"دليل الخليج. مجلد I. القسم التاريخي. الجزء II. ج. ج. لوريمر. ١٩١٥" [‎٢‎٦‎٥‎٥] (١٢٦٢/١١٧٢)

2655
by the A^la-ud-Dauleh to his Government as an arbitrary demand that
he should come off to the Viceroy^s ship " like the Sultan of Masqat/^
and also as having been made by the British authorities an indispensable
condition of the Viceroy's landing*. The A^la-ud-Dauleh also failed to
return an official call which was paid him by the British Naval Com
mander-in-Chief.
The incident^ terminated on the spot, immediately became the Subsequent
subject of diplomatic discussions in which the initiative was taken by discussions
the Persian Government; on the 9th of December the Persian Minister
in London informed Lord Lansdowne of the facts as communicated to
him by the Persian Government and drew His Lordship^s attention to
<e the very discourteous action of the Viceroy^ which would be extremely JJ
" injurious to the relations of the two Governments
On the minuter features of the controversy which followed it is
unnecessary to dwell. The opinion of His Majesty^ Government, reached
on the 12th of January 1904, was that the matter was not one justifying
a demand for a formal apology from the Persian Government. In the
first place it could not, according to international practice, be claimed
as of right that the Viceroy should be received as the King^s represent
ative when visiting, in the course of a tour, the dominions of an
independent sovereign at whose court the King was already represented
by a duly accredited Envoy : all that could be asked was that he should
be treated with the courtesy and respect due to an official of the highest
rank. Again, there was no precedent for the claim that a Persian
Governor should conduct a foreign representative, or official of whatever
rank, to the Consulate of his country and there pay him the first visit;
on the contrary, the ceremonial insisted on by the Shah was in exact
accordance with the procedure laid down by the protocol of Turkmanchai
for the reception of foreign Ambassadors in Persia. Besides, it would
be difficult to argue that there was any want of courtesy or friendliness
in the programme proposed by the Shah, inasmuch as it had been at
first accepted in full by Lord Curzon. Nor was it unnatural for the
Shah to feel that, by the adoption of the ceremonial desired by Lord
Curzon, he might appear to acknowledge a claim on behalf of the
Viceroy to some pre-eminent authority in a part of Persia; and, more
over, the ceremonial at Bushehr would form a precedent for the reception
of a Russian Governor-General in Northern Persia.
Accordingly^ on the 25 th of January, a memorandum was delivered
to the Persian Minister in London in which was stated that His
Majesty's Government saw no advantage in a discussion of the
details of the incident; that they fully appreciated His Majesty the
Shah 's desire to give a fitting and honourable reception to the Viceroy;
and that they greatly regretted that His Imperial Majesty's intentions
should have been defeated by local difficulties and objections : at the
same time they thought that the arrangements made at Bushehr were
hardly in accordance with the Shah's courteous intentions, and they
considered that the main responsibility for the unfortunate failure must
rest with the Persian authorities. Attention was also drawn to the
A'la-ud-Dauleh's omission to return the British Admiral's call.
The Persian Government, however, did not accept this view of the
case, and the discussion was almost immediately re-opened in consequence