§ Mr. DILLONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay upon the Table the Note received from the Persian Government on the occasion, of the landing in Persia of the ex-Shah, and the reply of the British Government to that Note?
Mr. McKINNON WOODThe Note in question reached me only on the 25th instant, and no reply has yet been returned to it. I do not propose to lay it on the Table at present.
§ Mr. DILLONasked whether any communications have passed between the Russian Government and the British Government as to the landing in Persia of the ex-Shah; and, if so, whether he will lay these communications upon the Table?
Mr. McKINNON WOODThe answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. The answer to the second part is in the negative, but the attitude of both Governments will be one of non-intervention in internal affairs of Persia that do not affect their subjects.
§ Mr. DILLONasked how many Russian troops were still stationed in Northern Persia; and whether His Majesty's Government will draw the attention of the Russian Government to the desirability of using these troops for the purpose of compelling the ex-Shah to return to Odessa.
Mr. McKINNON WOODI have no recent information as to the exact numbers of Russian troops. Those from Kazvin, except eighty as a Consular guard, were withdrawn. I have not heard that those at Tabriz and Ardebil have been reduced. I am not prepared to ask the Russian Government to intervene actively in the internal affairs of Persia.
§ Mr. DILLONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the repeated protests, in reference to the intrigues of the ex-Shah and his agents, which have been addressed by the Government of Persia to the Russian Government during the last year; whether any explanation has reached the British Government how the ex-Shah has been allowed to leave Odessa, to travel freely about Europe, and finally to cross Russian territory and land in Persia from a Russian boat, in contraven- 1791 tion of the undertakings given by the Russian and British Governments to the Persian Government, and in spite of the repeated protests of the Persian Government?
Mr. McKINNON WOODI am not aware that the Persian Government addressed the Russian Government on this subject on more than one occasion last year, though they may in fact have done so; but I can inform the hon. Member that the Russian Government repeatedly warned the ex-Shah against intrigues, both last year and this. I have received no official explanation of the circumstances referred to in the second part of the question; the ex-Shah succeeded in eluding the Russian authorities, and there has been no contravention of the undertakings mentioned.
§ Sir JOHN ROLLESTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he was aware that Mahomed Ali, the ex-Shah, had arrived in Persia with his entourage on a Russian boat; whether he can state if he had done so with the knowledge and help of the Russian Government, after the Persian Government had repeatedly called attention to the intrigues that were being carried on by the emissaries of the ex-Shah; whether the British Government will, in conjunction with the Russian Government, take steps to notify to Mahomed Ali that they will not recognise his pretensions to the throne of Persia, in accordance with the Anglo-Russian Agreement of 1909; whether he is aware that Russia has some 4,000 troops in Persia at the present time; and whether that was in accordance with the understanding between the two countries?
Mr. McKINNON WOODThe reply to the first question is in the affirmative, and that to the second in the negative. As regards the third, I can make no statement as to what either Government may do in a contingency that has not yet arisen. The Agreement of 1909 is in no way concerned with such a situation as this question contemplates. As regards the fourth question, I beg to refer the hon. Member to the reply just returned to the hon. Member for East Mayo, which gives the information in my possession on the subject. As regards the fifth and last question, such Russian troops as remain in Northern Persia are there in the interests of order and for the protection of foreign 1792 lives and property, and their presence cannot under the circumstances be construed as a violation of the Anglo-Russian Agreement.
§ Mr. GEORGE LLOYDIs it not a fact that the protocol of 1909 to which Great Britain, Russia, and Persia were signatories, did refer to such contingency?