Letters and Papers Concerning the Trans-Persian Railway and Other Railways in Persia [‎147v] (294/442)

1960
194-9 Supply (Committee). HOUSE OF COMMONS Foreign Office.
A
%
f
t
* « #
i < *
[Sir G. Scott Robertson. ]
We have power, I think, practically to in
sist upon the construction of that railway.
We know by the rescript of Shah Nasr-ud-
Din, that should the right to construct a
railway be conceded to any other power,
we should have the power of constructing
a railway in South Persia. That was a
very important declaration by the Shah,
and it was confirmed, I think, by at least
one of his successors, about the year 1900.
With our commercial interests in the Gulf
and north of Baghdad, for instance, I be
lieve that they would not suffer; in fact,
trade would be very greatly increased. In
regard to the Trans-Persian Railway, I
noticed a short time ago in one of the
papers that the Moscow merchants are
protesting against its possible construction
on the ground that it will do injury to their
trade, which would suffer in competition
with Indian industries. Russia, as I said,
seems to have come to an arrangement
with Germany to link up their railways,
and that might be a reason why we might
put pressure on the Persian Government
to get our concession granted by the Per
sian Government. One does not know
rightly how the Germans managed to get
that concession, but I suppose they gave
something in return—some agreement on
the part of Germany that the Russian
position would be maintained in the North
of Persia. The question of the loan was
raised by the hon. Member who spoke last
—the loan to be granted jointly by the
Russian and British Governments to
Persia. I hope that a large portion of that
loan will be ear-marked in order to ensure
that the chaotic state of South Persia
may be remedied. It is really terribly
disgraceful, not only to Persia, but to
civilisation itself, that the dreadful things
that have gone on there are permitted—
starvation, brigandage, and chaos. As
far as Persia itself is concerned, I cer
tainly have no belief at all, frankly no
hope, from my knowledge, that such a
form of government as at present exists
in I ersia is possible. The hon. Member
for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), for whose
opinion, sincerity, and ability I have the
very greatest respect, I know holds an
entirely opposite view.
Mr. DILLON was understood to say that
the only view he ever expressed was that
the present Shah is better than the ex-
Shah.
Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSON : If it is a
question of comparison one would say that
the ex-Shah was the worse of the two, and
I think, on the whole, there has been more
chaos and disorder and more suffering,
which might have been remedied, since the
Medjlisstook over power than before. As
far as suffering goes, the one part which
is absolutely free from turmoil is under
Russian domination. I am afraid we have
interfered insufficiently, but it would be a
fatal mistake to attempt the plan of send
ing troops into South Persia. An enor
mous number would be required, while the
expense would be prohibitive and could not
be thought of at all. A great many
Friends of mine on this side of the House
believe that the one method by which
Persia can be reformed and redeemed is
through representative institutions; but
these people, the slaves of generations,
descendants of slaves through centuries,
cannot in a moment, simply by using the
term ‘‘Representative Government” or
“Constitutional Government,” be at
once and as by magic suddenly trans
formed. That is out of the question.
That is the opinion which I hold. It is
only by a strong Persian Gov-
6.0 p.m. eminent, not at all restrained
by a Medjliss, which is not at
present able even to combine in small
groups which could possibly coalesce, that
reform can be effected. The Medjliss had
very little and the Persians had very little
to do with the revolution. They are
not revolutionists. The revolution was
engineered and carried through by
Armenians and Georgians and Circassians
and Caucasians generally, upon any alli
ance, whenever they could, with those
cruel, ruthless troops of robber horsemen
that we know about so well. That has
been the position. There was nobody in
the Persian Medjliss, as far as I can dis
cover, concerned, and those robber horse
men who brought about such terrible pain
and suffering and trouble all through
Persia did so to attain their own selfish
and individual ends. I hope the right hon.
Gentlemen, when he comes to reply, will
be able to give us some reassurance about
the state of things in Persia generally, and
more especially about the state of turmoil
and chaos which has reigned so long in
Southern Persia.
Mr. BAIRD : I did intend to raise a few
questions connected with the details of the
Diplomatic and Consular services. I think
the time is too short to do so, but I would
venture to ask a few questions of the right
hon. Gentleman on a subject which I think
will be quite as important. I trust he will