MR. J. WALTONOn behalf of the honourable Member for the Wick Burghs I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government warned the British manufacturers engaged in the trade of exporting arms to Persia that this trade was illicit, and that arms and ammunition so exported would be confiscated by the Government?
MR. CURZONThe prohibition of the import of arms and ammunition into Persia was made by the Persian Government in 1880. On June 13th, 1891, notice of the prohibition was given to British merchants in Persia. There can be little doubt that the prohibition and the risks which were incurred by ignoring it have since then been known to the shippers and to the local firms engaged in the trade. The prohibition has on several occasions been mentioned in the British Consular Reports, which have been published from year to year. It was no part of the duty of Her Majesty' Government to issue any notice as to the steps that might be taken for the enforcement of Persian law by the Persian Government.
MR. J. WALTONOn behalf of the honourable Member for the Wick Burghs I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the nature of the cargo of the Beluchistan and the port of her destination were duly declared by the shippers to the proper Government officers before the Beluchistan put to sea; and, if so, why was she allowed to proceed upon her voyage?
MR. CURZONThe statements made with reference to the Beluchistan were found to be not uniformly correct. In the bills of lading the names of certain persons or firms were given as consignees, who repudiated all knowledge of the transaction. In answer to the second Question, there is no provision in English law under which the sailing of the Beluchistan with arms intended for illicit 698 import into Persia could have been prevented.
MR. J. WALTONOn behalf of the honourable Member for the Wick Burghs I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that, in consequence of the recent seizure of arms and ammunition at Bushire and on board of the Beluchistan, a considerable branch of British industry has been damaged, and a number of workmen thrown out of employment; and whether the Government will consider the advisability of opening negotiations with the Persian Government with a view to the recognition and resumption of the trade?
MR. CURZONI have seen statements of the character mentioned in the first paragraph, but no evidence has so far been supplied to the Foreign Office to establish the contention. Considering that the trade which has been stopped was, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, injurious both to British interests in and beyond the Persian Gulf and to the security of British trade with Persia, while in the opinion of the Persian Government it was equally if not more injurious to Persian authority, Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to enter into negotiations for its recognition and resumption.
MR. J. WALTONOn behalf of the honourable Member for the Wick Burghs I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the export trade of arms and ammunition from this country to Persia has been carried on for a number of years with the full knowledge of Her Majesty's Government; and whether consignments of arms and ammunition for Persia have for years been cleared at British customs houses, and duties upon arms and ammunition so exported regularly exacted by and paid to the Persian authorities appointed for such purposes by the Persian Government; if so, whether he can state when and upon what grounds Her Majesty's Government arrived at the conclusion that such trade was illicit?
MR. CURZONThe existence of the trade, as well as the fact that it was an illicit trade, and was only carried on 699 by the connivance of the local Persian officials, has for long been known to Her Majesty's Government, and has, as I have previously pointed out, been alluded to in official publications. Her Majesty's Government did not feel called upon to interfere with the matter at an earlier date because, as long as the prohibition was not enforced by the Persian Government, there was no reason to impede a British, trade which would by such action only have been diverted into the hands of other foreign nations. I cannot admit that the duties exacted by and paid to the Persian authorities in respect of these arms have been regularly exacted or paid; on the contrary, the payments made were in many cases irregular and in excess of the maximum duty allowed by treaty.