File 1311/1905 ‘Persian Gulf: - Post Offices. (Parcel Post Convention)’ [‎126r] (260/434)

I A Vf.
s
'Ik
'fa
^vdcP'Ut,
Aid. M-M
(Confidential.)
yUBPWiMr 1
W
i ’ /.
wu
u
To
uiW
ff
it*
jOU^
K
/
No. 3561 E.-A.
The SECRETARY to the
GOVERNMENT oe INDIA
' ’ ' - •■ - • '5
in the Foreign Department,
Sir A. H. HAUDINGE, K.C.B., K.C.M.G.,
HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY’S ENVOY
EXTRAORDINARY and MINISTER
PLENIPOTENTIARY at the COURT of
PERSIA, TEHRAN.
Dated Simla, the 19th September 1905.
Sir,
I am directed to invite attention to the correspondence ending with
your despatch No. 30, dated the 19th May 1905, regarding the British Post
Offices in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. .
2. On the 8 th June 1905, the Secretary oi State for India telegraphed
that you were being authorised to conclude, in consultation with the Govern
ment of India, an arrangement with the Persian Government on the lines of
the nroeedure which is observed at Constantinople in regard to parcel mails
from the United Kingdom. But in your despatch of the 19th May 1905
(above quoted), it is stated that Mons. Naus desires to conclude a Postal Conven
tion with the Government of India, and would like a representative^ ol the
Indian Post Office to be sent to negotiate or assist in the negotiation ot it.
3. Before coming to a decision on Mons. Nans’ suggestion, the Govern
ment cf India desire that the following considerations be laid before you.
4. They fully realise that the postal rights claimed for the British Post
Offices in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. (which question would presumably come within
the scope of such a general Postal Convention as is suggested) are somewhat
anomalous when judged by the rules of the Postal Union B^t at the same
time, their contention is that, for historical reasons these Post Offices occupy
a privileged position which ought not to be judged by, or made to conform to,
the rules observed by other nations. That this is also your view is deduced
from the terms of your telegram No. 22, dated the loth February 190o.
5 . In these circumstances, it is arguable that the Government of India
would be gratuitously abandoning their present advantageous position, it t eir
rights were to be formulated in a Postal Convention as desired by Mons. INaus,
and it would appear to be more consistent with Indian interests to limit the
negotiation to the conclusion of an arrangement with the Persian Go^ em
inent in regard to parcel mails only. By adopting tins course not only
would embarrassing questions be avoided as to the legitimate charactei of the
rights claimed by the British Post Offices, but His Majesty s Legation might
be able to carry on negotiations without the assistance of an Indian official,
doubtful points not elucidated by the information received from Constantinople
being referred to the Government of India for advice. The Government of
India would be glad to be favoured with your opinion on this point.
6 . Should you, after consideration of these points, hold that the conclusion
of a general postal arrangement is still desirable, the question of the deputation
<* fo r
l' W
\ ' ‘ V-
*