I am happy to learn that, by the Shah's commands, the correspondence which has passed on both sides is to be communicated to foreign Governments, and I trust it will be communicated entire, and without the omission of any part, because then the right of the question will be generally known, and all foreign Governments will agree that a Minister who has received insults such as have been offered to me, especially in the last despatch addressed to me by the Sair Azin, had no choice but to strike his flag, if he could not obtain satisfaction. With respect to the statements regarding the true origin of the discussion, which the Persian Government threaten to send to Europe, I presume that your Excellency will let me know what they are, either before or after they are sent.

With respect to what your Excellency has written concerning the stay of Mr. Consul Stevens in Tehran, to take care of the affairs of British subjects during the absence of the Mission, it is my duty to inform you that it is out of my power to make any change in the arrangement that I intimated in my last letter. It is not by my choice or selection that Mr. Stevens remains here in charge during my absence; it is simply because he is Consul, and according to the law of nations, unless it be the intention to declare war, the Consul, is always left in charge when the functions of the Mission are suspended. The Consul is appointed here by the Queen of England, and not by me; and if one or two members of the Persian Government have a personal dislike to Mr. Stevens, it is a matter to be regretted, but I cannot, on that account, violate the regulations of diplomacy, or depute an Attaché to perform duties which belong to a Consul. Further, I take upon myself to assure your Excellency, that if Mr. Consul Stevens is treated in the discharge of his duties with justice and propriety, the Persian Government will have no reason to complain of any unfairness or want of courtesy on his part.

CH. A. MURRAY.

(Inclosure 5.)-Mr. Murray to the Persian Minister for Foreign

Affairs.

November 24, 1855.

Ir is my duty to transmit to your Excellency a memorandum in reply to the Royal autograph with which you were yesterday honoured, and of which you sent me a copy. I request that your Excellency will transmit the original of my reply to His Majesty the Shah.

Memorandum.

Having carefully read the letter of His Majesty the Shah, and understood its contents, it becomes my duty, first, to assure His Majesty of my high respect, and that whosoever may have informed

His Majesty that I, personally, or as representing the British Government, wish to impose any humiliation on His Majesty, or any detriment to the Royal dignity, has told His Majesty a malicious untruth for the purpose of bringing about the differences now existing between this Mission and the Persian Government. They have also untruly told His Majesty, as they have written to me, that I am always taking under protection mischievous and troublesome Persian servants, and inviting Persian officers to enter the service of the Mission for higher pay. All these falsehoods have been stated on purpose to poison the Shah's mind against myself, although those who have written and spoken them well know that since my arrival I have not taken under British protection one single officer or servant of the Persian Government, and the only 2 serious discussions which I have had on this subject with the Persian Ministers have both been respecting persons who had been in the Mission, or connected with it, long before it came under my charge.

With respect to Meerza Hashem Khan, the whole difficulty from its commencement to its conclusion, has been owing to the ill-will and the ill-advised proceedings of the Sadr Azim. It is a fact, perfectly well established, that 2 years ago His Highness did employ expressions which were equivalent to dismissing the Meerza and allowing him to seek employment where he could find it. I had this admission from his Highness's own lips in presence of a member of this Mission; and yet, when I reminded his Highness of it in a late despatch, he wrote me in reply that his engagements in official business were confined to those supported by written evidence, and only those would be considered binding.

The Shah mentions in his letter that it is his intention to send the whole of the correspondence on this matter to European Governments. Does His Majesty think it will redound to the honour of the Persian Court that the highest officer in the service should deny his own words, and admit in an official despatch that his verbal statements were of no value?

If the Sadr Azim had shown prudence and goodwill in this matter, it might have been arranged at first with the greatest ease. If it were true that, on my arrival here, Meerza Hashem Khan was an officer in the Royal service, and receiving pay, it was his Highness's duty to inform me of it, in order that steps might be taken for settling the matter; but his Highness never spoke a word to me concerning it, and as I was informed that the Meerza had been more than a year in the Mission without employment, and without pay, I considered it the best arrangement for all parties that he should go as Agent to Shiraz, to which post Her Britannic Majesty's Government accordingly instructed me to appoint him. It is since

the receipt of that appointment that the conduct of the Persian Government has been most improper and offensive, and has thus compelled me to allude in public despatches to subjects that ought not to appear in official correspondence. They seized and imprisoned the wife of Meerza Hasham Khan, thereby not only violating the paper of protection given to him and to his house, but also violating the civil and sacred law; and thus, while pretending in their letters that matters belonging to the harem were too delicate to be written about or referred to, they took a step which necessarily caused these very matters to become the talk of all the city. More than this, his Highness the Sadr Azim himself, on more than one occasion, and in the presence of many people, has, in connection with these matters, attributed the basest motives to this Mission as the reason for the protection given to Meerza Hashem Khan and his family. I doubt not that his Highness will deny having uttered such expressions, as I have seen in other instances how little it costs his Highness to deny his own words; but I know they were used by him, and the subject is again insinuated in his Highness's official letter of the 19th of November, in which it is coupled with a species of threat. Does His Majesty think that I or any other British Minister could submit to these affronts, these false unwarrantable calumnies, and these offensive threats, from the head of the Persian Government, or could consent to continue diplomatic relations until full reparation has been made? And has it not occurred to His Majesty, that when that despatch is sent and read by friendly Governments, they will all agree that the Mission flag must be lowered, unless I received the reparation that I required?

