The Press.
London, England, 1857-02-14 00:00:00

THE WAR IN PERSIA.

A TELEGRU'HIC despatch via Paris from Constanti-
nople, Feb. 7, contains intelligence of importance

The English, under Chamberlayne, have entered Cabul,
marching with an Aff4han army, under Dust Mohammed,
on Herat.

A reinforcement of 700 men from Bombay has arrived
at Bushire.

The truth of this statement is, of course, open to
doubt until confirmed.

The reports of the conduct of the Government of
Teheran are contradictory, but it would seem that
General Milder, who conducted the siege of Herat,
has been recalled in order to take command of
the troops intended to cover the route into the in-
terior from Bushire.

The Afghans about Herat and Candahar appear
to have given in their submission to the Shah.

A reply to our declaration of war has appeared in
the Teheran Gazette of the 24th of December.
The article charges the whole responsibility of the
war upon the British agents, who have "repeatedly
violated treaties, created embarrassments, and in-
fringed the authority oc the Persian Government."
The rupture with Mr. Murray is charged, with respect
to the Hashem affair, to his own conduct "in
violation of Persian rights," and also to his constant
intrigues in Affghanistan :
Mr. Murray mixed himself up with the intrigues relating
to AtTghanistan in generd, and to Herat in particular.
And yet, according to all the treaties concluded between
the two Cabinets—first, in 180 SI, with Sir Harford Jenes ;
second, in ltil% with Mr. Crosley ; and third, in 1811,
with Mr. Ellis—in all these existing treaties it was stipu-
lated that the English Government should not interfere in
Persian and Afighan affairs except as a mediator with the
consent of both parties.

The writer then shows that Colonel Sheil, by his own
intrigues in Herat, had annulled the famous unrati-
fied treaty, and declares that constant communication
was kept up between Colonel Sheil and his agents in
Herat, in direct violation of the stipulations of that
treaty. The writer then makes a curious state-
ment :

After Mr. Shell, the chargé d'aiTaires, Mr. Thompson,
even took advantage of the departure cf Mollah Akram, the
secretary of the governor of Herat, to entertain him out•
side the town, and to give him money and a letter for Seid
Mohammed Khan.
In that letter it was said :
That, according to conventions agreed upon with the said
secretary, held Mohammed Khan, whose intelligence and
capacity are appreciated, shall receive from the agent of England,
at Ilerat, the necessary arms and ammunition, and two kovirours
of money (4,0,000 l.), on condition that the English agent shall
not be excluded from the affairs of Atfghani-tan, and that all
who speak the Affghan tongue shall be subject to him ; the advice
is given to Seid Mohammed Khan :o send one of his sons to the
Governor•(leneral of India, and he will thus obtain all that ha
desires.

149

That letter is actually in the archives of the Persian
Government.

Although we were informed of all the steps of the Eng-
lish agents we tolerated them out of respect to the English
alliance. lat the agents of England put no limits to their
compromising conduct. After the death of Kuheudil Khan,
1)ost Mohammed Khan seized upon the town of Candahar,
in defiance of the prohibition for any Government in these
parts to invade a neighbouring State. Dust Mohammed was
even resolved to seize upon Herat.
While these events were taking place in Affghanistan the
representatives of England maintained a strict silence on
these questions, and caused us embarrassments on other
matters. But as soon as Dost Mohammed Khan had seized
Candahar (on the 4th of Itaby.el.anuel), Mr. Murray, on the
9th of the same month, broke off his intercourse with the
Persian Government.

The article then quotes at length the petition of
the Herat _!ie for Persian assistance aga►nst Dost
Moham►nell, and contrasts the treacherous conduct
of these men, who afterwards accepted bribes from
Dost Mohammed, and tried to massacre the Persian
envoys :

What was the Government to do? Was it to submit to
such a degradation as not to punish such excesses?
Moreover, it had before it an aggressor ready to seize upon
Herat, and who, from that point, would have been a con-
tinual source of anxiety, and perhaps the ruin of the pro-
vince of Khorassan.

Under every circumstance it was the duty of the Persian
Government to have a care that no foreign power should
seize the said town, of which it is the sole protector. Can
it be supposed that it is not Dost Mohammed Khan who
wishes to seize Herat, and not Esa Khan, who calls him ,
and who revolts? The letters of Host Mohammed Khan,
and of his son, Goulah•Haider Khan, ha% e fallen into the
hands of the Persian Government, and they prove that it
is Host Mohammed Khan who caused Herat to revolt,
with the aid of English promises ; that English troops are
marching in the direction of Nishapoor, and will reach
Cabul ; that money and ammunition have been sent
towards Shikapoor, and have arrived at Pichong.
The writer then explains the intentions of the Per-
sian Government :

However, the Court of Teheran, to maintain the friend-
ship and the alliance of England, was resolved, ever since
the capture of Herat, to organise there an Affghan Govern-
ment according to the conventions. Still :core, it was not
disinclined to give to Mr. Murray such satisfaction as was
compatible with the dignity of the Persian Government.
But that did not suffice; to those two demands others
have been added. Lord Clarendon and Lord Redcliffe
proposed those two conditions, and conferences were held
with the Persian charge d'affaires at the Sublime Porte.
In consequence of the new exactions, Ferouk Khan was
sent with full powers, and his mission was notified to the
English Ambassador.
Nevertheless, before the arrival of Fetouk Khan, war
was declared. On arriving at Constantinople Ferouk
Khan wished to communicate with Lord Redcliffe ; he
received as reply, that there were no more questions to be
settled, that there was no need of conferring. With great
difficulty negotiations were ultimately commencers.; but,
in addition to the two points above mentioned, the Eng-
lish Ambassador put forward claims which were inad-
missible, and had nothing whatever to do with the pending
questions. Ferouk Khan, who had no authority to treat
on this basis, asked fur :orty days' delay to allow him to
communicate with his Government; this arrangement, to
which Lord Redcliffe consented, was concluded on the
26th of November, and yet on the 6th of December the
English fleet attacked Bender-i Mahiguiri (the fisheries),
which place was bombarded and taken.
After reading these facts every man will be able to judge
for himself whether it is the Persians or the English that
have infringed the existing treaties.

An able pamphlet in Persian has also appeared at
Teheran upon the points in dispute. The writer
goes minutely over the origin and history of the
whole question of Herat, and asserts the right of
Persia, not only to hold Herat, but to maintain a
protectorate over the neighbouring Affghan tribes.