ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

be sent, to Europe for publication. As the falsehoods and calumnies. against Her Majesty's Government and this Mission which it contains are too gross and palpable to be owned or defended, the Persian Government has adopted the clumsy contrivance of circulating this manifesto in the anonymous form of a letter from "Our Own Correspondent," and I am informed that it is to be printed in Constantinople. However the Persian Government may be hereafter induced, by shame or fear, to disclaim the authorship of this scurrilous libel, the evidence, both circumstantial and internal, is so clear as to leave no doubt on the subject. A fortnight before I received it, Mr. Stevens wrote to me from Tehran that the Persian Government was occupied in drawing up such a paper, and that he would endeavour to get me a copy of it. He succeeded in doing so, and, on perusing it, I recognised at once the same falsehoods, the same pretexts, and, in many instances, the very same words that the Sadr Azim has used in his discussions with myself, so as to leave not a shadow of doubt that the paper has been drawn up under his direction. I have divided the translation into paragraphs (which division does not exist in the original), in order that I might add a few marginal notes where they might seem necessary. I have not thought it requisite to call your Lordship's attention to the calumnies alleged against my predecessors-such, for instance, as those concerning Bokhara, Herat, &c., because they refer to matters already familiar to your Lordship, whereas some of the calumnies adduced against myself are an improvement on those which have already been sent to your Lordship in an official form, and emanating from the same quarter.

The Earl of Clarendon.

CH. A. MURRAY.

(Inclosure.)-Paper drawn up by the Persian Ministers for publica(Translation.) tion in Europe.

1. FROM intelligence received from Tehran, the capital of Persia, it appears that Mr. Murray, lately accredited to Persia as Minister Plenipotentiary, has broken off relations with the Persian Government, and has struck the British flag, which was the emblem of goodwill. This is the same flag which, from the first day, was hoisted in token of friendship and unanimity; and this is the same friendship on the maintenance of which the English always laid such stress in any matter of great importance which they had to transact. Our correspondent, after carefully examining the information which reached him, and weighing the different points in the various reports at Tehran, has arrived at the conviction that the true state of the case is as described in the following statement:

2.

There can be no doubt that the British Government attached great value to the friendship of Persia, and it is equally clear that they had succeeded in making the Persian Government their sincere well-wishers. Our correspondent is of opinion that these sentiments are still entertained. But all the English authorities in Persia have been actuated in their conduct by personal feelings, and they have not only irritated the people and Government of Persia to such a degree that language cannot be found to express their dislike of the English Government, but they have caused a change in the feelings of the Persian nation. If the Persians considered the English their friends in former days, now, on the contrary, they look upon them as their bitter enemies, and believe that the English have sinister designs upon Persia, and wish to treat her as they would one of the Rajahs of Hindostan,† and that all the irregularities which British officers commit in Persia are undertaken under instructions from the British Ministers.

3. Although we are of opinion that the British Government could never sanction such proceedings on the part of their officers, still that Government has, on several occasions, treated the Persian Government in such a manner as to support the idea formed by the Persians. For instance, when "McNeill" broke off relations on the Herat question, although he was in the wrong, and the first improper step, which was at variance with the friendship existing between the two States, was taken by him, and be removed the British Mission from the Persian territory to that of Turkey, the British Government, instead of condemning the proceedings of McNeill, refused to receive in London Hussein Khan, the Adjutant-General, who was dispatched on a mission to England from the Persian Court. Hussein Khan was sent by the Persian Ministers to England for the purpose of proving to the British Ministers the justice of the course pursued by Persia. Why, then, should the British Ministers refuse admission to its dominions to the Ambassador of an ancient kingdom? Could they have put this disgrace on any other country, we ask, or made the resumption of friendly relations dependent upon the pleasure of their Ambassador, McNeill, without listening to the defence and just arguments adduced by the Persian Government? From that day the Persian people lost all faith in the friendship of the British Government; and, up to this

This paragraph is very inconsistent. In the first instance, sentiments of friendship towards the British Government are still entertained by the Persian Government. In the latter part of the paragraph, they look upon us as "their

bitter enemies."

+ The phrase about the Rajahs of Hindostan is a favourite one of the Sadr's, and has been used by him more than once in conversation.

time, whatever proceedings were undertaken in Persia by the English authorities, however unjust, the Persian Ministers, although they knew that they were degrading to their country, still gave the preference to the maintenance of friendly relations with England, and reluctantly submitted, knowing how difficult it was, nay, almost impossible, for the Persian Ministers to succeed in showing up the conduct of the English officers to their Government. If they sent an Envoy, the English Government would not receive him, and if they sent letters, no answers would be vouchsafed; what, then, was the necessity for adding to their own humiliation ?

4. Secondly, whenever the Persian Ministers found themselves compelled to report the unjust proceedings of the British authorities to the English Government through the medium of a direct communieation in writing, no answer was given; or, if a reply was occasionally transmitted, they communicated it to their own Representatives, to be verbally conveyed to the Persian Ministers. We are perfectly amazed to find how much, under such circumstances, the Persian Ministers prized English friendship, for no Government would submit to the discourtesy of being referred for an answer to the verbal communication of the English Representatives, when they had written a direct appeal to the British Ministers in an official form. But a short time has elapsed since the Ameer of Bokhara refused to submit to an affront of this description, and the fate of Stoddart was the result.

5. Thirdly, whenever the British authorities commit an irregular act, and persist in it, they write a garbled account of the matter to their Government, and, after a short period, they come and inform the Persian Ministers verbally that the British Government have approved of their proceedings. This also shows how annoyed the Persian Government must be with that of England.

