any reason to suppose that prohibition promulgated
by former Shah was in force. Please obtain and telegraph observations of
Her Majesty’s Consul-General on these statements. We have already replied
that, as to our knowledge a consignment of arms was seized at Bushire two
years ago, we cannot admit that the prohibition was unknown, but it would
be useful to be able to traverse their statements more completely. Letter will
be sent to you and to India for detailed reply.
Political
384/98.
No. 48.
From Viceroy to Secretary of State, 21 st March 1898.
(Telegraphic.)
Your secret telegram* of 21 st February. Political Agent A mid-ranking political representative (equivalent to a Consul) from the diplomatic corps of the Government of India or one of its subordinate provincial governments, in charge of a Political Agency. at Muscat
* No 33 reports that Sultan now refuses to
hold Court of Judicature without prior
assurance that, if Court finds that arms ex “ Baluchistan ” were lawfully
seized, the whole will be at Sultan’s absolute disposal. Meade reports
Sultan’s attitude recently very unsatisfactory. I am directing* Meade to
proceed to Muscat and explain to Sultan that, pending elucidation of all
facts, no assurance can be given, but any representation Sultan has to make
will receive full consideration. Political Agent A mid-ranking political representative (equivalent to a Consul) from the diplomatic corps of the Government of India or one of its subordinate provincial governments, in charge of a Political Agency. says that Sultan’s attitude
is undoubtedly caused by French intrigues. He told Sultan he would
suspend payment of subsidy pending orders of Government. I shall await
result of Meade’s visit.