'Persia and the Persian Question by the Hon. George Nathaniel Curzon, M.P.' [‎482] (541/714)

PERSIA
within the fifteen months stipulated by Article 8 of the Concession»
it was felt that the Persian Government had adopted a convenient
even if an illegal, way of escape from an impossible situation. The
Baron, who had every right to complain of ill-usage, continued to
make appeals and claims for compensation ; but until the reparatory
clause inserted in the Imperial Rank Concession sixteen years
later, these met with no response.
It must be obvious to all impartial critics, both that the Reuter
Concession was doomed to failure from its birth and also that its
Reasons of demise was not, on the whole, to be regretted in the in
terests of J^ersia. The scheme was overweighted
No individual, nor even any company, would have been capable of
carrying even a moiety of it into execution. As Sir H. Rawlinson
observes :—
It was only under the possible agreement of the European Powers
to the neutralisation of Persia, the Shah's dominions forming a sort of
Asiatic Belgium, that the working of the Concession—by means, per
haps, of a great international company or commission—would have
been at all practicable ; and although this idea was mooted, and is
understood to have received some consideration at Berlin and Vienna,
it may be well understood that where the interests of England and
Russia were strong, immediate, and conflicting, the prospect of any
joint action or acceptance of mutual responsibility was altogether
visionary.
As a matter of fact, the commercial world was completely staggered
by the proposal; and Baron de Reuter found that, without a
Government guarantee, he could neither raise the loan of 6,OOO.OOOL
stipulated by Article 16 of the agreement in the London market,,
nor constitute a company for working the Concession. The political
objections to the scheme were great and formidable. Its execution
would have involved Great Britain and Russia in a perpetual and
unseemly strife in Persia, and might have produced serious inter
national embarrassment. But stronger, in my judgment, than any
other objection, was the fact that it involved the complete abroga-
This article said, ' Should the works not be begun within fifteen months of
the date of the Concession, the caution money will be forfeited to the Persian
Government.' Baron de Keuter contended that he had fulfilled these conditions
by commencing the earthwork for the railway from Eesht, the permanent way of
which was completed for a short distance. The Persian Government, on their side,
contended that the terms were broken because no rails had been laid and no
mines opened.
For a