Letters and Papers Concerning the Trans-Persian Railway and Other Railways in Persia [‎162r] (323/442)

2007 Supply {Committee). 10 July 1912
Foreign Office. 2008
“ All these measures can be regarded as tending in
the same wholesome direction and making f6r the
betterment of the Congo, its people, and its commerce.”
I take this opportunity of bringing this
matter before the House for the reasons
I have stated. I resent the assumption
that the Belgians are like the Portuguese
and the Russians; are alleged to be without
humanity, and only care to oppress and ill-
treat those who have the misfortune to be
under their jurisdiction. I ask the Under
secretary to note this point regarding the
Baghdad Railway, in which I have taken
an interest for a good many years, because
it is a question which has now come more
within the bounds of practical politics.
What I want to know is whether since the
Gulf section was abandoned by the Ger
man Concessionaries and the new arrange
ment was foreshadowed by which the five
Powers to deal with this last Gulf sec
tion, each Power, providing one-fifth of
the capital, it is true that Turkey made
counter proposals expressing a preference
for the participation of four Powers and
excluding Russia from participation. That
has been stated, but I do not know
whether it is true. If it is true, I should
regret very much the exclusion of Russia,
because Russia has purchased a right to
participate in this matter, not only by her
position in Asia Minor and in the East, but
by the action she has taken in undertaking
to construct a railway which will be linked
up with this line to Baghdad. It was
stated to-night that there was to be a
further concession on the part of Turkey
in order to provide funds for this purpose.
The British nation, very unwisely, made
a concession to Turkey some time ago in
order that good government might be
carried on in Macedonia, with the result
that no more money was spent.
I should like to say a word upon a
subject which nobody has yet mentioned,
and that is the position of the opium ques
tion in China, or rather not so much the
opium question as the position of those
Indian traders who have very large
stocks, Avorth some £5,000,000 or £6,000,000,
locked up in Treaty Ports. The arrange
ment made was, and the Indian Finance
Members laid stress upon it in the Council,
that China was to take certain action to
stop the cultivation of the poppy, and
India was to take corresponding action.
The action of the one Power was to be
dependent upon similar action taken by
the other. It is absolutely notorious, and
the hon. Gentleman in his reply to me
admitted that the position is very serious.
There is no dispute about the fact that
the Chinese Government are wholly un
able to enforce the suppression of the
poppy in those provinces in which it
chiefly grows. On the contrary, it is
well known the poppy flourishes there.
There is no prospect whatever of stopping
the use of opium in China, and all that
results from the present position is that
those who use opium in China, instead
of getting the best quality and the least
injurious from India are using an inferior
quality locally grown, while the unfortu
nate Indian taxpayer is going to be taxed
to make up a deficiency in the annual
revenue of some five millions which out of
altruistic motives, which are pressed upon
the Government in this House only, is
about to be relinquished. I do not wish to
reopen the question of the principle. I do
not expect that, but I do expect that
until the Chinese Government can carry
out their share of the bargain, the British-
Indian Government shall not be called
upon to carry out their share to the great
detriment of British merchants engaged
in the opium trade and of British-Indian
taxpayers who will have to pay more for
their salt, or be otherwise injuriously
affected by this contract between the two
Governments.
I have one more subject to which I
must refer as I have taken an interest in
it for a great many years. In a leading
article the “Times” the other day, re
ferring to a question I put to the right
hon. Gentleman opposite, respecting the
Trans-Persian Railway, said his reply was
not entirely satisfactory. I venture to
think that is the case. I asked him
whether, as a result of communications
with the military authorities in India we
were to assume they had in point of
fact approved of the Trans - Persian
Railway. I understood from his silence
rather than from what he said that is
not the case. It is a matter of such
very great importance that I should like
him to mention it if he is going to reply.
I should like him also to say whether the
principle is conceded. Is the British
Government committed in principle to the
construction of this line, because I do not
think that should be done until the whole
matter has come before the House of Com
mons and until the opinions of the respon
sible military authorities, both in India
and in England, are before us. It seems
to me there is a danger that the principle
is going to be quietly conceded, and
against that I must certainly protest. It
reverses the whole of our traditional