« 이전계속 »
.service elsewhere or increasing his pay, to beat and imprison liim, and force him to work unpaid anil unhappy. I say that your Highness might have the power to do this, but it would be oppression, and not right or law; and I feel assured that His Majesty the Shah is too humane to permit such proceedings, and your Highness too enlightened to practise them.
Now the case of Meerza Hashera Khan is something of this nature; he found his salary too small for his necessary maintenance, and he applied to your Highness for an increase. Your Highness did not think fit to grant bis petition; but you informed him '* that you would not give him any more salary, and that he might go about his business, and get more where he could." Such is the answer that your Highness told me yourself, in presence of a member of t his Mission, you had given to the Meerza; he considered this qs a dismissal, and from that time never asked for nor received any pay from the Government. It is also quite evident that at that season, and also at the time of my arrival in Tehran, your Highness did uot consider the Meerza as one of the actual servants of the Government, otherwise you would certainly have applied to Mr. Thomson, imd afterwards to myself, to induce him to return to the duties of his service.
From all these circumstances, with which I have troubled your Highness in detail, it is clear that I, on finding Meerza Ilashom Khan residing in the Mission on my arrival, and knowing that he had been more than a year out of the pay and employment of the Government, had just the same right to engage his services on the part of the British Government as I had to engage those of any Meerza, pish-khidmet, or other Persian subject in Tehran.
In obedience to the instruction of Her Majesty's Government, I have given him his tezkereh * as British agent at Shiraz, and your Highness well knows that in that town, or on the road, or in his own house, he is as completely under the protection of the British flag us if ho were within the walls of the Mission. If your Highness, therefore, causes him to be impeded or molested in the discbarge of his duties, the responsibility of the serious consequences which must ensue will fall on your Highness.
H.E. The Sadr Azim. CH. A- MCBIiAy.
(Incloture 6.)—The Sadr Azim to Mr. Murray. (Translation.) 30 Sefer, 1272. (November 11, 1855.)
I Have received your Excellency's letter of the 8th instant, Although the proper and distinct answer to this question is exactly that contained in my letters' of the 5th and 0th, and justice does not leave any room for discussion in the matter j still, for making the
arguments more perfect, and to elucidate the case, by the Shah's orders, I beg to trouble you with this last letter in full detail.
You stated that the customs in this respect, that is, in diplomatic affairs, were similar in Europe to those in force in Persia; and that in Europe also, the commands of the Sovereign were received with obedience and submission. Such being so clearly the case, and both of us being aware of the fact, it is quite unnecessary that we should involve ourselves in troublesome discussions on the subject. But as your Excellency admits this point you ought not to have felt surprised that His Majesty the Shah should have personally taken a part in the discussion, because this is not the first instance of this rule having been adopted, nor is it an innovation. If you will take the trouble to refer to the letters in your office received from the Persian Ministers, you will certainly perceive that in a great number of these communications, expressions such as these are used:— "I have to inform you, by order of His Majesty the Shah," or, "I have laid your letter before the Shah, and His Majesty has commanded me to give the following reply." More than this, it has often happened that copies of the Shah's autograph notes addressed to me, have been enclosed in my letters, and even the original autographs have frequently been transmitted for the information of the Chief of the Mission. At all events, whether the customs in Europe in this respect are the same, or whether they are different, in this country the source from which originate all commands, both trilling and of great importance, is the person of His Majesty the Shah-in-Shah (may our souls be his sacrifice!), and all the letters written by this Government tend to prove that such is the case. Since things existed this has always been the practice in this country; and hereafter never will any change be allowed to take place. After all, the execution of the Shah's orders only, and the discussion of all matters, depend upon the Chief Minister of the State, and in foreign affairs the Foreign Minister shares with him his duty.
You also write that I had evinced a desire to strengthen the bonds of friendship between the 2 Governments; this had no reference whatever to any former official agreement, and I do not understand your object. This can only be explained when I see you, and discuss the matter verbally with you. But with regard to your statement, that you regretted that the letter I had written by the Shah's commands would alter the opinion which Her Majesty the Queen of England would have formed of my friendship for the British Government from your letters to the Government; indeed, the expression of regret and surprise should come from me, because, from the day that I assumed the office of Sadr Azim, up to the present time, on every occasion 1 have clearly proved the strong desire by which I am actuated siiuerely to cement the friendship between the 2 countries; and it is ns clear as daylight that in justice no doubt can be entertained of this. But this circumstance cannot be made an argument that I should abolish the old-established customs of Persia. Certainly, Her Majesty the Queen, who takes a friendly interest in Persian affairs, instead of desiring that other regulations should be added to those now existing for the benefit of this country, will not alter her opinion of me for having preserved an old and wise rule observed in Persia, and necessary for the independence of this nation, and that Her Majesty will still retain the opinion of my friendship which she has formed from your previous letters, because she cannot wish to see this country thrown into a state of confusion. It is clear that the foundations of friendship are strengthened for the purpose of increasing the prosperity and improving the state of this country, not with a view to abolishing those laws which at present exist.
