Page 43 - Gulf Precis(II)_Neat

Part I—Chap. VIII. 21

CHAPTER VIII.
MISSION OF SIR GORE OIJSELEY, HENRY ELLIS AND JAMES
MORIER, 1811-1814.—DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH
PERSIA.
CO. Sir Gore Ousoley concluded tlie Definitive Treaty in 1812, the basis
of which wa9 the preliminary treaty concluded by Sir Harford Jones. 8ome of
the stipulations of this Definitive Treaty were altered in England, and in order
to obtain the consent of the Shah to the modification, Mr. Henry Ellis was
sent on a mission to Persia. Mr. Ellis accordingly, in conjunction with
Mr. James Morier, then British Minister at the Court of Persia, signed with
the State Government an amended treaty on 25th November 1814.* “We 'Tiieso Treaties of
-
*
shall quote below the article 10 of the Treaty bearing on the Persian Gulf:— 1812 on«l 1814 oro
published in A it-
Should any Persian subject of distinction showing signs of hostility and rebellion take chiton t Treaties,
refuge in the British dominions, the English Government shall, on intimation from the Volume X.
Persian Government, turn him out of their country, or, if he refuse to leave it, 6hall seize and
send him to Persia.
Previously to the arrival of such fugitive in the English territory, should the Govornor
of the District to which ho may direct his flight receive intelligence of the wishes of the
Persian Government respecting him, ho shall refuse him admission. After such prohibition
should such person persist in his resolution, the 6uid Governor shall cause him to be seized and
sent to Persia, it being understood that the aforesaid obligations are reciprocal between the
contracting parties.
61. Sir Henry Willock was sent to Persia as the British Envoy in 1816,
and arrived at Teheran in July of that year.
62. In 1823 the control of the British relations with Persia was trans­
ferred from the Home Government to the Government of India, and the
Envoy of the Governor-General of India were substituted for the plenipoten­
tiary of the Crown. This change was accepted most reluctantly by the Shah,
which wa9 believed by him not only to be derogatory to his dignity, but
dangerous to his power. The conflict between two rival Envoys representing
the Crown and the Government of India, ending in the discomfiture of the
latter had lowered the position of the John Company in the eyes of the
Persians, while the British expeditions for the suppression of piracies in the
Persian Gulf, ending in the occupation of the Kishm island, had impressed the
Persians with the notion that the Indian Government was a very aggressive
Power.
63. After the treaty of Turkomancbai in 1828 with Russia, opportunity
was taken by British Envoy to purchase abrogation of the 3rd and 4th articles
of the Treaty of 1814 by payment of 200,000 Tomans as one year’s subsidy.
This had one further effect—increasing the Gulf between Persia and Great
Britain. The Persian power was treated by us a negligible quantity, and
Persia in its turn regarded our power with contempt.
64—66. The British merohant9 had for long not even a commercial treaty
on a solid basis to protect them ; Malcolm’s Treaty of 1801, the Shah’s Govern­
ment contended, bad been abrogated by the Treaty of 1814. The preamble of
that Treaty of 1814 provides that a commercial treaty should be concluded after­
wards, but tliis was not done at the time. The British representatives, Mr. Ellis
and Mr. Morier in 1814, addressed a note to the Shah proposing that commerce
should remain on the footing of the Treaty of 1801, but this proposal was
never accepted.
66. In 18231 a farman was granted by the Shah abolishing the export duty
on horses, and another granted in 1836
t See Aitchlaon’a Treaties, Vol. X.
permitting British merchants to trade on
the same duties as paid by the Russians. A commercial treaty was not con­
cluded till after the occupation by us of Karrak in 1839.
67. On accession of Mahomed Shah* in 1836, the crown resumed the
-
control of our relations with Persia, and sent Sir Henry Ellis as His Majesty’s
Envoy.