File 1283/1913 Pt 5 'MESOPOTAMIA TRADE Issue of new Trade Report' [‎106r] (207/270)

s views.
indolence and conservatism of Indian manufacturers and traders,
(e) the unreadiness of the Imperial Bank of Persia to accommo
date merchants in the matter of dealing with bills, all papers
being penalised as compared with bank paper when offered in
payment against drafts, (/) the inability of the British consular
system to perform the functions of an up-to-date commercial
intelligence bureau, and (g) the insufficiency of exports.
69. The continuous and rapid growth of Russian trade during the succeed
ing decade vindicated the more important of the conclusions formed by Messrs.
Maclean and Newcomen and directed attention, in particular, to the problem o
the extent to which Russia’s gain meant Britain’s loss.
Mr. George Lloyd writing in July 1916 averred that in the central Persian Mr. Lio y d !
markets British trade had suffered in the last few years severe checks m
consequence of energetic Russian competition. He said that the comparative
decline vis-a-vis Russia of British trade had been going on for a long period
and was indicative of the deep-rooted nature of the disease. He pointed out
that in six years Russian imports of yarn had increased by ooO tons while t
total imports of the United Kingdom and India together had only increased by
300 tons. In piece-goods, again, Russian imports had mcr . ea ^^/ 7 ^ 0 / o ° n n s S
while the United Kingdom and India imports had increased only 2,7o0 tons.
Iron and steel wire showed a British increase of 800 tons against a Russian
increase of 1,800 tons. He held that the obsolete methods of ransport
which formed the only vehicle for British trade into Persia were rapidly kilim
British commerce and that it was necessary for something to be done imme
diately ” process of decay were' to be arrested and the British position
restored.
As regards exports, he drew attention to the fact that of the mam raw
materials emanating from Persia, namely, wool, gum, hides, rice and cotton,
the British were taking comparatively less year by year, while Russia took more
and more.
70. In 1899 Great Britain Eeld the Kermanshah and Hamadan markets to pw-
the exclusion of all European competitors and, m fact, British trade was m lull 1914<
nossession of the country up to and including a line drawn from Khamqm by
TCprin'mshah Ispahan Yezd and Kerman to Seistan. Beyond that line it had
hecun to give ground both in the noth-west and in Tehran and m Rhorasan.
b| 1901 Russian trade, energetically pressed, had f'. ussl “ “““as the
to romnete with British in Hamadan, Ispahan and Yezd. As re^aids t^
transport of haled goods from the Persian frontier, Russia had an advantage in
the Hamadan market but was still at a disadvantage in the Ispahan market.
In 1007 the British Consul at Kermanshah reported that the year s import
Manchester goods had been greater than ever and that they were again
carituriii" thiflabriz market in the north, notwithstanding Russian bounties.
Again, in 1911, it was reported that nothing competed with Manchester goods
irb Hamadan except a white material coming from looms in India. Ine
■RVrmanshah report for 1911-12 says that Manchester cotton goods more than
held their own, and British importers in spite of the insecurity of the Bagffida -
Kermanshah route were able to supply a much better quality stuff at less cost
than the importers of Russian goods brought into the country over pracUcally
protected roads. Woollens of British manufacture were m increasing demand.
In the succeeding report it was also stated that under normal conditions ther
was Mttle clpektionkith the imports mainly of British -gm Horn B hdad.
The report for 1911 mentioned that Russian cotton goods had increased o p.
Lt Tn the Kermanshah bazars but Russian sugar could not compete with
water-borne goods as long as freight from Baghdad was normal. British tiade
in Ispahan undoubtedly suffered,, severely in 1910-11 from the closure of the
Bushrre Shiraz route owing to insecurity but the trade reports for Ispahan for
1911-14 do not indicate thlt Russian piece-goods were competing very seriously
wUh the British article, and the trade figures for 1913-14 value the British
interest at £608,753 and the Russian at £261,608. _ ^
As regards exports, Russia reaps advantage from her propinquity to the
rich producing areas. There is no cotton available for British and Indian