'Selection from Correspondence Relative to the Traffic in Arms in the Persian Gulf, 1897-98. Part II' [‎47v] (40/52)

Other statements have been received and have appeared in the press to the
effect that the recent enforcement of its orders by the Persian Government
has entailed serious loss to the Birmingham trade. But the information
before his Bordship does not bear out this view, and tends to show that the
hulk of arms and ammunition illicitly imported into Persia was made abroad
and not in Birmingham, although the barrels made abroad and fitted abroad
have been tested in Birmingham. Lord Salisbury was therefore anxious to
obtain more precise information as to the actual shipments of the arms made
by you, and the extent of loss caused to British workmen and to your firm
by the suspension of the shipments. You were consequently asked to supply
particulars as to the total quantity of guns shipped by you in the past year.
To this you reply that you have shipped none to Persia during that period.
There is, therefore, no evidence of previous trade on your part before the
Secretary of State for Poreign Affairs on which he could found any
representations on your behalf to the Persian Government.
Butfitis open to any agent or correspondent of your firm in Persia to apply,
through Her Majesty’s Legation at Tehran, for a special permit for the entry
of sporting guns, provided it can be shown that the destination of the guns
precludes the risk of their being put to improper use.
I am, &c.,
W. G. Bonehill, Esq. (Sd.)
No. 25.
Enclosure in Eoreign Office Letter of 30th July 1898.
From Sir M. Durand to Foreign Office.
Political (Telegraphic.) No. 86. Your Lordship’s telegram No. 51. Arms
No. 2152/98. and ammunition seized at Bushire are being sent here, and are
beginning to arrive. No appeal has been made to me by merchants, but
I find that representations were made in December and January by
Messrs. Dixon, Fracis Times, and Livingstone Muir to Resident at Bushire
who referred to Legation. It was not urged that prohibition was unknown
to shippers or consignees, but merchants argue that prohibition was
nominal, and that arms were imported [openly] with permission of Persian
authorities and consent of Resident. I cannot find that any answer was
sent to Messrs. Dixon or Fracis Times, but answer in case of Livingstone
Muir was, that, though not rigidly enforced, prohibition had never been
withdrawn, and that recent seizures had been made with approval of Her
Majesty’s Government.
There is no doubt that illicit traffic was carried on with connivance of
Persian local authorities, but it might not be easy to prove connivance of
Persian Government.
Since my return Belgian Minister consulted me regarding possibility of
release of some Belgian arms belonging to Fracis Times on the ground that
they were sporting weapons. I answered that almost all could be used as
military weapons, that prohibition applied even to sporting weapons, and
that I feared Her Majesty’s Government would be unable to help Times, but
that this was my private opinion only.
Resident has not yet answered your
* H.C., 2124/98. Lordship’s telegram, No. 49* of
20th June {sic, ? July).
No. 26.
Enclosure in Foreign Office Letter of 30th July 1898.
The Law Officers of the Grown to the Marquess of Salisbury.
Royal Courts of Justice,
Political My Lords, 19th July 1898.
No. 2186/98. We were honoured with your Lordship’s commands, signified in
Sir Thomas Sanderson’s letter of the 13th instant, in relation to the recent
seizure of arms at Bushire ex the steamship “ Beluchistan.”