6. Now we come to the irregular acts of the British authorities. As for McNeill, he made a pretext of the Herat question, and withdrew the British Mission to the Turkish territory; and the British Government, so renowned throughout the world for its justice and for its equity, although undeservedly so in our opinion, siding with its Representative, and approving of his actions, adopted such harsh measures towards Persia, that she was compelled to relinquish Herat, a portion of her ancient possessions, and to deprive herself of the means of protecting Persia against the inroads of the Affghans and Toorkomans, by whom she is greatly harassed.

7. Colonel Sheil, too, what harshness he employed during his residence in Persia, for very little matter; every kind of discourtesy and trouble were considered by him as permissible for the Persian Government. The first British Envoy who made the Mission a sanctuary and house of refuge for discontented persons, and mis

chief-makers, and dangerous characters, was Colonel Sheil. In his time no one ever saw the Mission without a refugee. His people and scribes used to invite persons to come and take sanctuary, and they instigated others to disobedience. For example, the Elkhanee of Fars and Koocheek Khan, Doombelee, the Serdar Abbas Koolee Khan, of Tarijan, Hussein Khan, Mizam-ed-Dowleh, Ferhad Meerza, and Khan Batta Khan, of Khonsar, although there was no reason for it, and the Persian Ministers had no idea of harming them, were all invited, one after the other, to seek the asylum of the Mission House; and it was only after a great deal of trouble that the Persian Ministers succeeded in persuading these people to leave the Mission without the intervention of the British authorities.

8. It was in the time of Colonel Sheil and Colonel Farrant that the Salar, son of the Azef-ed-Dowleh, rebelled in Khorassan, and what protection and support did not Colonel Sheil and Colonel Farrant afford in secret to these rebels against the Shah's Government? It is the belief of our correspondent that large sums of money were expended by them in the hope that the Persian Government might be ruined through the Salar. Indeed, had it not been for the protection given by these two English officers to the Salar, how could he have resisted for such a length of time the Persian troops sent against him? Truly, the Persian Government, notwithstanding that at the time we speak of it had not yet acquired great stability, deserves great credit for the manner in which it terminated that affair.

9. At all events, Yar Mahomed Khan, of Herat, came against the Salar with a body of horse, and aided the Persians, performing every service to the Persian Government in the siege of Meshed. He provided horsemen, collected stores, and did everything in his power without hesitation. His presents and letters to the Shah constantly reached Tehran; and, in return, firmans and dresses of honour were sent to him from the Shah, the same as to former Governors of Herat. He coined the money in Herat in the name of the Shah of Persia, and he considered Herat as a portion of the Persian dominions. Our correspondent writes, that his having received and accepted the title of "Zeheer-ood-Dowleh" from the Shah, and the fact that this is known to all the world, are strong proofs that Yar Mahomed Khan considered himself a servant of the Shah, and Governor of Herat on the part of His Majesty. After Yar Mahomed Khan died, his son Syed Mahomed Khan, having been named Governor of Herat in the place of his father by the

* In enumerating the persons who have on various occasions taken refuge in the British Mission, it is a strange oversight that the Sadr Azim should omit his own name, and should have forgotten that he owes not only his present position but his life to British protection.

Shah, and having received his dress of honour, continued to serve like his father, and never made the slightest objection to send offerings to the Shah, to cause the "khootbeh" (prayer) to be made in the Shah's name, or to do all that was necessary as a Governor and loyal servant. His brother Mahomed Sedeek Khan, was sent by him to Tehran to attend upon and serve the Shah.

10. But Colonel Sheil, when he heard and learned all this, became spiteful, and adopted harsh measures; and every day he had some occupation and work for the Persian Ministers. Finding that his object could not be attained by these means, he wrote something plausible to his Government, and the British Ministers suspended all intercourse with Sheffee Khan, the Persian Chargé d'Affaires in London, and distinctly informed that functionary that until the Persian Ministers settled the affair of Herat with Colonel Sheil, relations would not be resumed with him. In Tehran, Colonel Sheil now "re-opened an old account," and sought to embarrass the Persian Ministers, and at length an agreement was made between them. Although our correspondent was not perfectly acquainted with the terms of this agreement, this much he knew, and it appears to be correct: that on the part of the English authorities, no interference or intercourse whatever was to be held with Herat or the Heratees; that no Englishman was to enter the Herat territory, and the English authorities were not to write one word to the Governor of Herat. But the Persian Government was at liberty to exercise the same amount of interference, and maintain the same intercourse with Herat which they did in the reign of Fatteh Ali Shah, Mahomed Shah, and, "the commencement of the Goyernment." Offerings to the Shah and letters and agents were to come to and go from Tehran always, and firmans and dresses of honour and agents might be sent to Herat. If any person from without. marched with the design of taking Herat, the Persian troops might go and disperse the (invading) force. In short, the Persian Government was not only not to take actual territorial possession of Herat, but that principality was, with Cabul and Candahar, to remain in the hands of their old Rulers, each separately, none molesting his neighbour. And if this agreement was violated by the English. Government or its authorities, the agreement was to be null and void, and was to be considered as if it had never been written.

10. After Colonel Sheil left Persia, Mr. Thomson's turn arrived. He soared higher than any of the others, and he acted in such a manner that the like of it has never been seen in the world, For instance, he instigated the Persian Ministers for the purpose of creating confusion, so that the Imaum of Muscat began to produce darder in an unsuitable manner, as we learned a short time ago in the "Tehran Gazette," where we also read what befell the Imaum's

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »