'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.' [‎81v] (167/386)

Gulf showed a distinct decline of British trade during the same period.
Y ear.
Total Persian trade.
Total of British
and Indian trade with
Persia as registered
at British snd
Indian ports.
Figures of trade
with the Persian
Gulf ports as report,
ed by British officials
in the Gulf.
Total.
J rade of Persia with
the British Empire
according to
statistics published
by M. Naus.
1
2
3
4
5
£
£
£
£
1898-99 ...
9,000,000
2,074,873
2,165,326
1899-00 ...
10,500,000
1,948,964
2,237,570
• • •
1900-01 ...
7,321,872
2,087,537
2,395,649
• ••
1901-02 ...
8,166 818
2,168,638
2,767,002
1902-03 ...
8,358,527
1,887,919
2,544,459
2,800,000
1903-04 ...
11,633,000
1,802,526
2,182,554
2,718,381
22. Article V of the Anglo-Persian Convention provided for a general cns-
toms regulation which was to be settled in concert with the British Legation. On
receipt of the draft of this regulation (Rdglemont Louanier) the Government of
India objected to the penal clauses as drafted which were most draconian in
character and requested Sir A. Hardinge to protest against them, pointing out that,
in the case of contraband, the penalties were more severe than those imposed in
India under the Sea Customs Act. M. Naus agreed to modify the objectionable
part of the Rdglement by adding a clause providing that an accused person or
his Consul could m lieu of confiscation “ of the means of transport ” demand a fine
not exceeding £60. The Government of India then pointed out that the practice
in India was to substitute a fine for confiscation of both the means of transport
and the goods themselves and that it was desirable to apply the same rule to
Persia. M. Naus thereupon expressed his readiness to grant as an alternative to
the confiscation of goods the imposition of a fine not exceeding the value of the
goods and lower where there were grounds for indulgence. This arrangement
was accepted by the Government of India and formed an “Additional Declara
tion exchanged between M. Naus and the Minister. The instrument was
signed, atter much delay, by the Russian Minister and, subsequently, by Sir A.
aidmge and it was brought into force on the 1st September 1904. To this
Rcglement was appended a list of existing customs stations, which however was
mi-ht dictate V1S1 ° n ^ rC{ l uirements or Persian political requirements
"3. Pbe long continued efforts of the Russian Government to dcvelope
si<?n ri to S persia Indian Comm erciai Mis- their trade with Persia found a sequel in
o ersia. tlie mcasures ac J 0 p te( i } )y t j ie
^ ian overnments to foster trade with that country by complete enquiry
into the conditions of Anglo-Indian trade and the means necessary for its
development. M ith this object two commercial missions were despatched to
Pci sia, the earlier one under Mr. H. Maclean who was sent by His Majesty’s
b/irQoTeimeifo'f India ^ A - Glcadowe Yeomen who was deputed
24. In February 1903, the Government of India were informed by the Sec-
Mr. Maclean. rotary of State that Mr. Maclean had
v ^ _ been appointed by the Commercial Intel-
t'io^nf ^°““ lttee ’ as a Co “ lm i 8 5‘oner to inquire and report as to the condi-
!l°> n f 13 tlS f‘ r 4 d - e and , enter P rlse ln Persia, and they were asked to give him
t emnrts S o7N aC lh esam a n 1St f n f\ Mr - Mean’s tour, however, embraced
e mails ot Northern and Central Persia and his investigations were confined
specially to articles of British trade.