Page 120 - The Persian Gulf Historical Summaries (1907-1953) Vol IV_Neat

Ill

APPENDIX (IJj.

Persian Undertakings respecting British Hailway Construction in Persia.
H\ the RuBSO-Poihinn Agrccinont of the llth Novcmlior, 1890, the Persian Government engaged
that no railway* hIiouM l»o constructed in Persia for leu years, on the termination of which period
" tho renewal of the Arrangement shull he iininedialuly dismissed lie tween the two pailies.’’ The term
°ft this engagement in understood to have been since prolonged up to 1910, hut the Persian Grand
Vizier informed thq British Charge d'Affaires in 1901! that ho had intimated to Count Lamsdorff that
" Persia would not agree to a further renewal of the Railway Agreement with Russia, which would
terminate in 1910."
On the 1 Glh September, 1888, the then Shah (Nasir-ud-diu), in an autograph rescript to the
Ministor for Foreign Affairs, gavo assurances as to British preferential rights in regard to railway
coustructiou in Southern Persia in tho following terms:—
"Convoy these commands to his Excellency the [British] Minister Plenipotentiary. Even give
him this very autograph in order that he may keep il and ho satisfied that our former promise with
regard to the priority of the English Government over others in the construction of a southern
railway to Tehran continues to hold good; and certainly, whenever Hailway Concessions in the
north, &c., are given to others immediately a Concession fur a uiilway from Tehran to Shuster or such
a one will be given to the English Company ; and, of course, then the clauses and conditions will also
be examined in order that it l*c to our advantage and interest and for tho benefit of tho commerce of
both parties; and positively no southern railway without consultation with the English Government
will he granted to any foreign country.
" P.S.—And it is clear that in Persia nobody will las granted permission to construct railways,
oxcept it ho solely commercial ones. We say so now that they may know it."
On the 4th April, 1900, tho British Charge d’Affuircs ul Tehran was instructed to remind the
Persian Government of this engagement, and to "mako sure that the Shah, i.e., Nosir-ud-din’s
successor, the late Muzaff.ir-ud-din Shall,” was aware of its " existence." Mr. Spring-Rice accordingly
communicated u copy of the rescript of 1888 in an official note to the Persian Minister for Foreign
Affairs, requesting that it might lie laid before the Shah. Both the Grand Vizier, to whom a second
copy of the communication was given; and the Minister of Foreign Affairs promised that this should
be done at once, ami Mr. Spring-Rice subsequently learnt from the Shah's doctor that the matter hail
been explained to His Majesty, and that the latter had seen tho document. On tho llth April, 1900,
the British ChargiS d’Affaires, at a farewell interview with the Shah, who was about to Btart for
Europe, thought it best not to mention the subject; but, on withdrawing, he was informed orally by
the Grand Vizier that the rescript had liccn laid heforo the Sliuh, “ who regarded it ns of binding
force.” The Grand Vizier added that for the next ten years the question of concessions would not
arise owing to the Russian Railway Agreement, but that if the Russians raised it, tho Shah would
produce his father’s promise to Great Britain. The Minister for Foreign Affaiis told Air. Spring-Rice
that this was the answer to his ollicial note.
The Government of India, on the 2nd September, 1907, raised tho question of whether the pledges
given in 1888 Were affected by the recoutly concluded Anglo-Russian Agreement. This question
appears to lie still under the consideration of His Majesty’s Government.