Abstract: Military report on the Khurasan [Khurāsān] and Seistan [Sīstān] regions of Persia [Iran], with maps and illustrations. Produced by the General Staff, India, and published in Calcutta [Kolkata] by the Government of India Press, 1931. Marked for official use only.The report includes chapters on:a history of Khurasan and Seistanthe geography of Khurasan and Seistan (mountains, rivers, deserts, an alphabetical listing of towns) and climate (including assessments of the health risks associated with both regions)population (religion, tribes)resources (including crops, grazing, fuel, transport, and a note on horses and mules in Khurasan)armed forces (including a description of the Eastern Division of the Persian military, an Order of Battle, organisation, armaments, equipment, clothing, rations, training)aviation (detailing the organisation, personnel, equipment, aerodromes, etc., of the Persian Air Force)administration (municipal, police, justice, department of public instruction, revenue, roads and communications, census, post and telegraphs, sanitation)communications (railways, roads, types of motor transport in use, principal routes used by travellers from Meshed [Mashad] to Russian territory, telegraphs, telephones, wireless)An appendix includes a veterinary note on conditions in Khurasan and Seistan. The volume also includes four colour plates illustrating different badges associated with Persian army and police officers, and a number of maps and diagrammatic maps.Physical description: Foliation: the foliation sequence (used for referencing) commences at the front cover with 1, and terminates at the inside back cover with 75; these numbers are written in pencil, are circled, and are located in the top right corner of the recto side of each folio.Pagination: the file also contains an original printed pagination sequence.
Abstract: This file is a report on the structure of the Persian Army. Compiled in the Intelligence Branch of the Quarter Master General's Department in India by Lieutenant James Archibald Douglas, the report gives the British perspective of the strength and weaknesses of the Persian Army.The report is broken down into: infantry (organization, strength, method of recruiting, armament); semi-regular cavalry (Cossack brigade, Russian officers); irregular cavalry (General Gordon's opinion); artillery (mule batteries, artillery horses); micellaneous bodies (militia, camel artillery, the Austrian corps); recapitulation of strength distribution (breech-loading rifles, Werndl rifles; Berdan rifles, Chassepot rifles, Gobelin rifles, magazine rifles, and breech-loading ammunition); the army's pay; the army's uniforms; the state of the army; fighting campaigns against the Bakhtiaris, Lurs, and Arab tribes.Included is a slip regarding the custody and disposal of secret documents (f 108).Physical description: Foliation: the foliation sequence for this description (used for referencing) commences at f 106, and terminates at f 116, as it is part of a larger physical volume; these numbers are written in pencil, are circled, and are located in the top right corner of the recto side of each folio.
Abstract: This bundle consists of summaries, and partial transcripts, of secret letters received from both the Governor General of India (17 May 1856, Number 22) and the Government of Bombay (27 May 1856, Numbers 39-40). The amount of detail for each entry therefore varies.The despatch from the Governor General (folios 23-34) is concerned with the advancement of Persian forces against Herat, and appeals for assistance to the British authorities in India and Dost Mahomed [Dost Mohammad Khan, Amir of Afghanistan]. The dispatch includes translated transcripts of letters sent between from Mahomed Yoosoof [Mohammad Yusuf Khan, Regent of Herat], Dost Mahomed, the Chief Commissioner for Punjab (John Laird Mair Lawrence), and the Governor General of India (James Broun-Ramsay, 1st Marquess of Dalhousie).The section from Bombay (folios 35-36) consists of a report of the advancement of Persian forces towards Herat, the deployment of Indian naval vessels in the Persian Gulf, and proposed terms by Brigadier William Marcus Coghlan (Political Resident at Aden) for the raising of the blockade of Berbera.Physical description: 1 item (14 folios)
Abstract: This bundle consists of summaries, and partial transcripts, of secret letters received from HM Consul at Tehran, Richard W Stevens (19 May 1856, Numbers 27-29. The amount of detail for each entry therefore varies.The subject matter is the activities and distribution of the Persian Army, including a report that news of the fall of Herat to Persia appears false.Physical description: 1 item (2 folios)
Abstract: This bundle consists of summaries of two secret letters received from Mr Thompson at Baghdad (30 and 31 January 1857). They are concerned with reports of events unfolding in Persia.Physical description: 1 item (2 folios)
Abstract: The memorandum outlines the size and composition of the Persian Army; this includes a list of the regiments currently in service. It also outlines the remuneration provided to both officers — of various ranks — and private soldiers. In addition, the armaments in use by both the infantry and the artillery are also detailed.It is briefly explained how the commanders of regiments are appointed and how those appointed are able to make money from the position. The memorandum also includes a British perspective on the quality of both Persian officers and the solders that serve under them. Other subjects touched on are leave arrangements and the provision of uniforms.The recent activities of Austrian and Russian officers within the Persian Army are also noted; this includes a list of pay and allowances for Austrian officers — of various ranks — in service with the Persian Army.Physical description: Foliation: the foliation sequence commences at f 95 and terminates at f 97, as the description is part of a larger physical volume; these numbers are written in pencil, are circled, and are located in the top right corner of the recto side of each folio.Pagination: the volume also contains an original printed pagination sequence.
