Coll 28/45 ‘Persia. Anglo-Persian Treaty negotiations; abrogation of existing treaties.’ [3v] (6/154)
The record is made up of 1 file (75 folios). It was created in 30 Mar 1932-25 Jan 1934. It was written in English and French. The original is part of the British Library: 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. Records and Private Papers.
This transcription is created automatically. It may contain errors.
Commercial Agreement of 1920—(this last, which was never ratified, to he
described, if necessary, as a subsequent modification of the 1903 Convention).
3. With regard to the 1841 Treaty the decision was reached that its present
validity was open to serious doubt, and that it would be useless to rely on it in
any attempt to maintain 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. at Bushire against the express
wishes of the Persian Government. Consequently, it was decided that His
Majesty’s Minister should merely remind the Persians of its existence, and lea\e
it to them to say whether it should be alluded to in the present article.
4. From the outset, however, the Persians set their faces against the British
proposal. In doing so they appear to have been actuated by two main motives :
(1) the view that certain instruments, such as the 1882 Slavery Convention, were
incompatible with their national dignity and already for all practical purposes
dead letters, and (2) the fear that if they agreed to anything less sweeping than
an “ omnibus ” abrogation on the lines of their own draft, they might later find
themselves still bound by the provisions of some forgotten agreement.
5. As regards (1) it may be observed that in the most recent discussion with
Teymourtache (in February 1932) on the subject of the Slavery Article itself, the
ex-Minister of Court himself put forward a draft which mentioned the desire
of the High Contracting Parties to conclude an agreement “ in place of the 1882
convention.” If this convention can be mentioned once in the treaty, it can surely
be mentioned twice.
6. Motive (2) is much more serious, since in refusing to agree to an
“omnibus” abrogation article. His Majesty’s Government have, in fact, been
actuated (apart from considerations of form) by the exactly opposite motive,
namely, the fear that some forgotten agreement of value may thereby be
unintentionally swept away.
7. Realising that these conflicting apprehensions had brought about a
complete deadlock, the Foreign Office, after a careful review of the existing treaty
instruments, came to the conclusion that it would in all probability be necessary
to take the risk involved in accepting a general abrogation clause. They
accordingly proposed, in their letter of the 27th September, 1932, to the India
Office and Dominions Office (copies to Colonial Office and Admiralty) that
Sir R. Hoare should be authorised to agree, in the last resort, to an article on the
following lines (i.e., on the Persian model, but with the specific exclusion of
frontier agreements) :—
“ Les Hautes Parties Contractantes conviennent que tons les traites.
conventions et accords, n’ayant pas trait aux questions des frontieres,
conclus entre elles avant le 10 mai 1928(') seront consideres comme^ abroges
definitivement h partir du depot des ratifications du present traite.”
8. This solution was not, however, to be resorted to until a further effort
had been made to secure acceptance of the original proposals of His Majesty’s
Government, and in particular the following two possible solutions were to be
explored before resorting to the “ omnibus ” abrogation scheme
(a) the words “ shall cease to be binding ” (“ ne seront plus en vigueur ”)
might, it was suggested, be abandoned in favour of “ auront cesse d’etre en
vigueur ’’—which latter phrase does not indicate so piecisely at what moment
the instruments lapsed ; or „ . . .
(b) the High Contracting Parties might admit their difference of opinion m
some such clause as the following :—
“ The High Contracting Parties, who have been unable to agree on the
question of the actual validity of the following instruments, agree that they
will no longer be in force after the entry into force of the present treaty.”
9 It may be noted that while (6), and possibly (a) also, meet the Persian
objection referred to in paragraph 4 (1) above, neither of them meets the more
serious objection in paragraph 4 (2). . .. . . . .
10 The Government of India have now signified their concurrence in the
above-mentioned proposals of the Foreign Office, but certain points recently raised
by the Dominions Office are still under consideration.
J H When a decision has finally been reached regarding the form of the
article, it will be necessary to draft, in consultation with the Dominions, an
(i) Date of the conclusion of the Anglo-Persian Tariff Autonomy Treaty.
About this item
The correspondence concerns the drafting of an article for a general treaty between Great Britain and Persia [Iran] that would outline the abrogation of treaties, conventions and agreements concluded between the two nations before 1928. The file’s principal correspondents are: HM’s Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary in Tehran, Reginald Hervey Hoare; George William Rendel of the Foreign Office; John Gilbert Laithwaite of 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. . The file includes several French texts which include drafts of the treaty article being discussed, and copies of correspondence from the Persian Minister for Foreign Affairs.
The file includes a divider, which gives a list of correspondence references contained in the file by year. This is placed at the back of the correspondence.
- Extent and format
- 1 file (75 folios)
The papers are arranged in approximate chronological order from the rear to the front of the file.
- Physical characteristics
Foliation: the foliation sequence (used for referencing) commences at the front cover with 1, and terminates at the inside back cover with 77; these numbers are written in pencil and are located in the top right corner of the recto The front of a sheet of paper or leaf, often abbreviated to 'r'. side of each folio. A previous foliation sequence, which is also circled, has been superseded and therefore crossed out.
- Written in
- English and French in Latin script View the complete information for this record
Use and share this item
- Share this item
Coll 28/45 ‘Persia. Anglo-Persian Treaty negotiations; abrogation of existing treaties.’ [3v] (6/154), British Library: India Office Records and Private Papers, IOR/L/PS/12/3450, in Qatar Digital Library <https://www.qdl.qa/archive/81055/vdc_100044858042.0x000007> [accessed 14 November 2019]
Copy and paste the code below into your web page where you would like to embed the image.
<meta charset="utf-8"><a href="https://www.qdl.qa/en/archive/81055/vdc_100044858042.0x000007">Coll 28/45 ‘Persia. Anglo-Persian Treaty negotiations; abrogation of existing treaties.’ [‎3v] (6/154)</a> <a href="https://www.qdl.qa/en/archive/81055/vdc_100044858042.0x000007"> <img src="https://images.qdl.qa/iiif/images/81055/vdc_100000000648.0x000004/IOR_L_PS_12_3450_0006.jp2/full/!280,240/0/default.jpg" alt="" /> </a>
Copyright: How to use this content
- Coll 28/45 ‘Persia. Anglo-Persian Treaty negotiations; abrogation of existing treaties.’
- front, front-i, 2r:2v, 3v, 5r:22v, 26r:28v, 30r:76v, back-i, back
- East India Company, the Board of Control, the India Office, or other British Government Department
- Usage terms
- Open Government Licence