Page 310 - Gulf Precis (VII)_Neat

:
1
166

British goods, they are entitled to the benefit of the treaty. If such goods .are imported
or exported through a Persian firm, it will rest with that firm to show that the goods are
British. If the goods arc shown to be British, and the benefits of the treaty are refused,
you have the power to interfere on complaint being made, but you should not interfere
unless you arc satisfied that the goods are bond fide British goods.”
613. It was added that Government could not recommend that British
merchants should be restricted as to the choice of the agency whom they may
wish to employ ; and that it is not the province of the Government of India to devise
means for protecting the Persian Custom House from frauds committed by
subjects of the Shah.
614. Mr. Taylour Thomson then forwarded, for the information of the
Government of India, copy of a despatch to the Earl of Derby forwarding a
correspondence which he had with the Persian Minister for Foreign Affairs on
the subject of the evasion of customs dues.
The Minister stated in his letter that an order had been issued warning
Persian merchants not to accept agencies from foreign merchants at the Persian
ports and not to interfere with their goods or customs duty. The Minister asked
Mr. Thomson to issue distinct instructions to British subjects.
Mr. Thomson replied that specific charges and not general allegations were
required to deal with cases of the nature alleged, and he promised that if any
such cases were laid before the British consular officers on the spot, they would
\ receive full and impartial consideration.
Mr. Thomson went on to say that he could not admit the position assumed
by the Persian Minister that British merchants might be interfered with in the
-selection of their Persian agents, and he suggested the expediency of not issuing
the order containing the prohibition against Persian subjects acting as the agents
'of foreign merchants.
615. On the 28th April 1876 Captain Prideaux informed Mr. Taylour
I
Political A., June 1876, Nos. 121*37. Thomson that under instructions from
Tehran, the Governor of Bushirehad taken
'bonds from several Persian subjects not to act in future as agents to foreign
’tnerchants. Mr. Thomson having made representations to the Court at
Tehran, orders were issued to the Governor of Bushire not to take such bonds
and to return those which had been taken. The orders were duly complied
‘with.
(Ixc) Seizure by the Governor of Bushire of the wheat-cleaning machine of Messrs.
Paul, Grey & Co., 1878.
616. It appears from the correspondence of 1878 that the British India
Steam Navigation Company was anxious
Political A., 1878, Nos. 35*72.
of arranging for a call of their steamers
at Bandar Rig. But the Persian Government objected on the ground that
the trade and revenues of Bushire would decrease thereby. The Persian Govern­
ment were in fact jealous of the rising importance of Bandar Rig and other ports
to the north of Bushire and did their best in various ways to prevent the deve­
lopment of their trade, which they feared would be at the expense of that of
Bushire. They levied, for instance, an extra duty at Bushire on their
exports. In June 1878 the Governor of Bushire seized several wheat-cleaning
machines which Messrs. Grey, Paul & Co. had placed into boats for conveyance
from Bushire to Bandar Rig. In seizing and carrying them ashore one of the
machines was broken.
616A. Strong remonstrances were made at Tehran against these pro­
ceedings, with the result that the machines
Political A., June 1879, Not. 1*5 end io-3i.
were restored to their owners with 50
tomans as damages.
(Ixci) Embargoes on export of corn. Excess duty On exports from Bandar Rig.
Embargo in 1874.
617* We have seen above the great inconvenience and loss caused by the
sudden embargo laid on export of corn by the Persian Government in 1871 (vide