This can only be explained when I see you, and discuss the matter verbally with you. But with regard to your statement, that you regretted that the letter I had written by the Shah's commands would alter the opinion which Her Majesty the Queen of England would have formed of my friendship for the British Government from your letters to the Government: indeed, the expression of regret and surprise should come from me, because, from the day that I assumed the office of Sadr Azim, up to the present time, on every occasion I have clearly proved the strong desire by which I am actuated sincerely to cement the friendship between the two countries; and it is as clear as daylight that in justice no doubt can be entertained of this. But this circumstance cannot be made an argument that I should abolish the old-established customs of Persia. Certainly, Her Majesty the Queen, who takes a friendly interest in Persian affairs, instead of desiring that other regulations should be added to those now existing for the benefit of this country, will not alter her opinion of me for having preserved an old and wise rule observed in Persia, and necessary for the independence of this nation, and that Her Majesty will still retain the opinion of my friendship which she has formed from your previous letters, because she cannot wish to see this country thrown into a state of confusion. It is clear that the foundations of friendship are strengthened for the purpose of increasing the prosperity and improving the state of this country, not with a view to abolishing those laws which at present exist.

With regard to your Agents in the Persian Provinces besides Tabreez and Bushire, you have written at some length. I confess that I never supposed you would write what is irregular and not just, and insert it in an official letter. The Persian Ministers have never yet recognised any official agent on the part of the Mission excepting in the places above named, and they will not give their consent to such appointments; nor have they ever given any document or even letter of recommendation to these persons. If the Mission is in possession of any such paper let it be produced, that the Persian Minister may see it. The British Government and its Mission have agents, secret and recognised, in every part of the world, some of whom are merchants, others travellers, and others again news writers; and all these people, in consideration of the friendship felt for the British Government, receive protection. If the British Government have an agent in a particular town, it is no proof that they are formally entitled to appoint him, and the Persian Ministers have never, in any way, admitted this right, nor will they do so. Any agents which the Mission may keep in any other towns except those already specified, have been maintained with so much secresy that once, when in friendly conversation I mentioned the name of one of those persons to Sir Justin Sheil as being in his employment he denied it, and said that he had no one of that description in his pay. With regard to the Ijlas* of merchants in Ispahan, I do not even know the name of the Mission Agent in that place, and up to the present time I have never heard of such a thing. How, then, can it be that, as you state, the Mission Agent was present at that meeting? If this is true, of course you have some documentary evidence to produce from me. Let it be brought forth, that the truth may be known.

But now, with reference to the matter of Meerza Hashem Khan, and what you have written that when you came to Persia and for some time previously, that person was neither in the service of the Persian Government nor had he received one penny of pay. I never pretended that Meerza Hashem Khan received pay while he was in the Mission. When he refuses to obey and to serve, and takes up his residence in the Mission-house, it is perfectly clear that his pay will not be sent to the Mission as an offering to him. His salary bills were not issued, as you suppose, nor was his name inserted in the army list for the purpose of keeping up the discussion with the Mission. Before he went to the Mission, every year his bills were drawn out by the chief of the department and given to him, and he used to go himself and have them registered and then encashed; but after his entering the Mission, the bills were still issued, remaining, however, in the hands of the Chief, as Meerza Hashem Khan was not there to receive them and get them registered. If the intention had been to keep up the discussion with the Mission, how easy it would have been to have had his bills registered also. His being in the Military Department is a thing

*Commission of Inquiry.

