RELATIONS WITH PERSIA. (Hansard, 22 February 1841)

§ The Earl of Ripon

said, that in making the motion of which he had given notice, though he had lately understood that that motion would not be opposed by the noble Viscount or her Majesty's Ministers, yet he felt it to be his duty to state the grounds on which that motion was made. He had been led to this course from the great importance of the subject to which it related. Reluctant as he always was, on general grounds, to call for the production of papers during the course of the negotiations of which those papers were a part, and to which they alluded, yet he thought that the present position of our affairs in Persia—the relation in which we at present stood to that country—the differences which had arisen respecting it—warranted him on the present occasion in violating the rule which he had laid down for the guidance of his general conduct. He thought that the circumstances of the case justified him in making the motion, and he did not, when he had first given notice of it, imagine that any public inconvenience could possibly result from compliance with it or from his giving such 765 notice, for had he imagined that any inconvenience could have possibly arisen, he certainly should not have pursued such a course. There was something peculiar, something very little understood, something very unintelligible, with respect to our relations with Persia, and he would now draw their Lordships' attention to the manner in which those relations appeared to stand. At the opening of the Session of 1839, her Majesty, in her speech from the Throne, had stated that an interruption in our friendly relations with the Court of Persia had taken place, and a hope was also expressed by her Majesty that such interruption would not be of long continuance. Soon after the commencement of the Session a mass of papers had been laid before Parliament, for the purpose of showing the cause of that interruption in our friendly relations which had been alluded to in the speech, and the grounds on which our Minister at Teheran had withdrawn from that Court. It appeared that those grounds were principally connected with the conduct which had been pursued by the authorities of Persia towards a certain courier. There were other matters in which the two Governments were more or less implicated, but the immediate cause of difference appeared to be the circumstances attending this matter of the courier, to which he should presently direct their Lordships' attention. It appeared that our Minister had quitted the Court of Teheran, and had directed those attached to the embassy to retire to Erzeroum, within the Turkish territory, whilst he had directed Sir Henry Bethune, Colonel Shiel, and the military officers to proceed to the city of Bagdad. The Ambassador himself came to England. It appeared that the Schah of Persia, alarmed at the prospect of the interruption of the friendly relations with this country, had sent a Minister here to discuss with the British Government in this country the matters which had been in discussion between the Persian government and the British Minister at the Court of Teheran. Her Majesty's Government had thought it their duty to slate to the Persian government and to that individual, that he would not be received as an envoy unless he were empowered to make all the concessions which Sir John M'Neil had required of the Schah, and more especially in the business relating to the courier. Her 766 Majesty's Government had directed her Ambassadors at the Courts of Vienna, Constantinople, and Paris, to make a communication to the Persian envoy, should they meet with him, that except those conditions were complied with, he would not be received. That individual came, however, to this country, in the month of June, 1839. He was not recognized by the noble Lord the Secretary for foreign Affairs; he managed, however, to penetrate the recesses of Downing-street, when the same conditions were insisted on; he had at that time some conferences with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether by writing or personal conversation he could not say, but after a short residence here he returned to his own country, and from that time all communication between the countries had ceased. He had left this country on the 7th of July in the same year. So after a very short residence he returned to Persia, re infectâ. This was in July, and in August—at the close of that Session—her Majesty had announced in her speech from the Throne, that she regretted to say, that the differences between the British Government and the Court of Teheran continued to exist, but she expressed at the same time her confident hope that the differences between Great Britain and Persia would be speedily and satisfactorily adjusted. Nothing more transpired in the course of this last Session upon the subject. There were many reasons which had deterred people from pressing her Majesty's Government for explanation, and from making inquiries, and he for one had been inclined to hope that at the close of the Session they would have been informed that all those matters had been satisfactorily settled. But her Majesty's Speech at the termination of the Session took no notice whatever of our relations with Persia, and those who took an interest in the matter were driven to hope that at the commencement of the present Session some explanation would be furnished. It was with great surprise and regret he found, that not one single syllable, good, bad, or indifferent, was said in the Speech at the opening of the Session. So that for upwards of two years and a half this affair had been going on, and all the interests of British subjects in Persia, personal and commercial—all the public and political interests of this country—from 767 that period had been left to the chapter of accidents, without the support, or the presence, or the authority, or the superintending viligance of any resident efficient Minister at that Court. That was in itself a very unfortunate circumstance as regarded any country with which we might have been in friendly and close relation; but it was particularly so with respect to Persia, because it had been the policy of this country for many years to cultivate the closest connection with that country. The cessation for upwards of two years of an alliance of that sort was no very light matter, more particularly when it had been accompanied with some circumstances of irritation and alienation of feeling, because, though this country might recover the connection, though it might get back into what might appear to be a state of friendship, it was not certain that the alliance would be recovered with the same feelings and with the same advantages. There was another circumstance that made it peculiarly unfortunate there should have existed this