'Report on the Persian Army' [‎30r] (59/170)

49
relations with Great Britain were illustrated by the insulting
dismissal of all English officers from the royal camp in the
summer of 183(), and when after two years of ineffective protests
and diplomatic duelling Sir John M’Neill finally hauled down his
flag and (putted Persia all British officers in the Persian service
were ordered to do likewise. Thus abruptly and futilely termi
nated the last appearance of British officers upon the parade
grounds or battlefields of Persia.
Failure though the experiment may have been, viewed in
the light either of immediate consequences or of its bearing
upon Anglo-Persian relations, it yet remains true that, such as
it is, the Persian army, even at this day, exists only by virtue
of what British officers did for it in the past, and that though
othei nationalities may have stepped in to claim, or more
frequently to ruin, the harvest, yet whatever of drill, or disci
pline, or efficiency, is still found among the soldiers of the Shah,
has sprung from the seeds which were so laboriously sown for
nearly thirty years by the exertions, and were even watered by
the life-blood, of Englishmen.
gmog up the enterprise, and the besieged being animated bv the skilful
enurts ot Lieutenant Lldred Pottinger. In March of the Pear J838 Sir
John M Neill arrived in the camp and endeavoured to persuade the Shah
to renounce his plans, but a few days later Count Simoimch came and gave
contrary advice, advanced money to the Shah, and instructed his aide-de-
camp, Captain Blaramberg, to undertake the direction of the orerations
against Herat. M’Neill sent Todd into Herat, and went there himself in
order to endeavour, if possible, to conclude a negotiation, being assured
before leaving the Persian camp by the Persian Prime Minister that he
was at liberty to act for the Shah’s (government with as full powers of
discretion as he would be invested with if acting in a matter directly
concerning the British Crown. The Afghans were willing to make peace
but the Persian Prime Munster’s bad taith upset all negotiations. Count
Simonit.ch s counsel prevailed with the Shah, and M’Neill, after many
explanations and protests, left the camp in June, arriving at 'Teheran on
the 30th July, and sent Colonel Stoddart to the Shah to say that if hostile
operations against Herat were continued all friendly relations with Great
Biitain must cease. I he Shah, “ preferring the friendship of Great Britain
to the conquest of Herat” (“Tarikh i No’ ), thereupon raised the siege (9th
September, 1838), and returned to Teheran, but some other complications
n.uing arisen and the Persian Government giving no satisfaction, M’Neill
hauled down bis flag and left on the 3rd of January, 1839. Soon after this
Husain Khan was sent to Europe in order to renew amicable relations with
the Court of St. James. Mitford, retrospecting these events, wrote that
the results of the Kussian intrigues which induced tl.e Shah to undertake
the march to Herat were that we were plunged into a ruinous and disastrous
war with Afghanistan, liussia, when asked to explain, disavowed the acts
of her accredited agents, and her Envoy, Count Simouitch, induced either by
promises or by threats, confessed that his orders had been to dissuade the
Shah from the expedition, but that quite on his own responsibility he bad
peisuaded him. the too zealous agent was made-to bear the odium, and
the Czar leaped the advantage. Simonitch was recalled to ;St. Petersburg
where he was soon after found dead in his bed, all his papers being burnt
and this was given out as ‘the suicide of a conscience-stricken a^ent ’ !
These lame explanations were really too barefaced for even English “belief
but eventually our firm Ministers, after breaking off all communication with
Persia for four years, at last overlooked all the insults offered to our officers
nd sacrificed the honour of the nation and every other point in dispute.”