The Stratford Evening Post WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE EGMONT SETTLER. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, l9ll. AFFAIRS IN PERSIA.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXII, Issue 7, 19 December 1911, Page 4

The Stratford Evening Post WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE EGMONT SETTLER. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1911. AFFAIRS IN PERSIA.

A few days, ago a cable message with regard to Persian affairs stated that it was expected that Russia and Great Britain would agree to the abolition of the National Council, set up in 1906 as a result of the nationalist movement in Persia. The,growth of Russian and British conjoined interests in Persia is dated from 1898, when Persia. sought to obtain a doan in England, but-. British capitalists required more security' than was forthcoming and Russia was appealed to and found the, money, Persia guaranteeing all her Customs receipts except those from Ears to the Persian Gulf ports, where Britain held special interests. In 1902 the Shah visited England, and was received by King Edward, and a week later a now commercial treaty was concluded between Great Britain and Persia. Its provisions to some extent counterbalanced the losses indicted on British trade by the RussoParsian commercial treaty of 1902, which had seriously damaged the Indian tea trade, and had led to a rapid extension of Russian influence. Between 1899 and 1903 the Russian Bank had lent Persia £1,000,000. Russian concessionaires were given the right to build roads from Tabriz to Teheran and from Tabriz to Kazvin, md the Russian Bank opened new branches in Seistan. It was, however, in the Persian Gulf that the rivalry between Great Britain and Russia threatened to become dangerous. Great Britain had almost a monopoly

of maritime commerce in the Gnlf, and was alone responsible for buoying, lighting, and policing its waters. TSio British claim to political supremacy in this region had thus a solid economic basis. In November, 1903, Lord Curzon, the Viceroy of India, visited the Persian Gulf with an escort of Four cruisers. At Bushiro, on December 1, the Persian Governor of Pars was guilty of a broach of diplomatic etiquette, in consequence of which Lord Curzon sailed away without landing. This incident was considered in some quarters to have been brought about by Russian intrigue, ind the dismissal of the offending Governor after Russia’s reverses in her war with Japan was held to confirm this opinion. Nevertheless Russian financial and commercial influence in Persia continued to increase. On August 31, 1907, the Russo-British Convention was signed, of which the general effect was that Great Britain undertook to seek no political or commercial concession in northern Persia, and should not interfere with Russia doing so, Russia in her turn giving Great Britain a similar undertaking with regard to southern Persia. Either Power might obtain concessions in central Persia. All existing concessions in any part of Persia were to be respected. Great Britain and Russia might assume control of revenues in their respective spheres of influence if Persia failed to meet her liabilities. It was agreed that the Persian Gulf lay outside the scope of the convention, and that Russia should recognise Great Britain’s special interests in that region. In June, 1908, in consequence of the revolution that had bro'ken out, the Shah proposed to abolish the national council that had been called for the first time in Oc-

fobcr, 190 G, but was dissuaded by Client Britain and Russia. Meanwhile Persian brigands bad attacked the Russian frontier guards in Transcaucasia, and the indemnity demanded by Russia was not paid until several Persian t illages had been burned by Russian troops. Early in 1909 a Russian force of 2600 men was sent to Tabriz, where the Nationalists were besieged by the Shah’s troops, with the result that, the latter raised the siege. On July l.'i of the same year the Nationalist troops entered Teheran. After severe lighting the Cossacks—Persian troops officered by Russians in the Shah’s service—deserted to the rebels. The Shah took refuge in the Russian Legation, abdicated his throne, and sought refuge in the Crimea, to which place lie was

escorted by a bodyguard of Russian Cossacks and Indian Sowars. The Persian province, Ghilan and Alazainberan, which Russia now threatens to occupy, are stated to be within the Russian sphere of influence.

THE PROPER COURSE

In the course of an article on the proper course for the Qovernniont to adopt, the Wellington “Post” considers the immediate duty of the Government to be fairly clear. The fundamental fact which determined the responsibility of British Ministers and their freedom from control by the Crown is, in the language of Todd, that “no Minister can, for any length of time, carry on the government of the country who docs not possess the confidence of Parliament, and more especially of'the House of Commons.” The popular chamber is tlie arbiter of the fate of Ministries. The “Post” continues:—“So firmly established is that principle that the resignation of a Ministry after a defeat at a General Election, without awaiting the verdict of the House, has only quite recently become the practice, and was at first regarded as a dangerous and unconstitutional innovation. The balance of convenience has, however, decided in its favour. It Would be Sir Joseph Ward’s duty to hand in his resignation at once if the country had decided unequivocally against him, and it would, of course, have been bis duty to carry on the business of the country for the next six months in the ordinary way if there had been a clear verdict in his favour. But the Yes-No verdict which has actually been rendered is difficult to interpret, and should the task prove impossible there will bo nothing for it but a new trial. In spite of the ambiguity it will, of course, bo possible for the Premier to retain office until Parliament, summoned at the end of Jifhe, in ordinary course, decides that he should go. But constitutional propriety, a regard for public opinion, and his own sense of fair play .must all tell Sir Joseph Ward that, though such a course would be possible, it would not be right. The country’s verdict being ambiguous, the tribunal that must take the responsibility of deciding what it means is the House of Representatives; and the position of the Government would be retrospectively that of usurpers for six months if, deprived of any previous opportunity of speaking, the House decided in June that the country’s verdict was against them. The proper course is clearly to summon Parliament as soon as it can be conveniently arranged after the Christmas holidays, i and to have the fate of the Government determined at once by the people’s representatives.”