Letters and Papers Concerning the Trans-Persian Railway and Other Railways in Persia [‎194v] (388/442)

457
458
The Trans-Persian Railway. [ LORDS ] The 'Trans-Persian Railway.
Earl Curzon of Kedleston.
will be much nearer £30,000,000. It is said
that this railway will reduce the journey
from England to India from twelve and
a-half to seven or eight days.
>Such, my Lords, as far as I can give it,
is a brief outline of the scheme of which I
am asking your Lordships to discuss the
political, strategical, and commercial aspects
to-day. I think there have been evidences
of Government sympathy beyond those to
which I have already referred. I think I
am right in saying that the British and
Russian Ministers have been in consulta
tion at Teheran with the Persian Minister of
Foreign Affairs in order to procure an
option for the survey, and, later on, the
construction of the line. The Indian
Government have deputed one of their
Engineer officers, no doubt with the
knowledge and approval of the Government
at home, to examine the country lying to
the west of Karachi, between Karachi and
the eastern border of Persia, and I have seen
it stated, apparently on good authority, in
The Times newspaper that the Russian
promoters have agreed—I call the House to
notice the words “ Russian promoters,”
because they indicate the source from which
the active inspiration for the railway comes
—that the Russian promoters have agreed to
an equal participation at a later stage of the
three countries concerned in the finance of
the scheme. If I have been incorrect in
any of my particulars no doubt the noble
Viscount will put me right when he speaks
later on.
Now we come to the attitude of His
Majesty’s Government. Fortunately, since
I put down my Notice on the Paper this has
been defined in circumstances of some
precision by the Secretary of State, Sir
Edward Grey, in the other House of Parlia
ment, and I will ask your Lordships’ leave
to read what he said on the matter. These
are his words—
“ His Majesty’s Government do not in principle
oppose the Trans-Persian railway, and should under
proper conditions be favourable to the principle.”
He went on to say that His Majesty’s
Government must reserve to themselves full
freedom of action with regard to certain
points—namely, the alignment of the
railway, the constitution of the board, the
representation of British interests upon it,
freight, passenger rates, and in regard to the
break of gauge. Further, the Foreign
Secretary said—
“ Before it receives support from His Majesty’s
Government we should have to come to an agree-
ment with Russia witli regard to the branch lines
to be made, with regard to the retention and
control of lines in the British spheres, and with
regard to equality of treatment for British trade.”
The question of guarantees had been raised
in the House of Commons, and the Foreign
Secretary agreed that no guarantees should
be given without the consent of Parliament.
Finally, Sir Edward Grey said that he would
at a later date lay the report of the Societe
d’Etudes before the House, and that the
Government would state to the House under
what conditions they were prepared to con
sent to any definite scheme before the
country was absolutely committed. All
these are sound and valuable assurances.
I do not thank the Foreign Secretary for
having given them, because in the circum
stances of the case they were inevitable and
indispensable. He might have given more ;
no Foreign Minister could possibly have
given less.
The question I have to ask is, Do these
assurances go far enough ? I cannot help
thinking—and I should be only too pleased
to be disabused of the belief if it is wrong—
that when the Government have encouraged,
as they have done, the group of British
financiers; when they have interested ,
themselves, as I believe they have, in the
appointment of members of the council;
when they have set their diplomatic
machinery working in the interests of the
scheme; and when, lastly, they have •
declared their sympathy with it in principle
—when they have done this I cannot help
thinking that they have gone a long way in
the direction of support of this proposal.
Their attitude seems to me to be more than
an attitude of benevolent neutrality and to
be really an attitude of implied support if
not of positive encouragement of the
scheme. So much so that I can quite
believe that it may be a matter of rather
serious difficulty for them to retreat at a
later date, and if they come with definite
proposals before the House of Commons it
may be a matter of difficulty for their
supporters in that House not to see them «
through in this affair. It may even be a
matter of difficulty for the country, not
fully informed upon the case, not to support
the Government in the line that, according
to my hypothesis, it may have taken. And
thus, my Lords, it may be that, starting
from these inchoate proceedings to which I
referred just now we may end by finding
that we are more or less committed to a
measure of which I will only at this moment