'Lord Curzon's Notes on Persia: About 1889-1890' [‎686v] (1393/1486)

57o
JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF ARTS.
[Miy 10 , i 88 <).
telegraph was now working half way from
Kharremabad to Dizful, and it would be com
pleted by the end of the year. He had been by that
road about eight times, and had spent thirteen
months in those mountains, where he was very glad
to hear of the good impression which Mr. Mackenzie
had left behind him. Only four months ago he
received a letter from one of the chiefs, saying how
he was looking forward to meeting him again.
Sir Frederic Goldsmid said that this was one of
the few parts of Persia which he had not personally
visited, and as he had not seen the Kanin river
beyond the mouth, he was unable to add much to the
discussion.
Mr. T. K. Lynch said he had been connected with
these countries from 1841 , when, for the first time in
the history of the world, his ships, rounding the Cape,
opened direct communication between London and
Bushire and Bussorah, and for many years his
steamers alone kept up a line of direct communica
tion with the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. . When the Suez Canal
opened, he entered into relations with the large
commercial line in which Mr. Mackenzie was in
terested, and confined himself to river navigation
on the Karun, Tigris, and Euphrates. On the two
latter he had been very successful in developing
trade, so that Manchester goods could now be de
livered much cheaper in Teheran by that route than
through Russia. The river freight was now from 28 s.
to 30 s. to Baghdad, and about one per cent, more to
Teheran; that being the main route for pilgrims to
Kerbela and Nejif, or Meshed Ali, to the west of
the Euphrates, the muleteers who brought down
pilgrims were generally able to take back mer
chandise at a very cheap rate. The same thing
applied to Hammadan. He had always argued
for the Karun route as being essential for
opening up the Shushter line, w’hich was in the
direct route from Mohammerah to Ispahan. He had
been in the country for sixteen years, and had studied
it intimately everywhere, except from Shushter to
Ispahan, and that portion he knew from Sir Henry
Layard’s travels, and surveys by Captain Selby with
Captain H. B. Lynch, and from wlat he learned from
these gentlemen his eyes were opened to the great
importance of the Kanin. He had a launch, and navi
gated it nearly a year, but at Bussorah the Turks
placed a heavy tax on every passenger, and he was
obliged to give it up. The Shah having opened the
river, his company had two vessels there within three
weeks, which were now making fortnightly trips,
though as yet at a great loss, having spent about
^ 2,000 and only got back about ,£ 500 . As Pro
fessor Vambery had very properly said, the Russians
had the oyster and we had the shell, for there was
nothing to be had by stopping our trade at Ahwaz.
The Persians had given them half a loaf, which was
better than no bread, but then they would not allow
them to eat it. It was no use having access to the
country unless they were allowed to deliver the
goods at the emporium of trade. They had delivered
goods at Hammadan and Teheran, giving through
bills of lading from London, and employing mule
teers ; now it was said that could not be done,
but that the Government must carry on the goods
from Ahwaz. If that difficulty could not be
got over, the trade would be too heavily handi
capped to be successful, but he hoped the
Government would insist on these restrictions
being removed. If goods could be consigned
and delivered to merchants at Shushter or Dizful
an enormous step would be gained. The route from
Dizful was a simple one, and the Persians themselves
had sufficient enterprise to develop that without the
assistance of England. If the Russians, however,
insisted on getting a concession for a railway from the
north to Teheran we ought not to be idle, and there
could be no doubt that between Ispahan and Shush
ter the route for a railway was the easiest possible.
In Europe railways were taken along the line of
rivers, as in the Alps, and the same might be done
here; and there was only one range of mountains
between the plateau of the Zenderud, which watered
the plain and city of Ispahan, and the sources of the
Kanin. And at one time it was contemplated to
tunnel it and make a canal to divert the waters of the
Kanin into the plain of Ispahan, and, in the present
day, nothing would be easier than to do so. That
would open the whole of that part of Persia to the
trade of England and India, which would be of great
importance not only from a commercial but from a
political point of view.
Mr. \V. Martin Wood remarked that there had
been a decline in the relative influence of England and
English interests in the north of Persia during the
last twenty or thirty years. Twenty years ago there
was a movement for opening up the navigation of the
Kanin, when it was opposed by the French, who
had then more influence at Teheran than they seemed
to possess lately; but, in any case, the question
arises why was not this promising concession
obtained long ago ? He believed that the decline
of English influence in Persia dated from the period
when the British Embassy at Teheran, which had
previously been under the Indian Government, and
Indian officers who knew the Persians, was trans
ferred to the Foreign Office, and placed in the hands
mainly of men who were strangers to the East. If
that were the case, the question arose whether it
would not be wise to revert to the former state of
things, and, more so, because it must be remembered
that India, and not the British Treasury, pays the cost
of the mission to Persia. The historical and literary
aspects of the question were very ably treated in
the paper in the Bombay branch of the Royal
Asiatic Society wffiich had been referred to. That
paper by Mr. Jamsetjee J. Mody was ready in
January', and could now be seen in the Society’s
Journal at the rooms in Alberaarle-street.