File 200/1928 Pt 5 'Persia: Anglo-Persian Relations, Treaty Negotiations' [‎47v] (99/1132)

Article 4.
Tf will be seen that the alterations to the Henjam protocol are numerous
unwelcome With regard to the duration of the lease the ridiculously high fr
eTL ” stultifies the proposal contained m my telegram No. 1?
of £2 oSThere*:suggested'stultifies'the proposal contained m my telegram N“o.
the 28th July that an additional £100 might in the last resort be ottered m excha,
for the additional five years which the Persian Government at present refuse |
consider. 3 _ Thfj su ted rest itution of the original phrase “ pourvoir j
1’approvisionnement en vivres et en, combustibles together with the restrieti*
phrase “dans le but mentionnd a Particle 3 now inserted m the tollowiaj
paragraph is, of course, objectionable in that it excludes general ship s stoies Iron
the exemption to be accorded.
(&) His Majesty’s Government have already agreed to the substitution id
question. . . .
(c) The addition suggested, though unnecessary, would seem unobjectionable,
A rticle 4.—Paragraph 1 contains the objectionable restriction referred to above,
No mention is made of the “station telegraphique. ’ Although His Majesty's
Government are prepared to negotiate eventually a separate convention about tie
telegraph concession, it is necessary, pending the conclusion of the convention, to
make provision for the telegraph station at Henjam.
Otherwise there is no change of importance.
Article 5.—“Formalites de passeport ” presumably include the necessity for
obtaining visas on each occasion, and the applicability of these formalities to tie
staff of the canteens, storehouses and wireless stations would evidently cause
unnecessary trouble and expense.
Article 6.—The draft here proposed will be seen to bear little relation to tie
amended text verbally discussed at my interview of the 28th July and enclosed ii
my despatch No. 368 of the 29th. It provides, in fact, for unrestricted control If
the Persian authorities within the enclosure, and, in addition, saddles His Majesty’s
Government with the responsibility of ensuring that the control is maintained while
omitting all reference to the way in which this is to be achieved.
Article 7.—The emendation to paragraph 1 seems unimportant. The stipula
tion that warships should arrive during the daytime only is clearly ridiculous,
I presume that the normal practice is for a vessel arriving during the night to get
in touch with the quarantine authorities as soon as the latter come on duty the
following morning, and I see no reason why, in the case of Henjam, those vessels
arriving during the night should not hoist the £ £ L ” flag at daybreak. Possibly
some clause may be necessary giving an undertaking that the crews of such ship
r. I 10 ^ ^ flowed to land or to communicate with other ships before hoisting
this nag. # r
JT&pd the last paragraph of the Persian draft article, it is not dear
hefnr 1 18 m that the vessel shall be considered to have received pratique
e e lver y certificate in question to the quarantine officer, or whether,
certifiratp °n ^ i P ratl( l ue to be made conditional on the receipt of the
convemWp It ?fT pt i 0n there seems ^tle to choose, in point of
but in anv rasp ^ an( * tPe v i s it of the quarantine officer to the ship
should be eon^Hp,P^ P T ob ^ctionable in that the hoisting of the “L” flag
demanded. d d & perfectl y ad equate substitute for the written assurance
outlineTin your telegram No” oh£ f T COUrSe ’ inacc eptable, for the reaso*
on a formula whioh J?H Q +1 \ ^ 29th January last, instructing me to insist
(I need hardlv add that T lf aSt C ° Ver a ! Ma i est y’ s forces, including flying boats
the use of^ni^byafrerafiTfor 8 ? lad n ° 0 PP OTtu “ty to broach the quest!®
m your telegram No 21 to raisAl ! n n 1 lr V ose3 ' a matter which I was authons*
position.) b to ralse ’ lf 1 conld d <> so without prejudicing the general
days’ limit for vessels usInirtlfN^ ! | d° rrae d me that the Admiralty consider a se' tl
Article 10 -7he rSw t0 b , e ^ uite out oi the question. „ ,
in the light of the demands nnf f emanded 18 ap the more exorbitant, when consider
Article 11 ““Jl P sni 0 T al ; d m ? onnexi on with Bahrein,
speciale,” dealing with the ^ e u hlS c °mments on article 5) “ une »»'
the case of article 1 it is I nresnA ' dienjarn and at Basidu. Here, > s '
published. ’ ’ 1 p esume > 00nsi dered essential that the notes should ^