alienation, which was the time and circumstances during which it took place, for it was contemporaneous with that undertaking of a gigantic operation beyond the Indus, upon which he would express no opinion then, except that it was an operation the results of which were not fully developed, and with respect to which no one would venture to pronounce until they were developed, whether they would be for the benefit or the detriment of this country. He hoped they would prove to the advantage of this country, but it was clear that any interruption of our relations with Persia during the time that was going on must greatly aggravate the difficulties of the case. Besides which their Lordships would recollect that one of the many grounds on which the expedition was undertaken was to meet certain assumed dangers arising out of alleged intrigues and designs on the part of Russia. It had been obscurely stated in the declaration, but the allusion was obvious. The same allusion was made with respect to the conduct of Persia, and it was represented that the same designs were entertained with respect to Persia, and the same intrigues carried on. It was true that when the Russian Government explained the matter to the British Government here, they expressed themselves perfectly satisfied with that explanation. 768 He, for one, had not joined in the alarms which many persons had entertained respecting the designs of Russia; but as those alarms did certainly exist in the minds of large and influential bodies, it was, to say the least, a most untoward circumstance that this absence of British authority at the court of Teheran should take place exactly at this time, and instead of seeking, under such circumstances, to unite still more closely, and by the mutual ties of interest, the two countries, that Persia should be left completely open to the intrigues to which he had referred. The two countries were now respectively in a position which he did not understand. He did not know whether they were at peace or at war. It seemed an easy thing to ascertain; but really, in the present case, it was a question which he could not answer. Her Majesty's Government, he supposed, would say, that we were not at war with Persia; and if they could show that there had only been an interruption of diplomatic relations he would willingly think that was not war. The dispute which had taken place between the countries and the differences which still existed were also not of themselves war, nor was the abrogation of existing treaties in itself war, but he asked when this country had taken, forcibly taken, possession of a certain portion of Persian territory without their consent, knowledge, or approbation, and not only had taken possession of it, but retained that possession, and still retained the territory which had been thus seized—he asked, was not this an act of war? It might be unjust, it might be wise, or it might be the height of folly, but whether the one or the other, was it not the expression on the part of her Majesty's Government of warlike intentions? Could they say that it was more or less than an act of war? and having stated this fact to their Lordships, he was entitled to demand from the noble Viscount and the Government a full, clear, and specific explanation on the subject. Could it be said that the departure of Sir John M'Neil from the court of Persia was an ordinary leave of absence? The East India company had engaged to pay for the support of a mission 12,000l., but they could not be expected to pay that sum unless an efficient, an accredited, and authoritative mission was maintained at Teheran. And was there such a mission in Persia at present? Sir J. M'Neil was either in England or 769 Scotland—Colonel Shiel, a clever and competent man was at Erzeroum, and Sir H. Bethune at Bagdad. How could this, then, be called an efficient mission? He would now beg for one moment to call the attention of their Lordships to the circumstances which had led to Sir John M'Neil's departure—the story of the courier, to which he had already alluded—for it was very important to bring the whole case fairly before their Lordships. He admitted at the outset his firm belief that, whatever Sir John M'Neil had done; he had done from the very best intentions, but he must at the same time assert that what Sir John M'Neil had done was, in his opinion, absolutely and entirely wrong. But he was not desirous of pressing upon that Gentleman. He was confident, that Sir John M'Neil had acted from what he thought to be the best and soundest policy, but when their Lordships had heard what the course which he had adopted really was, and what were the steps he had felt justified in taking, he was confident that they then would join with him in regretting, as they would also join with him in his surprise at, the conduct which her Majesty's Government had taken respecting such a course, in confirming and supporting such conduct. It appeared, then, that some points of difference had arisen between the Schah of Persia and the; Prince of Herat. These differences were in existence when Mr. Ellis had been our minister in that country. He had thought that the course which the Schah intended, to take was alike injurious to his own prospects and to the interests of this country of which he was the able and zealous representative. Mr. Ellis had exerted his influence, and his influence was by no means insignificant, to induce the Schah to desist from the pursuit of the course which he had then intended to adopt. Mr. Ellis succeeded, and the designs of the Schah were, for a time, abandoned. They were, however, he regretted to inform their Lordships, subsequently renewed. He regretted to be compelled to say so, though he must confess, and he believed that it was generally admitted, that merely with relation to the Schah of Persia and the Prince of Herat, the Schah was in the right. Mr. Ellis had thought so, and Sir J. M'Neil was of the same opinion. In continuing then, his history of the facts; the Schah marched his army to attack Herat. This had been done in 770 1837. Whilst the Schah's army was continuing its march, and had approached nearly to Herat, an attempt had been made on the part of the prince of that place to induce the Schah to abandon his project. An envoy was sent for this purpose, and it appeared from Sir John M'Neil's despatches, that he failed in the object which he had had in view. Sir John M'Neil, from his knowledge of the feelings of the army, had had reason to believe—at any rate, whether correctly or not he had believed—that this envoy, on his return to Herat, would be stopped, and perhaps maltreated. So, accordingly, he had sent a courier to some place on the road to accompany the envoy thus far on his journey. This place to which Sir J. M'Neil had limited his courier's progress was to the Persian