With regard to Mr. Stevens, the opinion of the Persian Ministers is exactly what they have already stated. If the determination of your Excellency remains the same, there is no compulsion on our part, but I distinctly state to you that diplomatic relations between the Persian Ministers and the Mission will not be continued through him; it will be just the same as if he were not here, unless one of the members of the Mission should remain. The Persian Ministers will make no objection to him, the same as they approve of the Consul-General in Tabreez and the Resident in Bushire, and no difficulty will be made in treating them in accordance with the rules of friendship. (Inclosure 7.)-The Persian Minister for Foreign Affairs to Mr. Murray. (Translation.) November 26, 1855. THE memorandum which you wrote in answer to the Shah's autograph and sent to me to be presented to His Majesty, was delivered in accordance with your wishes. After perusing it, His Majesty was pleased to address a second autograph to my address, and I beg to forward to you a copy of it in obedience to the Royal commands. Having been ordered in this autograph to return to you the memorandum, I now inclose it in this note. (Inclosure 8.)-Autograph Note from the Shah to the Persian Minister for Foreign Affairs. (Translation.) MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS, November 26, 1855. We have read Mr. Murray's letters. There are some insulting expressions to our Prime Minister in his letter, which have given us annoyance. Intimate to him distinctly that all that the Sadr Azim has written or done has been by our Royal commands. We do not require any foreigner to give us information regarding the administration of our own country. Several threatening reports have been spread in town by the Mission, which we could not have believed to have emanated in reality from the Mission, but this letter of Mr. Murray supports these reports. He seems to have the intention to create disturbance and embarrassment in this country. If he has suspended diplomatic relations, and official letters have passed, and his Mehmandar has been furnished at his own demand, then what is the meaning of his renewing the question, and why should he write official letters? If he is deceived, and has anything to say or claims to advance, let him hoist his flag, and after stating his reasons, let him, if he likes, pull it down again. He writes that the British Ministers have always been desirous to strengthen the independence of this Government, and that he himself entertained the same sentiments. The British representatives are wonderfully desirous to maintain our independence. They wish to take our power and authority, even over our own particular family, from us. One day they protect and support our uncle, Ferhad Meerza, and estrange him from us, making him disobedient to our commands; and another day they take away one of our servants openly and against our inclination. To-day they demand forcibly our wife's sister. We can't understand why you have all allowed the arguments of the case to escape you. Mr. Murray's object is this, forcibly to take our wife's sister. Our commands are these, that we will not submit to this indignity, and we will not give her. If his Excellency the Sadr Azim should still continue to show moderation and forbearance to the Mission as formerly, we shall be obliged to do what is necessary for giving the preference to the maintenance of our dignity. As Mr. Murray has altogether exceeded the limits of courtesy, and has outstepped the privileges of the Mission, and that too when diplomatic relations have ceased, it is quite unsuitable that his letter should be registered. You will certainly return it, and not keep it. You are not permitted to discuss the matter any further, or to enter into debates either sound in argument or otherwise. Don't enter into one word of discussion. Now that he has suspended relations, and is about to depart, this kind of discussion can have no other result than to give us greater annoyance. It is obvious that friendship and diplomatic relations with England are not dependent upon the presence of Mr. Murray. We will, in the manner we consider expedient, make known our sincere friendship to the British Government, and a full report of the unsuitable proceedings of Mr. Murray. (Inclosure 9.)-Mr. Murray to the Persian Minister for Foreign Affairs. November 27, 1855. I HAVE received your Excellency's despatch, dated 26th November, and the copy of the Royal destkhet therein contained. It seems that your Excellency has either not read or not understood His Majesty's wishes expressed in that letter, or you would not, in direct opposition thereto, have written me a long despatch reopening all the discussion respecting the case of Meerza Hashem Khan. I shall pay more regard to the wishes of His Majesty, and shall therefore decline to make any further reply to the contents of your Excellency's letter. With respect to the Royal destkhet itself, I have only three observations to make, which I request you to convey to His Majesty the Shah: 1. The Royal letter inquires, "why I, after the suspension of diplomatic relations, renew the question under discussion and write official letters ?" My reply is very simple; that I did not wish or intend to renew correspondence or to write any official letter, but as His Majesty the Shah began by writing a letter himself, and authorized your Excellency to write another, I thought myself in courtesy bound to reply to both. 2. His Majesty complains that in my reply I had overstepped the privileges of the Mission by making complaints against his Minister; my answer is, that I only followed a course suggested by the Royal letter, which contained most improper terms and unproved accusations against the British Consul holding his commission from the Queen of England in this capital. It was in reply to those observations that I was compelled to make comments on the conduct of the Shah's Prime Minister, but as my letter contained nothing disrespectful to His Majesty, I return it to you again, and I will not receive it back unless the Royal letter which occasioned it is likewise withdrawn. 