'PRINCIPAL DESPATCHES AND CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO PERSIA CONNECTED WITH THE SUMMARY OF EVENTS AND MEASURES OF VICEROYALTY OF HIS EXCELLENCY LORD CURZON OF KEDDLESTON IN THE FOREIGN DEPARTMENT. JANUARY 1899 TO NOVEMBER 1905. VOLUME IV-PART IV. PERSIA.' [‎13v] (31/136)

Against the cost of the appointments and increase of pay proposed may
he set off a certain amount of reduction. If the Resident at Bushire spends
his summer in Shiraz, we can, I think, do away with the native Agent Non-British agents affiliated with the British Government. . This
would save £ 160 a year. If we have a Consul at Ahwaz or Shuster, we can
abolish the Vice-Consulate at Mohammerah. This would save £ 490, or a little
less, as we may want to keep a Persian Agent there and possibly ope at Dizful
to do routine work. The native Agent Non-British agents affiliated with the British Government. at Kermanshah can be abolished, which
would save £ 24 a year. Finally, we can turn the Resht Consulate into a
Vice-Consulate, thereby saving £ 300 a year. A Consul at Resht is not neces
sary. He gets no information of Russian movements outside Persia, and he
has no British trade to look after. A Vice-Consul could do all that is required.
The money now spent at Kerman would be saved if a permanent Consulate
were established there. I may perhaps be excused for suggesting that we
might possibly employ to better advantage some of the money spent at Meshed.
No doubt it is an important centre, politically and commercially, and the
Government of India, who find the money, may not care to divert any portion
of it to ‘other posts in Persia. But after all a large portion of our trade in
Persia is British Indian trade, and the maintenance of Persia as a political
entity is largely, if not mainly, desirable on account of our Indian Empire.
It certainly seems to me that some portion of the £8,600 spent at Meshed,
and possibly some portion of the £7,700 spent at Bushire, might be better
employed elsewhere. At all events something could be spared for Seistan.
However, there is room for difference of opinion on this point, and I can only
suggest a saving of £ 1,474 on Resht, Mohammerah, Kerman, Kermanshah
and Shiraz. The saving at Shiraz could hardly take effect immediately, as we
should have to give the Nawab An honorific title; an official acting as a provincial deputy ruler in South Asia; or a significant Muslim landowner in nineteenth century India. some pension. We might, however, add to
our savings the Karun subsidy of £2,000 a year. In all probability Messrs.
Lynch would not receive this proposal with favour, but I do not think they
would abandon the Karun, where they are now firmly established. Half of the
sum would go to Her Majesty’s Government, and half to the Government of
India. The prospective payments and savings of the two Governments might
perhaps be arranged as follows:—
Payments.
England.
£
India.
£
Seistan...
800
Kerman
400
400
Bunder Abbas
500
Karun
400
400
Kermanshali
500
Urumia
500
Bam pur
• • •
500
Bahrein
500
Ispahan and Tabriz
...
700
...
Total
... 2,500
3,100
Savings.
England.
£.
India.
£.
Karun subsidy
1,000
1,000
Shiraz ...
160
Kerman
250
250
Kermanshah
24
Mohammerah
490
Besht ...
•••
300
...
Total
... 2,040
1,434
The total cost to Her Majesty’s Government, therefore, would be £ 460 a
year, and to the Government of India £1,666 a year.*
would be slightly Increased! 33,17 ^ kCeP AgCntS ° n the KarUn and befcween Seistan and Meshed, then the totals
" 14