Coll 35/43 'Persian Gulf: acceptance at Persian ports of mail from Bahrain' [‎12r] (23/62)

Copy,
DESPATCH TO INDIA.
Copies sent to P.R.P.C.,
and to P.A., Bahrain.
No. 31. f510/9/42) British Legation, Tehran,
——*• 11th March, ^
ft E III i *
1 I “T /f *1 A)
My Lord Marquess, i )-T £
In ny despatch No.250 of the 27th November 1940, addressed
to i,he PoTmigi: Office r and repeated to the Q-overnment of In'ia under
No 7142 I suggested that the controversy about the parcels taaiTf-rjcgigr
Persian ports to Bahrain should be left until the more pressing
matter of the letter nails had been settled. Provided that the
Bahrain postal authorities revert to the use of form R,P.32, as
re^onnended m the olitical Resident’s telegram No.34 of the 4th
February, the question of the letter mails can, I hope, be regarded
as settled, in that the Persian postal authorities should no longer
refuse to accept letter mails from Bahrain or to deliver the letters
to the addressees, though there remains open a subsidiary point to
which reference ©8 made below in paragraph 3 of this despatch.
2. In a note No.5171, dated the 1st March, a copy of which is
enclosed, che Persian Ministry of Foreign Affairs raise once more
the question of the refusal of the Bahrain Post Office to accept
parcels sent direct from Persia. In my reply, a copy of which is
also attached. I have pointed out that the agreements recently
concluded d6& not cover the parcel post, and explained that the
difficulty arose from the refusal of the Persian authorities to
ray the terminal charges on parcels sent to Bahrain. In order,
however, to foster the m^re oonciliatiry spirit w v ich we find at
present in the Persian O-cvemment in the matter of Bahrain, T suggest
that the Bahrain Post Office should be instructed to accept parcels
despatched from Pe-sia, but that when informing the Persian Govern
ment of this concession I should say that it does not denote any
change whatsoever in the attitude of His Majesty’s Government in re=
gard to the status of Bahrain. -lien the normal procedure is restored
again, the statements of account showing arrears of terminal charges
due from the Persian Government should* I suggest, be sent in again,
and this should be done annually with the addition of the latest
annual account. The Persian Government would probably not reply,
but we should not trouble about that. If they reply that the
charges are not due we should defend our position but should not,
I suggest, discontinue the acceptance of parcels from Persia direct
to Bahrain.
3. My note of reply to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs asks
that the practice of charging double the internal rate f^om the
addressee on letters sent from Bahrain to Persia shouldCnpJ be
abandoned. The Persian Government will not give up entirely a
practice by which they assert ther^i alleged right to Bahrain, but
that they should charge a fine as well as the single postage is
objectionable and I hope to induce them to compromise on thie point.
,i4. Copies of this despatch are being sent to the 1 olitical
HResident in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. and to the olitical Agent, Bahrain.
I have the honour to be,
My Lord Marquess,
Your lordship’s most obedient, humble Servant,
(Sgd,) R. W. Bullard.
Mis Excellency,
The Right Honourable,
The Marquess of Linlithgow,
K.T., G.C.I.E,, etc.,etc.,