With regard to your agents in the Persian provinces besides Tabreez and Bushire, you bave written at some length. I coufess that I never supposed you would write what is irregular and not just, and insert it in an official letter. The Persian Ministers have never yet recognized any official agent on the part of the Mission excepting in the places above named, and they will not give their consent to such appointments; nor have they ever given any document or even letter of recommendation to these persons. If the Mission is in possession of any such paper let it be produced, that the Persian Minister may see it. The British Government and its Mission have agents, secret and recognized, in every part of the world, some of whom are merchants, others travellers, and others again news writers; and all these people, in consideration of the friendship felt for the British Government, receive protection. If the British Government have an agent in a particular town, it is no proof that they are formally entitled to appoint him, and the Persian Ministers have never, in any way, admitted this right, nor will they do so. Any agents which the Mission may keep in any other towns except those already specified, have been maintained with so much sccresy that once, when in friendly conversation I mentioned the name of one of those persons to Sir Justin Sheil as being in his employment he denied it, and said that he had no one of that description in his pay. With regard to the Ijlas* of merchants in Ispahan, I do not even know the name of the Mission agent in that place, and up to the present time I have never heard of such a thing. How, then, can it be that, as you state, the Mission agent was present at that meeting? If this is true, of course you have some documentary evidence to produce from me. Let it be brought forth, that the truth may be known.
• Commission of Inquiry.
But now, with reference to the matter of Meerza Hashem Khan, and what you have written that when you came to Persia and lor some time previously, that person was neither in the service of the Persian Government nor had he received a Id. of pay. I never pretended that Meerza Hashem Khan received pay while he was in the Mission. When he refuses to ohey and to serve, and takes up his residence in the Mission-house, it is perfectly clear that his pay will not be sent to the Mission as an offering to him. His salary bills were not issued, as you suppose, nor was his name inserted in the Army List for the purpose of keeping up the discussion with the Mission. Before he went to the Mission, every year his bills were drawn out by the Chief of the Department and given to him, and ho used to go himself and have them registered and then cashed; but after his entering the Mission, the bills were still issued, remaining, however, in the hands of the Chief, as Meerza Hashem Khan was not there to receive them and get them registered. If the intention had been to keep up the discussion with the Mission, how easy it would have been to have had his bills registered also. His being in the military department is a thing well known to every one, and his position, as an officer, precludes him from paying money and procuring a substitute. Even this is unfounded, for no serbauz, after he has entered the army, and his name is enrolled in the lists, can possibly place another in his stead and leave the regiment, nor can any parallel be drawn between Meerza Hashem Khan and a pish-khidmet* or any other servant. When a child, be was in the private apartments of the late Shah's establishment, and accompanied the present Shah when he went to Tabreez. He was afterwards, when the Shah ascended the throne, a pish-khidmet for some time, but was placed, at his own desire in the War Department. Holding this post he fled to the Mission and took sanctuary there, and has remained there ever since. With regard to Persians who are free born and are of respectable family, whose pay does not suffice for their maintenance, or who are not equal to the duties required from them, not being allowed to resign the service and seek employment elsewhere, and your observation that, if such is tho case, there is no difference between them and a slave, I have to state that the position of a subject and servant of the Shah towards bis master, has, in many respects, a very great resemblance to that of a slave; and no one, in the face of the Shah's wishes, can assume to himself any liberty of action. It is clear that if a law is established permitting all those who are dissatisfied with the amount of their pay to resign and seek service ehtewhere, in a short time all discipline in this country would be at an end; and a soldier who receives annually only 7 or 8 tomauns pay, where ho to receive from thu
* Upper servant.
Mission 12 or 14, and were the Mission to pay the colonels and other officers, Mustoofees,* and secretaries at war, who receive, more or less, from 5'JO to 1,000 tomauns, twice the amount of their pay, or half as much again, it would not take long for the Government to find itself without a single servant, and the Mission premises would soon swell to the size of a very large city. The Persian Government would never have in its power to submit to such a proceeding. If Meerza Hashem Khan once asked for an increase of pay, and it were refused, nothing very extraordinary happened. The Persian Ministers did not consider his services deserving of an iucrease of pay, and they therefore refused his demand; instead of going to the Mission and giving you all this trouble, he ought to have devoted his time to the duties of his post, and made himself worthy of higher pay and the favour of His Majesty. You stato that I had said to Meerza Hashem Khan, that his pay would not be raised, and that he might go and serve where he wished; and that he had considered this equal to a dismissal. I said to him his salary would not be increased at present, and that he might go and petition his master, the Shah; and such a reply from me cannot bo considered as a dismissal. Meerza Hashem Khan, and persons of respectablo family like him, when dismissed, must either be told that bis services are dispensed with by the Shah in person, or orders are given, and his dismissal is issued in writing. What you say, that if I had considered this person in the service I would have referred to Mr. Thomson, or afterwards to you, to induce him to return to his duties, require some remarks. In the first place, it is not the case that I had no discussion with Mr. Thomson regarding him. Mr. Thomson several times wished to send him with an employe of the Mission to me, that I might overlook his past conduct and intercede for him with the Shah; but I did not agree to this. I replied, that if he came to me, without the interference of the Mission, I would overlook the past, and treat him in future with kindness, in the same manner as the Persian Ministers had shown great kindness to a number of persons, among others, to Abbas Koolee Khan, Larijanee, to Koocheek Khan, and Hoossein Khan, who had gone without reason into the sanctuary of the Mission; but afterwards, without the intervention of the Mission, had left it. Moreover, the arEsir of Meerza Hashem Khan had been terminated between Mr. Thomson and myself; and I do not know why the question has been again brought forward, and a reference again made to tho past. Secondly, as the Persian Ministers have found by experience that whenever they advance claims which are just and clear it produces to impression, and they are not believed, and the Mission holds its own preteuaious, right or wrong, with great obstinacy—not viewing * Accountants in the Treasury.