well known to every one, and his position, as an officer, precludes him from paying money and procuring a substitute. Even this is unfounded, for no serbauz, after he has entered the army, and his name is enrolled in the lists, can possibly place another in his stead and leave the regiment, nor can any parallel be drawn between Meerza Hashem Khan and a pish-khidmet* or any other servant. When a child, he was in the private apartments of the late Shah's establishment, and accompanied the present Shah when he went to Tabreez. He was afterwards, when the Shah ascended the throne, a pish-kidmet for some time, but was placed, at his own desire in the War Department. Holding this post he fled to the Mission and took sanctuary there, and has remained there ever since. With regard to Persians who are free-born and are of respectable family, whose pay does not suffice for their maintenance, or who are not equal to the duties required from them, not being allowed to resign the service and seek employment elsewhere, and your observation that, if such is the case, there is no difference between them and a slave, I have to state that the position of a subject and servant of the Shah towards his master, has, in many respects, a very great resemblance to that of a slave; and no one, in the face of the Shah's wishes, can assume to himself any liberty of action. It is clear that if a law is established permitting all those who are dissatisfied with the amount of their pay to resign and seek service elsewhere, in a short time all discipline in this country would be at an end; and a soldier who receives annually only seven or eight tomauns pay, were he to receive from the Mission twelve or fourteen, and were the Mission to pay the Colonels and other officers, Mustoofees,† and Secretaries at War, who receive, more or less, from 500 to 1,000 tomauns, twice the amount of their pay, or half as much again, it would not take long for the Government to find itself without a single servant, and the Mission premises would soon swell to the size of a very large city. The Persian Government would never have in its power to submit to such a proceeding. If Meerza Hashem Khan once asked for an increase of pay, and it were refused, nothing very extraordinary happened. The Persian Ministers did not consider his services deserving of an increase of pay, and they therefore refused his demand; instead of going to the Mission and giving you all this trouble, he ought to have devoted his time to the duties of his post, and made himself worthy of higher pay and the favour of his Majesty. You state that I had said to Meerza Hashem Khan, that his pay would not be raised, and that he might go and serve where he wished: and that he had considered this equal to a dismissal. I said to him his salary would not be increased at present, and that he might go and petition his master, the Shah; and such a reply from me cannot be considered as a dismissal. Meerza Hashem Khan, and persons of respectable family like him, when dismissed, must either be told that his services are dispensed with by the Shah in person, or orders are given, and his dismissal is issued in writing. What you say, that if I had considered this person in the service I would have referred to Mr. Thomson, or afterwards to you, to induce him to return to his duties, require some remarks. In the first place, it is not the case that I had no discussion with Mr. Thomson regarding him. Mr. Thomson several times wished to send him with an employé of the Mission to me, that I might overlook his past conduct and intercede for him with the Shah; but I did not agree to this. I replied, that if he came to me, without the interference of the Mission, I would overlook the past, and treat him in future with kindness, in the same manner as the Persian Ministers had shown great kindness to a number of persons, among others, to Abbas Koolee Khan, Larijanee, to Koocheek Khan, and Hoossein Khan, who had gone without reason into the sanctuary of the Mission; but afterwards, without the intervention of the Mission, had left it. Moreover, the affair of Meerza Hashem Khan had been terminated between Mr. Thomson and myself; and I do not know why the question has been again brought forward, and a reference again made to the past. Secondly, as the Persian Ministers have found by experience that whenever they advance claims which are just and clear it produces no impression, and they are not believed, and the Mission holds its own pretensions, right or wrong, with great obstinacy-not viewing the matter with the eyes of justice, and as I am unwilling to enter into discussions and disputes, for these reasons,

I refrain always as much as possible from commencing altercations of this description. If this had not been the case, a discussion would have been commenced by me regarding Meerza Hassan, who is now in the Mission, and has no reason whatever for remaining there. Thirdly, if out of respect for the Mission, Meerza Hashem Khan or others, while they remain in the Missionhouse, are not molested, it is no evidence of the weakness of this Government in the control of their servants.

You also state that when you came to Tehran you found Meerza Hashem Khan in the Mission, where he had resided for a year, and that you were as much justified in engaging him as a servant of the British Government as you would have been at liberty to engage the services of any other Meerza or Persian subject in Tehran. I have already mentioned that this person is in the position of a man who has disobeyed orders, and is a refugee in the Missionhouse, and your Excellency has no right on any plea to engage a servant of this Government in the pay of the Shah. But, yes, you have a right to employ any servant who is not a Government servant, and who is himself desirous to serve in any ordinary post in the Mission which may be necessary, and such a person has a right to accept such employment.

Be this as it may, if your Excellency, notwithstanding the just arguments of the Persian Ministers, should still dispatch this person from Tehran to any place whatsoever in the service of the Mission, I state to your Excellency distinctly that, by the orders of His Majesty the Shah, he will be seized, and any grave consequences which may arise from this will rest with your Excellency. But if he should himself leave the Mission like Abbas Koolee Khan, Koocheek Khan, and Hoossein Khan, and others, who without reason took sanctuary in the Mission, and afterwards left it without the intervention of the Mission, and were treated with kindness, he also will be kindly treated.

I HAVE received your Highness' letter of the 11th of November, and it requires a very brief reply, as all that your Highness has advanced has been already answered in my last despatch. The only point to which it is necessary to call your Highness' special attention is the fact and the manner of Meerza Hashem Khan's dismissal from the Persian service. Your Highness states in your letter that when Meerza Hashem Khan solicited an increase of pay, you told him that his salary would not be increased at "present," and "that he might go and petition his master the Shah." Now I beg to inform your Highness that these last expressions quoted were never made use of until they were written in your last letter. Your Highness' answer, as delivered to the Meerza and as stated by yourself to me, was that his pay would not be raised a farthing, and that he might go about his business and get more where he could. This answer from a Prime Minister in this country, as in all other countries, amounts to a dismissal, or, at all events, to a permission to seek service elsewhere, and the Meerza in seeking service in this Mission did no more than obey your Highness' orders. If, as your letter states, it was out of your power to dismiss a public servant without the Shah's commands, it is evident that you used those expressions either with or without His Majesty's permission: if you used them with that permission, then the man was legitimately dismissed; if your Highness used them without that permission, and thereby committed a breach of the rules of the Persian service, that is an affair which it rests with your Highness to settle with the Shah.

