Letters and Papers Concerning the Trans-Persian Railway and Other Railways in Persia [‎207v] (414/442)

675
Persia.
[LORDS]
Persia.
676
Lord Lamington.
somewhat by the action last year of His
Majesty’s Government in sending a detach
ment of troops up to Shiraz and Isfahan.
That detachment was either too small or
too big. It was too small to do anything
with regard to maintaining order in the
country, but it was sufficiently large to
create feelings of animosity.
I have recently been in Persia, and
throughout my journey I found one feeling
of depression and despondency among the
Persians with whom I came in contact,
whether individually or collectively, owing
to the passing away, as they consider, of
their freedom. I know T nothing more
depressing than a journey in Persia at the
present time. That is the result of the
Convention, or rather of the working of
the Convention by His Majesty’s Govern
ment. In my view the Revolution gave a
splendid opportunity, it was a real godsend,
for putting life and spirit into the declara
tion that it was intended to maintain the
independence and integrity of Persia.
Recently Sir Edward Grey in another
place stated that a very large section of
Russian opinion is discontented at the
working of the Convention. They regard
the Convention as a self-denying ordinance
and a one-sided affair, and believe that
Russia has given up a great deal and
obtained very little in return. I am aware
that those views are held by a large body of
Russian opinion. At the same time, I
believe there is a section of the Russian
people who are opposed to any territorial
extension of their responsibility. Those
two rival parties have their representatives
in Persia itself, and instances have occurred
time after time in which it has been found
that the responsible Minister, the authority
representing Russian interests in Persia,
has adopted one policy and his lieutenants
have acted almost diametrically opposite.
The Minister may be loyally endeavouring
to carry out the terms of the Convention,
but his subordinates have been advancing
Russian interests to the detriment of those
of Persia.
I admit that this makes the work of our
diplomatists much more difficult, but I do
not think it absolves His Majesty’s Govern
ment from putting more strength and
vigour into their negotiations with Russia
for the carrying out in a proper spirit of the
terms of the Convention. Only last week
in this House we had practically an admis
sion from the noble Viscount, Lord Morley,
that the principle of the Trans-Persian
railway was accepted by His Majesty’s
Government under coercion. They did not
adopt it in the interests of India, but
because something dreadful might have
happened had they refused the proposal as
put before them. It is clear from the
Blue-book on Persian Affairs recently
; published that that is not the only occasion
; on which we have been very submissive in
our dealings with Russia. Your Lordships
may remember that, after Mahomed Ali had
been dismissed from his Throne and had
taken refuge in Europe, he returned through
Russian territory and had a series of fights
wdth his countrymen in order to regain his
Throne if possible. As is shown in the
Blue-book, time after time it has been
represented what harm has been done to
Persian interests and to British and Indian
interests by the ex-Shah’s return, and how
the great tribe, the Bakhtiari, had to take
the best men from their country and go
and fight the ex-Shah, with the result that
the money supplied to Persia for the purpose
of her regeneration, iastead of being spent
j on improving the administration in
Southern Persia, had to be spent in meeting
: the ex-Shah. Finally he was defeated and
had to leave Persia.
May I allude to one curious misconception
which I think Sir Edward Grey is under ?
He said that it was only owing to Russian
influence that the ex-Shah was got rid of
and had to leave Persia. That is a travesty
of what took place. Had it not been for
Russian support the ex-Shah would not
have been living at this time, or he would
have been a wandering pauper in some
other part of the world. It was recognised
that, having returned to Persia, he was not
justified in claiming any longer his pension,
but on the representation of Russia his
pension was allowed to be awarded to him
again. Sir Edward Grey, in a telegraphic
Despatch of January 17, said—
“ A condition of the renewal of the pension must
be that Great Britain and Russia will lend Persian
Government their support against Mohamed Ali if
he returns to Persia without the consent of the two
Powers.”
After a long series of Despatches I gather
that the ex-Shah finally left Persia about
two months after that date, with the only
stipulation that he should not return to
Persia or should forfeit his pension if he
returned to Persia “ without the consent of
the Russian Government.” The consent
of the British Government was waived, as