RUSSIA AND PERSIA. (Hansard, 4 December 1911)

§ Mr. MORRELL
I take this opportunity to refer very shortly to the very serious state of affairs in Persia, and to ask for 1162 some fuller explanation than we have yet had of the attitude which the Government have taken in this crisis. I am extremely sorry that the Foreign Secretary himself has not found it convenient or possible to be here. Notice has been short. It is not, I freely admit, the most convenient opportunity for raising an important question of this sort; but in these days one must take what opportunities one can get. As I understood that it was impossible for the Foreign Secretary to attend to-morrow, and as the matter seems to mo to be one of extreme urgency, I determined that it was best to bring it forward to-night. Exactly a week ago the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was explaining to us how the situation in Persia stood. He was justifying the ultimatum that had then been delivered to Persia by the Russian Government, and also the attitude of the British Government. He told us that the situation, no doubt, was a very serious one, but he thought a solution would be found. He went on to say that the Russian Government was loyally standing by the agreement which they had made with this country. At the very moment the Foreign Secretary was speaking the Russian Government was preparing a fresh ultimatum to deliver to Persia—a further ultimatum more peremptory, more insulting in tone—as I think—than anything that had yet been done. This ultimatum, if the newspapers are to be believed, the Persian Government was advised by our Government to comply with.
I hope very much that my hon. Friend will be able to give me some information on that point—a point on which I questioned him this afternoon. We all know that the Russian troops are advancing upon Teheran. It is quite possible to spend a good deal of time in showing how vitally this must affect our interests, the safety of India, our prestige in the East, and the trade of this country with Persia. I propose to confine myself to a very much simpler consideration of the question—how far our honour is affected by the attitude which we are taking up in this crisis, how far we are loyally carrying out in the spirit as well as in the letter the engagements we have entered into with the Persian people. Here is a country which for years past has been suffering under a rough despotic Government setting about at last to establish constitutional liberty. Everyone was watching with interest the attempt which was being made in Persia to establish a government on lines that would 1163 render it more consonant than any Government in Persia hitherto with the real wishes of the Persian people. All they asked of us was a fair chance, and no interference either from Russia or this country. We pledged ourselves by the most sacred obligations to give them the opportunity of a fair chance, which they asked. I do not want to refer at any length to the Anglo Russian Convention. Everyone knows that was based upon the integrity and independence of Persia. Spheres of influence were no doubt to be allotted to Russia and to this country. The Foreign Secretary intimated and made it perfectly plain that these spheres of influence were to be of an economic character purely, and that no partition of Persia was contemplated by this country or by Russia. Under this ngreement"— said the Foreign Secretary, speaking in this House immediately after the Convention on the 17th February, 1908— we bind ourselves not to seek certain concessions of a certain kind in certain spheres. But these are only British and Russian spheres in a sense which is in no way derogatory to the independence and sovereignty of Persia. And he went much further. When the Persian Government protested that they were afraid partition was intended, the right hon. Gentleman told my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) that he instructed our Minister at Teheran to assure the Persians in the most emphatic way that there was no such intention on the part of this country, and that the object of the two Powers, Russia and England, in making certain spheres should in no way be taken as an attack upon, but was rather to insure every effort for, the independence of Persia, and that not only did that not give them any excuse for intervention, but that their object in these friendly negotiations was not to allow one another to intervene on the pretext of safeguarding their own interests. That was the pledge solemnly given less than four years ago. What I ask is how far we, in our policy towards Persia, carried out the spirit of the pledge which we gave to the Persian people. Ever since that pledge was given the Russian Government have been engaged, as everyone who studied Persian affairs knows, in a long series of acts of intervention and interference with the internal liberties of Persia. They have interfered in every way in all attempts to put the Constitutional Government of Persia on a real sound basis, and they have made 1164 administration practically impossible. Over and over again they have supported rebellion, and they have interfered with the due exercise of the authority of the Persian Government.
What I want to know is how far our Government ever made protests against the action which Russia has taken? The action of Russia has culminated in the two ultimatums to which I have referred, the second of which is, in my judgment, absolutely incompatible with any idea of the sovereignty and independence of Persia referred to by the Foreign Secretary. If the Persian Government is not to be at liberty to appoint their own advisers, even when they are not British or foreign subjects, how can it be said that in any way Persia is still retaining the privileges of a sovereign state? The action of the Russian Government has made constitutional government in Persia well-night impossible, and all this time, to our shame I hold, we have been acquiescing in the action that Russia has taken. I am not here to defend all that Mr. Morgan Shuster has done in Persia. He may in some cases have shown tactlessness, and may not have had quite the diplomatic manner which was acceptable to the Foreign Offices in St. Petersburg and London. He was attacked by "The Times," and replied with a letter which "The Times" could not answer. He has been guilty of Anglicising the Persian service—in other words, he appointed four or five gentlemen to positions which they were quite qualified to hold who happened at the same time to be British subjects. Whatever you may say about Mr. Shuster, no one will deny the ability he has shown and his fidelity to the Government he was trying to serve. Now he is to be hounded out in a way which I venture to think is a scandal and a disgrace to the Government which is endeavouring to drive him from Persia. Whatever you may say about Mr. Shuster, no one will deny the integrity and ability he has shown in his devotion to the Government he was trying to serve.
It is a monstrous thing in my judgment that any Government should send an ultimatum giving forty-eight hours' notice such as was sent by Russia to Persia. What I ask my hon. Friend is, what hand the British Government had in that ultimatum, and what consent did they give to it? The hon. Member told us at question time that they were informed beforehand, but were 1165 they consulted as to the main articles of it? I hope the hon. Member will give us a clear answer upon that point. [An HON. MEMBEE: "You are not going to give him time."] I only want to put these particular points. I think it is time that some protest should be made in this House against the action which the British Government has taken. It is very valuable I know to have the friendship of Russia, which the Foreign Secretary prides himself upon having retained, but the friendship of Russia will be bought too dearly if it is bought at the price of the good name and the honour of this country.

