‘Confidential. Persia’ [‎507r] (63/112)

60
1894.
Secret E„ September 1891, Proceedings Nos.
» 2 - 23 .
(1) Seistan.
The subject of Seistan appears to have
been mentioned to the Persian Govern
ment for the first time in 189T during a
conversation between the Shah and the
British Charge d’Affaires, Tehran.
No. 128 (Cooa.), dated Tehran, the 28th Mav
1»94.
C. Green, Esq., to the Earl of Kimberley,
“ I had a private audience of the Shah to-day.
* * * The conversation then turned
upon the question of Seistan, and His Majesty
assured me that he was fully alive to the import
ance of preserving- the integrity of that province
and of Kain, and told me that he had despatched
quite lately a confidential Agent to the brother
Chiefs to arrange the differences between them,
and see what could be done to strengthen their
hands.”
1901.
Secret F., June 1901,
Nos. 5-31, Proceeding No.
Ibid, No. 25,
The Earl of Kimberley approved of the
language which was held to His Majesty
on the occasion of this audience.
2 . On 28th April 1901 His Excellency
the Viceroy telegraphed to the Secretary
of State that there were rumours of
Bussia’s contemplating either the purchase
of Seistan or the farming of Seistan
revenues from Persia. It was pointed out
that any such action would be fatal to our
rapidly expanding trade, and would con-
stitute a grave ulterior menace to Balu
chistan, and the suggestion was made that
an intimation to the Persian Government
of the interest that we take in. Seistan,
ami of our inability to acquiesce in its
extinction might forestall any such move
if contemplated. On 6 th May Lord
Lansdowne in communicating the sub
stance of the Viceroy’s telegram to Sir A.
Hardinge concluded with the words : “ We
cannot, of course, tolerate any tampering
with Seistan by Prussia.” On 31st May
the Viceroy deprecated a proposal which
had been made to advance money to
1 lashmat-ul-M ulk, the Governor of Seistan,
for the purchase of the Crown lands, as a
Secret arrangement with him would give
us no control in Seistan, what was required
being a recognition by the Persian Gov
ernment of our predominant interest in
that country. At the same time we
might, he held, if necessary, so far be
friend ITashmat-ul-Mulk as to intimate
that his removal from the Governorship
would be viewed by us with most serious
disfavour. On 23rd June 1901 Lord
Lansdowne instructed Sir A. Hardin^e as
follows: —
Telegram No. 22, dated the 23rd June 1901.
The Marquis of Lansdowne to Sir A.
Hardinge.
In speahiog to Sadr Azam, you should dwell
on he importance of our commercial interests in