"سكة حديد بغداد" [ظ‎‎٣‎٦] (١٢٩/٧٢)

*2. Engagements to Great Britain.
In 1807, under instructions from Lord Salisbury, Mr. Hardinge, the Chargd
d’Affaires here, in connection with certain rumours as to a contemplated Persian Loan,
requested, in a note to which a Memorandum was annexed, an assurance from the
Persian Government that under no circumstances whatever would the control of the
customs of Southern Persia be ceded to a foreign Power. The Memorandum annexed to
this note pointed out that it would be a grave error of policy to pledge to foreign
financiers the customs revenues of the Southern Persian ports. It added that Great
Britain wmuld protest against the alienation to a foreign Power of the Shah’s control
over the customs of Ins “ southern ports,” an expression which was altered in the Persian
text of the Memorandum to “control over the revenues of the customs of Southern
Persia.”
I he then Mushir-ed-Dowleb, on the 23rd October, 1807, replied to this note in
a communication ot which the English translation in our archives runs as follows :—
“ You have written that there was a rumour that the customs of Southern Persia
would be placed under foreign supervision and control as guarantee for a loan. I there
fore take this occasion of informing the Legation that this rumour is absolutely
without foundation, and that they will never be placed under foreign supervision and
control.”
The actual Persian text, which of course is the only one which the Persian Govern
ment would regard as binding on itself, is a little less lacking in precision : translated
literally it runs :—
“ This that you had written it has been rumoured that 1 some ’ (or ‘ certain ’) South
Persian customs are being placed under foreign supervision and control against the
amount ot a foreign loan, has been brought to notice, and it has been deemed necessary
lo bring to the notice of the respected Legation that the rumour is completely without
foundation and under foreign supervision and control ” (they—this pronoun is under-
stood, but docs not actually figure in the text) “never will be placed.”
Not long afterwards, in his despatch No. 149, of 4th November, 1897, Mr. Hardinge
reported that the Persian Ministers were negotiating a Dutch loan on the security'of
the southern customs, and intended to reconcile their action with the above assurance
by a declaration that as their payments would never be in arrears, the control and super
vision which they had promised us not to part with would never become effective ; in
other words, that they were free to pledge the southern customs, so long as they did
not actually cede them. 1 have little doubt that they would revive this contention to-day
if we argued that they had broken the engagement of 1897 by pledging the Customs of,
say, Kerman and Mohammerah (supposing the latter port to be excluded from the term
“Ears and the Persian Gulf”), and further, that they would lay great stress upon the
fact that the Mushir-ed-Dowleh, in his note of 23rd October, had only given an under-
taxing in respect of “ certain of the South Persian customs,” and not in respect of
them all.
It appeals to me, therefore, that before committing ourselves to a formal declaration,
or at any rate entering into a discussion of details with respect to this engagement, we
should first decide (1) whether it is undoubtedly violated in the letter, as 1 think it is in
the sp'rit, by the Russian loan contracts of 1900 and 1902 ; and (2) in what precise sense
we understand the terms “ Southern Persia ” and “ Ears and the Ports of the Persian
Gulf’’ respectively, since they are susceptible o r different interpretations.
What do we mean exactly by “ Southern Persia ” ? Is the expression to be under,
stood in contradistinction to “ Northern Persia ” ? In which case it would include the
southern half of the Shah’s dominions, i.e., the whole country south of, say, the 32nd
parallel of latitude, and take in not merely Arabistan, but Kerman and Seistan Or is
it “ Southern ” as distinguished from “Central” as well as “Northern” Persia? In
which case the northern limit would be drawn a good deal further south, and take in
the eastern frontier and the ports of Persian Baluchistan, but hardly Seistan or the
Upper Karun, i.e., Ahwaz and Shuster. It is evident to me that in 1901 your Lordship
had yourself not come to any definite decision on this question, for in your teleo-ram
No. 38 of that year, you pointed out to me as a reason for collecting the customs of
Arabistan at Mohammerah and not at Ahwaz. that those of the latter place mio-ht be
held to be pledged to the service of the Russian loan. &
M hat, again, is your Lordship’s view of the meaning of the term “ Ears and the
Ports of the Persian Gulf” ? In its narrowest sense, and in this the Russians doubt
less construe it, it might be restricted to the administrative Provinces of Ears, and to the