§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland)
I think it is almost, if not quite, impossible for anyone, even if the Foreign Secretary were here, to reply in the limits that are possible at this stage of the evening to the whole of the points raised by my hon. Friend. He asks me to tell him how far we have carried out in the past and how far we are carrying out in the present the spirit of the Anglo-Russian Agreement. He asks me how far we have ever protested against anything which Russia has done, which is certainly in itself a very large order; and he asks me, "Do we adhere to what we have said in the past with regard to the Anglo-Russian Agreement?" He asks me also to give the opinion of His Majesty's Government with regard to what has been done respecting Mr. Shuster. It is quite impossible for me to go into those large questions at the present time. The point which I understood he wished to raise on the Adjournment of the House was a very limited one, and upon that matter I have consulted my right hon. Friend, and on that matter alone I am sorry to say, am I now able to make any statement. My hon. Friend gave notice of his intention to raise this exact question, Might he take it that no kind of protest had been made against the Russian demands? That was, I think, the supplementary question which he asked, and I said he might not so take it. On that point I can explain matters. As the answer which I gave this afternoon showed, we did not make any representations to the Russian Government in opposition to the first two of the Russian demands. The reasons for that were given in the answer. But, with regard to the third claim—namely, of an indemnity for the expenses to which the Russian Government had been put in their expedition, representations have been 1166 made to the Russian Government. It has been pointed out that Persia will be unable to pay an indemnity without obtaining a loan, and that the burden of the indemnity will make it harder for the Persian Government to secure order on the southern trade routes, which is a very necessary matter in the interests of the trade of this country. On matters beyond that, so far as I understand the matters which my hon. Friend desires to raise, I must ask to be excused from making any statement this evening.

§ Mr. DILLON
May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he can state whether the Russian Government used the name of the Government of Great Britain in delivering the ultimatum?

§ Mr. ACLAND
No. The ultimatum was her own ultimatum entirely, and our name was not used in the matter. There was no authority for using it or in any way for taking it as an ultimatum of both Governments. That was made clear by the answer I gave.

§ Mr. MORRELL
Can the hon. Gentleman answer one question of which I gave him full notice: whether the Foreign Office advised the Persian Government to comply with this ultimatum?

§ Mr. ACLAND
On that and any other point, it is really undesirable that partial statements should be made. I only make this appeal to the House, and state it in this way, because, as the House knows, the adjourned Debate on Foreign Affairs is coming on next week. There will be a whole day's debate, and the Secretary of State will, of course, then make a very full and considered statement with regard to the whole of the Persian question. In those circumstances, he asked me to ask the House that I might be excused from making any partial statement on any partial point which cannot possibly put the House in full possession of the facts. It is only because of the full opportunity which my right hon. Friend and the House will have next week that I ask to confine my reply to the particular point which I believe my hon. Friend wished to raise.

Mr. KING
I am sure we have listened with interest, though hardly with satisfaction, to the remarks which have been made by the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. Really we are entitled to information of a larger and more ample 1167 character than he has given us. I trust that at the earliest possible moment we shall have a full and ample statement from the Secretary for Foreign Affairs himself. At this time, and on such an occasion as this, with all due respect to the Under-Secretary, we should be very glad to see someone else here in his place. I would like just to refer in this connection to one matter which I intend to raise a discussion upon as soon as I get an opportunity. I wish to know whether there have been any communications from the German Government or from the United States Government on this subject. It seems to me that already there have been echoes or rumours in the Press of the idea that we may have in this matter further complications with other Governments besides the Russian Government. To my mind, it is sufficiently complicated and mixed up already, but it may become even more so. There is an element of satisfaction to be derived from the statement of the Under-Secretary that a communication in the nature of a mild protest—I should have liked it to have been very much stronger—had been sent to Russia with regard to her claim for an indemnity. It is perfectly obvious that Persia, in her present position, is absolutely unable to pay an indemnity such as Russia would be satisfied with, and a claim of this kind cannot be put forward in the interests of the integrity and independence of Persia. If it is insisted on it will amount to an almost fraudulent excuse for taking away the independence of Persia altogether. I trust that that point will not be overlooked.