'SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPAL EVENTS AND MEASURES OF THE VICEROYALTY OF HIS EXCELLENCY LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON, VICEROY AND GOVERNOR-GENERAL OF INDIA IN THE FOREIGN DEPARTMENT. I. JANUARY 1899-APRIL 1904. II. DECEMBER 1904-NOVEMBER 1905. VOLUME IV. PERSIA AND THE PERSIAN GULF.' [‎53v] (111/384)

8
wit1l reference to the suggested partition of Persia into spheres ot
. „ '' ' TT- r r.-<lsliin explained tiiat any overtures on the subject to the
influence, Ills Louis P | i |, e m i sre prescntcd to the Shah as mdicat-
Hussian Government would probably, be mm ^ ^ ^ f Qreat Britain
Opinion of Her Majesty’s Government. to & c g ec t an immediate partition of Ills
. . i ji^+ tt pv ivT'iiestY , s Government were not disposed for the time
dommions; and that Ileiiajcstysu preferred rather to rest
being to make any pro^sals on tlm ^subjea.^^^7 tQ the pcrsian Gov .
c?nment W two ot 6 Vldoh had been made during the interval consequent on the
etnment, two ot > j Curzon’s views as to these pronouncements
His Lordship’s reply of 6th September 1900, which was as follows.
r p Vranr TifiTilcjliir’s renlv relate to matters, sucli as Consular
“The first four paragraphs Lordsh.p s^reply r^ ^ a ’. yet hea ,. d no ,. hiolf
appointments in Persia (oonoeimiig D „ ran a) the question of a Quetta-Nusliki-Seistan
more of the rev.sed wh di we shall address Your Lordship independ-
Southern Persia, as a ^
" We are grateful to Your Lordship for^iseornmum^
Government. V ' e ®"'!P j'^gg'‘ v ™“ vrit ten, have modified the situation, not to the advantage
T.trBritl ttwe o«3ves a year ago made the probability of. such change of
whiehthem w^e already signs, the ground for -fPP^™ ?
action on ihe part of Her Majesty’s Government. Hie following were om i .
.< < We p ess for an earlv decision and for early action, since, unless we beshr on,•selves,
tbere is good mason for Lariiig that the already trembling balance may be disturbed by others
to our disadvantage—’ . '
“The conclusion of the Russo-Persian loan a few months later more than justified these
Ihe conomsio .. , Vour Ll0rdsb ip alludes in the 7th paragraph of your reply
^dVite hit the a-ti'vity of Foreign Powers in Persia and its neighbourhood has not slackened,
but has on tle oou rar/, Lease! during the interval. This process may be expected m our
opinion to cltiuue; and we think that it will demand constant precaution and unremitting
V,g,1 “Tdoee not, perhaps, behove us to comment at any length upon the several propositions
which have been laid down bp Your Lordship. We are ourselves far from admitting that the
nosition gained by Russia on land enables her as yet to dominate and threaten almost the
whole of Persia/ Y We think that the extent to which she is permitted to do so still depends
even more upon the action of Her Majesty's Government than it does upon her own. Neither
do we recognise any reflection of our own views or utterances in the remark that it can hardly
be maintained that^n view of foreign competition, civihsoa powers can be permanently denied
the benefit of access to the ports of Persia, because their admission will inlrmge upon a mono
poly which we have hitherto enjoyed.’
“ If the reference is to access by pea, clearly such approach never has been or would ever
be likely to be denied by Great Britain. If the reference is to access by land we have never
said anything 1 to deprecate the connection of the Persian ports by railway with the mterioi, and
the free use of such ports by the subjects orlmercbandise of Foreign Powers. \\ hat we have all
alono- deprecated and must contmae to dep-ecate is that any such railways,—leading to ports
w ithin a sphere in which British interests are unquestionably predominant, and in which it
cannot be alleged that any other Foreign Power possesses any interest comparable with out
own—should be constructed as the instruments of political or military ambition, and shou
terminate in maritime exits, which might before long he converted into the coaling stations or
the naval bases of foreign fleets. We have no objection whatever to the construction
railways in the south or in any other part of Persia, though we entertain die liveliest doubt aj
to whether in a country as backward and so mountainous they would ever repay the expense o
construction. All that we maintain is that, if Persia decides to construct railways m the south
she should not do so except with our consent, and, if possible, with our co-opeiation, am '
the so-called development of the country should not be made an excuse for open and ilagrani
detriment to British interest.
“ We rejoice to think that on this point we share the views that are apparently held by
Her Majesty’s Government. At least this is the inference that we draw from the intimation
that was authorised by the Marquis of Salisbury to the Persian Government on the 4th April
last, in which the present Shah was reminded of the promise of his father, the late bhah, tn
no southern railway concession shall be granted to any foreign company without consu aim
with Her Majesty's Government' We confess, however, to a doubt whether the genei
character or the particular terms of this pledge are such as alt »gether to preclude t ic « is ‘ai
Government from entering into engagements, even with regard to railway matters m on ^
Persia, with a Foreign Power or Powers, which might violate the spirit, even while o servin 0