With respect to the Consul's remaining at Tehran in the absence of the Mission, I have explained that matter in the accompanying letter. It is an error to suppose that by Treaty the Persian Government possesses the right to demand the withdrawal of any foreign Consul with whom it is dissatisfied. Such a right does not belong by Treaty to the Persian or to any other Government, excepting the right to object to any particular Consul at the time of his nomination. When once appointed, he cannot be sent away at the pleasure of any Government excepting his own.

The Royal autograph uses some harsh expressions respecting the conduct of Mr. Consul Stevens at Tabreez. I think the Shah may remember some good services that the Consul rendered to His Majesty at the time that he ascended the throne, but some time afterwards he reported truly the proceedings of the Tabreez Government, and the cruelty, extortion, and injustice by which the fine province of Azerbijan was and is almost ruined; then he became a "moofsid"* in the eyes of those who wished that the truth should

* Mischief-maker.

be concealed from the Shah. Not only Mr. Stevens, but all who approach His Majesty, and who might possibly tell him some truths not found in the Tehran Gazettes, all those are to be kept at a distance as "moofsids!"

There are various expressions in the Royal autograph which set forth that in the Shah's opinion this Mission has shown a desire to infringe the privileges and lower the dignity of His Majesty. I can only imagine that these expressions have fallen from His Majesty inadvertently while his mind has been irritated by the pernicious counsels of those who wish to destroy the friendship which had so long existed between the 2 High Powers. His Majesty knows that Great Britain has always been desirous to maintain his independence and honour, and since my arrival here I have been governed in my conduct by the same sentiments; but in respect to the rupture that has lately taken place between the Persian Government and myself, it is my duty to let His Majesty plainly understand that I cannot and will not permit myself to be unjustly calumniated, and the British Government to be affronted. without maintaining my right to a full and satisfactory reparation.

CH. A. MURRAY.

(Inclosure 6.)-The Persian Minister for Foreign Affairs to Mr. Murray. (Translation.)

EXCELLENCY,

November 26, 1855. I HAVE received your Excellency's letter of the 24th instant. Notwithstanding the reasons which have been repeatedly advanced in the case of Meerza Hashem Khan, and notwithstanding that you had, to the extreme regret of the Persian Ministers, unjustly sus pended diplomatic relations, your Excellency has in a separate letter made use of certain expressions which, without any doubt, are detrimental in the highest degree to the dignity of this Government and of its First Minister, the Sadr Azim.

One of the objectionable arguments is that in which you have again had recourse to the statement that his Highness the Sadr Azim had verbally employed expressions which amounted to the dismissal of Meerza Hashem Khan. His Highness the Sadr Azim has no recollection of such a circumstance, or of his ever having issued orders of this nature. But as you persist in saying this we will suppose that such words were employed. In the first place, he asked for higher pay without his deserving it. Whilst irritated and annoyed, it is possible that a servant (and even at times one's own children receive rebukes) may be told that his pay would not be increased, and that he might go about his business. Merely for an angry word how can it be admitted as his dismissal ? The dismissal of a servant in this country has a regular form, and

any person above the rank of a soldier cannot be dismissed by the Colonel or Lieutenant-Colonel. His dismissal must be sealed by his Highness the Sadr Azim, by his Royal Highness the Ameer Nizam (infant son of the Shah), by the Commander-in-chief, by the Secretaries at War, and must be confirmed by the Shah's autograph, and the document must be in writing. At this very time in Tehran, and in all the provinces, the commissions of appointment and the papers of dismissal are to be found issued in this form, and your Excellency can procure many of these and examine them. Therefore, merely for a few angry words, a person cannot consider himself dismissed, and this discussion was terminated with Mr. Thomson, who admitted the point, and dismissed him from the post of Meerza to the Mission in consequence of this just argument, and he therefore appointed Meerza Fezloollah, and announced the nomination to the Persian Ministers. In truth, your Excellency has re-opened a question which was before terminated, and has considered it as unsettled. It would have been well if you had made inquiries on this head from Mr. Thomson, so that it would have become known that he admitted the right of this Government, and that the Meerza was a servant of the Persian Government, and had been dismissed from the Mission. Secondly, supposing that the orders of the Sadr Azim were such as have been stated, when His Majesty the Shah is pleased to say that Meerza Hashem Khan is considered by him to be one of his servants, and not to have been discharged, what more can you have to say? According to the rules of propriety and politeness, and what is necessary out of respect to the Royal dignity, you ought not, after learning the wishes and orders of His Majesty, to have done anything contrary to the Royal wishes, but should have, by establishing Meerza Hashem Khan again in the Persian service, maintained order in the internal administration of the country. There is another reason, besides those which have been detailed, and of which you cannot be ignorant, for the Shah desiring to keep Meerza Hashem Khan in his service. With regard to the reports and gossip spread about the town respecting the wife of Meerza Hashem Khan, the Persian Ministers would have said nothing. They maintain silence regarding the truth or falsehood of these rumours, and they have endeavoured, as far as was in their power, to veil the matter, as will clearly appear from their letter of the 15th November; but of what avail has this been, when the Mission has pushed it with such violence that the Persian Ministers, quite broken-hearted, with great aversion and regret, now perceive that the matter has been already unveiled? Contrary to the principles of Mahometanism, they are therefore unable to accept the conditions stipulated by the Mission.