But, as I said before, those expressions used by your Highness were con

sidered by the Meerza as an order or permission to retire from the public service, and to seek his wages elsewhere; they were so considered by this Mission and by Her Majesty's Government, and consequently the Meerza was taken into the British service. Your Highness writes, indeed, about his having abandoned his post in the Military Department, but it is well known to you that he never held any military post, rank, or charge whatever. Your Highness has written a great many words about this Mission, by offers of high pay, taking away hundreds of Persian officers from the public service; if these words were not in a public despatch, I should suppose your Highness to be joking, for you well know that this Mission has never taken nor wishes to take a single officer from the Persian service, and that our Persian employés amount to a certain number, which we neither wish to increase nor diminish.

I return therefore to the principal topic of this correspondence, which is to renew to your Highness a clear and unequivocal statement that Meerza Hashem Khan having been taken into the service of this Mission, and by the special order of Her Majesty's Government, I shall employ him here or elsewhere in Persia as the service of the Mission may require, and if the Persian Government seize or molest him in the discharge of his duties, the consequences of such a proceeding, which will be the same as seizing any other employé of the Mission, are well known to your Highness.

Translated into Persian by
(Signed)

RONALD F. THOMSON.

(Translation.)

Inclosure 8 in No. 51.

The Sadr Azim to Mr. Murray.

November 15, 1855. I HAVE received your Excellency's letter of yesterday's date, regarding Meerza Hashem Khan, and it also has been perused by His Majesty the Shah. By His Majesty's orders, I beg to state in reply, that there is no necessity for writing at any length. The answer is exactly that contained in my letter of the 4th November, which was written from the Royal autograph. Any consequences arising from Meerza Hashem Khan, a servant of this Government, will rest with that person who illegally commits an act at variance with the customs of this country.

With regard to the verbal communication, which I do not recollect in the least, your Excellency has written a good deal. My engagements in official business are confined to those which are contained in official documents. Anything which I may have written, or you may write, will be considered as binding and received in evidence. As the affairs of Meerza Hashem Khan were entirely terminated between me and Mr. Thomson, I do not trouble you further, and these few lines have been perused solely for your information.

Translated by

(Signed)

RONALD F. THOMSON.

Inclosure 9 in No. 51.

Mr. Murray to the Sadr Azim.

November 16, 1855.

IT is my duty to inform your Highness that the day before yesterday a complaint was made to me by Meerza Hashem Khan, lately taken into the service of this Mission, that his wife was forcibly detained and imprisoned in the house of Sultan Hoossein Meerza by order of the Persian Government.

On inquiry into the particulars of his complaint, I learnt that this seizure and detention of his wife was occasioned by his having taken service under M

this Mission, and that she was threatened, if he did not leave the British service and protection, that she would be forcibly divorced from him.

As I could not believe, without full evidence, that the Persian Government was capable of conduct so contrary to all the rules of law and justice, I sent Meerza Hashem Khan yesterday, accompanied by two employés of the Mission, to the house of Sultan Hoossein Meerza, to demand that his wife might be restored to him. His Highness positively refused to do so. Upon this Meerza Hashem Khan produced and showed to him the fetwahs* of two of the principal Mooshtehids + in Tehran, proving to him the illegality of his proceedings. He replied, that he was perfectly aware of the law on the subject, but that he was acting under orders which he could not disobey, and that if any further explanation were required, application must be made to your Highness.

It must be some secret and malignant enemy of your Highness who has persuaded you to order or to sanction this most irregular and unjust proceeding, which is at once an affront to a friendly Government and a flagrant violation of the laws of Islam, Those who have evinced their courage in threatening and terrifying an imprisoned woman, will scarcely have the courage to avow that, by the Persian laws, a wife not charged with any crime can lawfully be withheld from her husband, or that she can be forcibly divorced by command of any third party, without the consent of her husband.

It is not, however, my object at present to comment upon any acts of injustice committed by the Persian Government, so long as they do not affect persons connected with this Mission; but as in the present case the complainant is in the employment and under the protection of the British Government, and as on that very ground his wife is forcibly imprisoned and withheld from him, it is my duty to request that your Highness will give immediate orders for the lady's liberation and restoration to her husband.

I HAVE received your Excellency's letter of yesterday's date. As the subject of which it treats touches on a discussion regarding ladies-moreover those connected with the Royal harem, and clashes with the honour of His Majesty; and as the discussion of such a subject is not only extremely delicate, and not to be thought of in this country, but is also unprecedented, I have always myself avoided doing so, and have never allowed myself even to contemplate the matter, far less to make it a subject of a correspondence with any person being a foreigner, and the Representative of a foreign Government.

It being quite out of my power to discuss this matter in any way, and more especially in an official correspondence, I therefore, with the greatest respect, beg to state this much in reply to your Excellency, that I am excused from considering your letter as an official communication, and that I am in duty bound to look upon it as if it had never been received.