territory. But the courier had not been content to obey the directions of his master, whether induced by the envoy himself, or by whom he could not say, and had accompanied the envoy into the territory of Herat. He had fallen into the hands of some soldiers, was stopped, and more or less ill-used. Sir John M'Neil had thought, and this was his great error, that this proceeding had been intended as an insult to him as the Minister of Great Britain—an insult to the country of which he was the representative. He had demanded an explanation and apology; this had been granted, but not satisfied with this he had claimed also a specific reparation in a particular manner. He was not content with a general reparation in any manner which the Persian government might think the most suitable to the circumstances of the case, but he demanded a peculiar and specific mode which he himself pointed out, and not having obtained this he felt himself compelled to quit the country, and to interrupt by that one act the diplomatic relations for so many years existing between the countries. But what was this courier? He begged to call the attention of their Lordships to this point. What was the courier doing at the time? And who was this courier thus acting? He would just point out to them what this man was doing, an interruption to whom had excited so strongly the indignation of Sir J. M'Neil. Without an order, authority, or passport, he had gone from the Persian territory into that city with which Persia was in open hostility, and against which she was about to commence a 771 siege. Now, this being his conduct, who was the person pursuing it? Was he an Englishman? No. Was he an European? No. Was he an inhabitant of any of the British possessions in India? No. He was none of them, but he would tell their Lordships who he was. He was a Persian subject, and he was doing that, the commission of which by a Persian subject was nothing more or less than high treason, and which exposed him to the punishment of death. Under such circumstances—besides many other minor points which he would not now enter upon —was it wise, or politic, or necessary for his own dignity or for the dignity of the Monarch whom he served, or of the country whose interests he guarded, to disturb the diplomatic relations existing between Persia and England by a hasty withdrawal from the Court of Teheran. It was far from clear, then, that Sir J. M'Neil had been right in the course which he felt necessary to pursue. He believed, and the majority of their Lordships would agree with him, that he had acted wrongly, but he, under the heat of the supposed insult, might not so carefully have looked at the consequences or seen so clearly the results of his conduct or the principles involved in it. But the wonder was, to his mind, that her Majesty's Government had not seen the necessary results of such a course and had ventured to support and back up Sir J. M'Neil in his unusual and unnecessary claim for this specific reparation. For, what had her Majesty's Government actually done—what had they said, by their conduct? Why, they had said that the protection of diplomatic authority included any and every act committed out of the territory over which the ambassador's or minister's influence extended, and that it did so in defiance of the law of the country in which such act was committed. They had, in reality, claimed the right to absolve a Persian subject from allegiance to his own country. This was, indeed, a most important topic, and to it he most seriously invited the consideration of their Lordships. The Persian government had offered to Sir John M'Neil an apology-had given an explanation, and had acceded to some redress. But they had refused to go the other step which Sir J. M'Neil so imperatively demanded. They dismissed the officer who had seized this courier, about whom the dispute had alto- 772 gether arisen; but they would not go the further length—a point which Sir J. M'Neil would not concede—by proclaiming that the officer was dismissed on this ground, and on this ground alone. They had refused to go that length, though at the express request of Great Britain. It was deeply to be deplored that it was not thought sufficient to receive the apology which had been offered. But Sir J. M'Neil was not satisfied, and for this reason, he had left the country. For this reason, the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, had refused to receive the envoy who had been sent from Persia to this country amicably to settle the differences which had arisen. When would such another opportunity present itself? By whom, at any future time, could the negotiations be carried on? Would Sir J. M'Neil conduct them? He was either in England or Scotland. Would Col. Shiel? He was at Erzeroum. Would Sir Henry Bethune? He was in Bagdad. Who then could conduct such negotiations? Would the Minister in Downing-street? Some explanation ought to be given—some explanation was due both to Parliament and the people for this neglect of so favourable an opportunity to settle the disputes, and heal the wounds which the conduct of Sir J. M'Neil had unfortunately caused. If any written communication had taken place between the envoy and her Majesty's Secretary it ought to be produced; but if the intercourse were purely private and conversational, they, of course, must do without it. But he thought it almost impossible that no written communication should have passed between the parties, and if so, that certainly was one of the documents which they ought to give. Having made so many observations, he would trouble their Lordships but for a few minutes longer. He trusted that they now agreed with him in thinking that the subject to which he had drawn their attention, was not a matter of slight importance, and he hoped that he had not treated it indiscreetly, or with passion, or with a spirit of partizanship. He could not think that such a state of things ought to have been allowed to go on for upwards of two years. The principle of refusing papers during the progress of negotiations, to which this referred as a general rule, was unquestionably sound, but there were circumstances in this particular case which pre- 773 vented its application. It was not treating Parliament rightly by leaving to private individuals the necessity of fishing out information for themselves on questions of such importance. The present state of our affairs with Persia was injurious alike to our commercial interests, and our political position, and every information on the subject should be afforded not productive of public inconvenience—and compatible with public safety. The noble Earl concluded by moving "for all correspondence which had taken place between her Majesty's Government and the Court of Teheran, on the subject of the cessation of our relations with Persia."