§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, on the conclusion of the last Persian war by the evacuation of Herat by the Persians, Ahmed Jan, the Sultan or Euler of Herat, did not acknowledge the sovereignty of the Shah by performing allegiance to him, and having the coinage struck in the name of the Shah; whether it is not the case that this same Sultan of Herat, either with or without the assistance of Persian troops, is now marching on Candahar, that the sons of Dost Mohammed of Caubul, are marching against him, and that there are imminent probabilities of war breaking out in those regions; and whether, in case of the occurrence of such hostilities, it will be the intention of Her Majesty's Government, or of the Indian Government, to intervene in any way either for or against any of the powers of Central Asia, or to extend any operations designed for the security of India beyond the limits of the great mountain passes which form the present frontier of that country?
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, in reply, that the relations between the British Government and that of the Shah of Persia, with regard to Affghanistan, are regulated by the Treaty concluded between Great Britain and Persia in March 1857, on the conclusion of the war. By that Treaty the Shah of Persia engaged to abstain from 89 making any claim to sovereignty over Herat, and not to require any of those things to be done which in the East are considered as tokens of submission to a higher power. The Shah also undertook by the same Treaty not to interfere in any way with the affairs of the States of Affghanistan; and if any differences arose between him and those States, to seek the good offices of the British Government. On the other hand, the British Government undertook to use those good offices with the States of Affghanistan, to prevent them from in any way giving offence to the Shah of Persia; and if any differences should arise, Great Britain would inter-pose in a manner just and equitable both to the Government of the Shah of Persia and the Affghan States. As to any acts that may have been done by the ruler of Herat, implying allegiance to the Shah, before the Treaty of 1857, that Treaty has annulled and swept them away. With regard to the present state of affairs, believe the ruler of Herat has marched on and taken possession of the town of Furrah, as to which there has been a dispute for some time between him and the Affghans. In doing so, believe his forces did advance towards Candahar, and that some engagement did ensue. But all these transactions have taken place between different States of Affghanistan itself, and we have no reason to believe that any Persian troops were engaged in them.
§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, the noble Lord had not answered the question as to whether it would be the intention of Her Majesty's Government to intervene in any way either for or against the powers of Central Asia, or to extend any operations designed for the security of India beyond the limits of the great mountain passes which form the present frontier of the country.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONThese disputes are between different States of Affghanistan; and I do not apprehend there is any reason for Her Majesty's Government interfering in them. If the security of India is threatened with any invasion from Affghanistan, then the Government of India will take such measures as the circumstances render necessary.