ملف ١٩١٦/٣٨٣٩ جزء ١ "بلاد فارس: - مقدار النفقات - مسألة مراجعة اتفاقية سنة ١٩٠٠" [ظ‎‎٢‎٠‎٣] (٨٨٠/٤١٩)

and the Consulates in the Persian Gulf, when the further report of the
Government of India regarding them has been received. In para
graph 4 of the letter of the Government of India, dated the 17th
November last, the total reductions at Bushire and the Consulates in
the Gulf are provisionally stated at about Us. 67,509 (4,46 N.). The
observation o£ the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will be borne
in mind when the report of the Government of India above referred to is
being examined in detail.
With reference to the remarks in the latter half of your letter
regarding the redistribution of Consular posts in Persia between the
Levant and the Indian services, I am to say that the Earl of Crewe has
given this subject his most careful consideration, and regrets that he is
unable to find himself in agreement with Sir E. Grey.
In Sir C. Hardinge’s letter of 20th February 1909, stress is laid upon
the effect of the Anglo-Russian Convention in this connection. While
far from under-estimating the value of that instrument, Lord Crewe is
not convinced by recent events that the time has yet come when Indian
interests can be regarded as so securely established vis-a-vis of other
Powers that any reasonable precautions can safely be neglected ; and
the present moment, when the advent of German competition is
threatened in regions which hitherto have largely been supplied by
India, and when the construction is contemplated of railways that will
touch Indian interests in many vital points, would seem to him to be
singularly inopportune for the withdrawal of Indian officers from any
posts within the British sphere.
As regards Bagdad, I am to' say that in view of the present impossi
bility of obtaining for British Indians, even with an Indian officer as
Consul-General and Political Resident, the protection enjoyed elsewhere
by British subjects, Lord Crewe could not contemplate with equanimity
the substitution of an officer of the Levant Service, who, whatever his
merits, would, from his experience and training, possess no experience
of Indian feelings and customs, while the policy recently followed by
His Majesty’s Consul at Basra, of which Sir E. Grey found it necessary
to express his disapproval, in connection with Mohammera, furnishes an
example of the extent to which even an experienced and able officer of
that service may fail to appreciate the wider interests of India and
Great Britain in the Persian Gidf. Whether purely British interests
would, in the present state of our relations with Turkey, be any better
served by a reduction in the establishment of His Majesty’s represen
tative at Bagdad is not a question for the Secretary of State for India.
But I am to invite attention to the letters on this subject from successive
Consuls-General which are already in the posseesion of your Depart
ment, and to the information recorded in Mr. Lorimer’s summary for
April-May Section IX (7) to the effect that Nazim Pasha had complained
to the Turkish Government of the size of the British Residency, and
and had recommended that steps be taken to obtain the abolition of the
British post office and the removal of the Residency Guard and of the
R.I.M.S. Comet.
As regards the incidence of expenditure at Bagdad (vide ante
penultimate paragraph of Sir Charles Hardinge’s letter above quoted) I
am to enclose a memorandum from which it will be seen that, despite
the intention of the Agreement of 1900, the effect of that instrument
has been to throw on Indian revenues in respect of Persia and Turkish
Arabia an excess charge which more than covers the expenditure on the
Bagdad Residency.
TV hile, therefore, Lord Crewe is not less anxious than Sir E. Grey to
reduce expenditure, he is strongly of opinion that in the present conflict
of international interests in the middle East this cannot be regarded as
the paramount consideration.
I have, &c.,
The Under Secretary of State, R. Ritchie.
Foreign Office.