Dr. RUTHERFORDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he would inquire from the Government of Russia whether Russian troops are being moved to Teheran, and, if that is the case, whether His Majesty's Government will protest against such a move, as opposed to the spirit of the Anglo-Russian Convention and as inimical to the independence of Persia?
§ Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it was a fact that instructions had been issued by the Russian Government for the advance of the Russian troops at Tabriz on Teheran and for the preparation of an expeditionary force at Baku; if he could state with what object Russian troops are being marched on Teheran, and was it a fact that the Nationalist forces advancing upon the capital from Kazvin and Kum have for a considerable period been maintaining order at Resht and Isfahan, and have received testimonies from the representatives of the European Powers as to the efficiency of the manner in which they have discharged their task and safeguarded the lives and property of Europeans?
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey)In reply to the Questions of the hon. Members for Brentford and Ripon: His Majesty's Government have no information to the effect that Russian troops are advancing from Tabriz. The Russian Government have, however, decided to send a force from Baku to Enzeli with orders to advance as far as Kazvin, 86 miles from Teheran. I gather, however, that these orders may be countermanded if negotiations, which are now proceeding with the leaders of the Bakhtiaris and Nationalists, are successful. The object of this measure would be to ensure communication between Kazvin and the Caspian Sea. The further advance of a portion of this force would only take place if it becomes necessary to afford protection to the foreign Legations, to the lives and property of Europeans, and to European institutions at Teheran. The Commander of the troops is to receive categoric instructions to confine himself to the protection of foreign interests, and to abstain from all interference in the internal struggle now in progress. His Majesty's Government have no very recent information as to the state of 1011 public order at Resht and Isfahan. According to the latest reports received, Resht had remained quiet, while at Isfahan cases of disorder, robbery, and drunkenness became frequent towards the end of the stay of the Bakhtiari tribesmen in the town, while the state of the neighbouring country and roads remained deplorably bad. His Majesty's Government have received no other expression of opinion, favourable or otherwise, from their Consular representatives in these two towns as to the manner in which order has been maintained there by the Nationalist and Bakhtiari forces respectively, and it is impossible to affirm with certainty that the lives and property of Europeans at Teheran would be safe in the event of the occupation of that capital by those forces. In answer to the question of the hon. Member for Brentford, I must add that we have been kept informed by the Russian Government of what steps they considered necessary, and in view of the chaos which exists in the North of Persia and close to the Russian frontier, I see no ground for saying that any precautions which have been taken hitherto are unreasonable.
Dr. RUTHERFORDMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has received any request from the British representative at Teheran for either British or Russian troops to protect British interests?
§ Sir E. GREYNo, Sir; I have not received a request from the British representative for protection, because Teheran is out of our reach, and it is impossible for us to send a force to Teheran.
§ Mr. H. B. LYNCHHave any representations been received from His Majesty's Minister at Teheran to the effect that the lives and property of Europeans at Teheran are in his opinion in danger?
§ Sir E. GREYNo, Sir; we have received no representations that the lives of British subjects are in danger, but there have been reports that there may be danger to some European subjects.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEBefore the Russian troops were moved was the sanction of the right hon. Gentleman obtained, or was it simply reported after they had been moved?
§ Sir E. GREYThe Russian Government have communicated to us what their intentions are, but they have not asked our 1012 sanction. In a similar case of disturbance close to territory of our own, if we considered it necessary to send protection for vested interests we might have in those districts we, of course, should not wait for the sanction of a foreign Power, though we might make the communication as a matter of courtesy.
§ Mr. JAMES C. FLYNNCan the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not the leaders of the popular forces stated that the lives and property of non-belligerent Europeans would be scrupulously respected?
§ Sir E. GREYThe hon. Member uses the phrase "leaders of the popular forces." There are so many forces at present in action in Persia that I can only say at present that there is a state of great uncertainty as to what will happen from day to day in a great emergency.
§ Mr. J. D. REESDid we not actually land forces in South Persia to protect our interests in the Gulf?
§ Sir E. GREYYes. That was the case at Bushire a short time ago, when we thought there was danger there, and in that case we made a communication to the Russian Government as to what we were doing, but, of course, we acted on our own responsibility.
§ Mr. LYNCHInstead of pursuing this matter by question and answer, I beg to give notice that at the end of the questions I shall ask leave to move the adjournment of the House.
§ Mr. FLYNNCan we get any assurance from the Foreign Office that British influence will not be used to uphold reactionary forces against the popular forces?
§ Sir E. GREYThere is no question of British influence being used on behalf of reactionary forces. We have endeavoured to pursue a policy of interfering as little as possible in the internal affairs of Persia.