3. His Majesty's last Royal letter contains the following sentence: -"Mr. Murray's object is this, forcibly to take our wife's sister." As these words show, but too clearly, that the Shah has been misled into putting the Royal seal and sanction to the groundless calumnies already propagated on this subject by his Ministers, it is equally clear to me that no good result can arise from the continuation of this correspondence, and I am only doing what I judge best for the dignity of the Shah and the honour of this Mission, when I inform your Excellency that it is not my intention to receive or reply to any further official letters whatsoever connected with this discussion. CH. A. MURRAY. No. 57.—Mr. Murray to the Earl of Clarendon.-(Rec. Jan. 22, 1856.) The Earl of Clarendon. No. 58.-Mr. Murray to the Earl of Clarendon.-(Rec. Jan. 22, 1856.) (Extract.) Tehran, December 3, 1855. ON reviewing the whole of the discussion with the Persian Government on the case of Meerza Hashem Khan, it has occurred to me that the only point which admits of a shadow of a doubt is, whether the Meerza at the time of his appointment to a post under this Mission was, or was not, actually in the service and pay of the Persian Government. The Sadr Azim's letters maintain the affirmative of this proposition as strongly as mine maintain the negative, and Her Majesty's Government will judge on which side the weight of argument preponderates. As the Sadr's despatches repeatedly state that the Meerza is an officer in the Military Department, and receiving pay as such, I have thought it proper to make further inquiry on the subject, the result of which completely verifies what I have before written to your Lordship on this head, on the authority of the Meerza himself, namely, that he does not hold, and never did hold, any military rank, office, grade, or pay whatsoever. The pittance of pension which was allotted to him, amounting to about 957. a-year, may, indeed, have been charged on the books of the War Department; but that proves nothing, as it is the custom of the Persian Government to charge salaries and pensions on any fund which they find convenient. For instance, in the case of a British subject here who has an annual pension from the Persian Government (Syed Abdullah), last year the payment of his pension was charged on the books of the Government of Ispahan, and this year it is charged on those of the Government at Kermanshah, though he resides in Tehran, and has no relation whatever with either of those places. Moreover, I may add, that the enjoyment of such a pension without actual service rendered, or duties to be performed, has never in Persia been held incompatible with service under foreign Missions. When Mr. Stevens was Consul at Tabreez, he had a Meerza in the Consulate who was in the receipt of a pension or salary precisely similar to that of Meerza Hashem Khan; for some cause or other the Tabreez Government stopped its payment; Mr. Stevens complained to Colonel Sheil, who had a discussion on the subject with the Persian Government, the result of which was that the Tabreez Government was ordered to pay up the arrears and continue the annual payment, although the Meerza remained in the service of the Consulate. I am informed that there are one or two persons now in the employment of the Russian Consulate at Tabreez in the receipt of similar pensions from the Persian Government. I have thought it my duty to explain these matters to your Lordship in detail, as a distorted statement of the case will probably have been sent home by the Persian Government. The Earl of Clarendon. CH, A, MURRAY. No. 59.—Mr. Murray to the Earl of Clarendon.-(Rec. Jan. 22, 1856.) I HAVE the honour to inclose for your Lordship's information, a translation of a paragraph which appeared in last week's "Tehran Gazette," regarding the suspension of relations between this Mission and the Persian Government. The original paper will also be transmitted to your Lordship by this courier. I have, &c. The Earl of Clarendon. CH. A. MURRAY. (Inclosure.)-Translation of a Paragraph in the "Tehran Gazette" of 18 Rebbi-ul-evvel, 1272 (November 29, 1855). THE Persian Ministers express, for the information of the public, their concern and regret at the suspension of relations which has within the last few days occurred between the Persian Government and the British Mission. But this fact they wish to impress upon everybody, both in this country and abroad, that this occurrence, which in consequence of the perplexing and dangerous demands unjustly made upon this Government by his Excellency Mr. Murray, the British Minister Plenipotentiary, obliged them to have recourse to a suspension of relations-will not diminish the sincere friendship existing between the Persian and British Governments, and will not in any way whatsoever disturb the neutrality of the Persian Govern. ment. The Persian Government adheres to its neutrality. The Envoys of friendly States residing at this Court are informed of all that takes place, and are aware that no breach of neutrality has occurred or will occur. No. 60.-Mr. Murray to the Earl of Clarendon.—(Rec. Jan. 22, 1856.) (Extract.) Ken, December 6, 1855. IN my despatch of the 28th of November I had the honour of giving to your Lordship an account of all the discussion that had taken place with the Persian Government respecting the suspension of diplomatic relations up to that date. As they persisted in refusing to concede the satisfaction which I demanded, I withdrew the Mission yesterday from Tehran, agreeably to the notice that I had given, and entered upon the long journey which is to take us to the Turkish frontier. The satisfaction that I demanded as the condition of resuming diplomatic relations and rehoisting the flag was as follows: 1. Meerza Hashem Khan's wife to be released and restored to her husband, and he himself to be recognized as in the employment of the Mission. 2. The Sadr Azim to visit me at the Mission to apologize for the |