Abstract: This item comprises copies of enclosures to a despatch from the Government of Bombay Secret Department to the Secret Committee, Number 81 of 1847, dated 30 September 1847. The enclosures are dated 14 June-14 August 1847.The primary documents are despatches of Lieutenant-Colonel Justin Sheil, HM Envoy and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of Persia [Iran], to the Chief Secretary to the Government, Bombay, forwarding for the information of the President and Governor in Council, Bombay, and the Governor-General of India, copies of his despatches to Viscount Palmerston, HM Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The enclosures in Sheil’s despatches notably include copies of his correspondence with the Persian Prime Minister, Hajee Meerza Aghassee [Ḥājjī Mīrzā (ʿAbbās Īravānī) Āqāsī], and copies of correspondence of or with: Major Henry Creswicke Rawlinson, Political Agent, Turkish Arabia [Ottoman Iraq]; Major Samuel Hennell, Political Resident in the Persian Gulf; Keith Edward Abbott, HM Consul in Tehran; and Lord Cowley, HM Minister at Constantinople [Istanbul].The despatches cover numerous matters, including the following:1) The involvement of Sheil, Richard White Stevens, the British Consul in Tabreez [Tabriz], the Governor of Bagdad [Muḥammad Najīb Pāshā, Governor of Baghdad], and Rawlinson, in the reconciliation of Rassool Pasha [Rasūl Pāshā], the ex-Meer of Rewandooz [Mīr of Rawandiz, Iraqi Kurdistan], with the Governor of Bagdad, subsequent to the former’s unsuccessful attempt at rebellion (ff 5-8).2) The Persian Government’s political tensions with the Turkish Government [Ottoman Porte] notably regarding:Military preparations of the Porte for the reduction of the ‘insurgent’ Bedr Khan Bey [Badr Khān Beg], Chief of Bohtan [also known as Buhtan and Bokhti], and the approach of a detachment of the Turkish Army to Van (bordering north western Persia)The slow progress of peace negotiations at Erzeroom [Erzurum] and Persian suspicions concerning perceived favouritism by the mediating powers (Britain and Russia) towards TurkeyThe potentially disastrous effect on Persian inhabitants (notably in religious places such as Kerbella [Karbala]) of new Ottoman regulations prohibiting the subject of any foreign power acquiring property of any kind in the Turkish dominions and the intention to apply the regulations retrospectivelyThe allegation that Persian ‘Mahomedan’ [Muslim] subjects are treated less favourably than Russian ‘Mahomedan’ by Turkey with regard to the passport taxes enforced by the Governor of BagdadThe refusal of the Turkish Government to remove their Guard Ship near Mohemmera [Khorramshahr, formerly Mohammera, also spelled Muhammera in this item] to a position further up the Shat-ul-Arab [Shatt al-Arab River].3) Sheil’s annoyance with Hennell for asking Rawlinson to obtain from the Ottoman Porte orders for the authorities at Bussorah [Basra] to seize all Persian vessels taking refuge in the Shat-ul-Arab which have committed acts of ‘piracy’ or ‘outrage’ in the Persian Gulf, since the privilege was given discreetly by the Governor of Fars without the knowledge of the Persian central government who may withdraw it should it become widely known (ff 18-20).4) Sheil's concerns regarding the apparent extension of Russian influence in Asterabad [Gorgan] and his suggestion that Mr Abbott, HM Consul in Tehran, visit that place since no one of the British Mission has been there since 1845 (f 25).5) Sheil’s efforts to persuade the Persian Government to adhere to its alleged promise to replicate the action of the Ottoman Porte and issue a firman [edict] for ‘the abolition of the traffic in slaves in the Persian Ports of the Persian Gulf’ (f 37), including: the claim of the Shah [Muḥammad Shāh Qājār, Shāh of Persia] that his refusal is for religious reasons; Hajee Meerza Aghassee’s claim that the Shah’s true motive is irritation at the delay in concluding treaty negotiations at Erzeroom (which he apparently blames on mediators Britain and Russia); Sheil’s conviction of Hajee Meerza Aghassee’s responsibility for the evasion originating in his influence over the Shah; the Shah’s agreement that since the ‘Queen of England has ordered her ships of war to stop and seize all slaving vessels…there is an end to the trade no more slaves will be brought to Persia’; and reports that since the Treaty of Erzeroom, Mohemmera has become a Persian market for enslaved persons (ff 27-43 and 79-90).6) Sheil’s report that Messrs Alexander Hector and Co, British merchants in Bagdad, HM Consul in Tehran, and Mr Mills an English merchant of Sheeraz [Shiraz], have all concluded agreements to each supply 200,000 muskets to the Persian Government, noting that as the latter cannot afford the cost the manufacturers should not import the entire amount (f 57).7) Disapproval expressed by Sheil and Abbott with regard to Hector and Co acquiring the legal title to a thirty-year old debt originally owed to Gaspar Khan [Gaspar Khān], a Turkish subject, by Mahomed Ali Meerza, Prince Governor of Kurmanshah [Muḥammad ‘Alī Mīrzā, Prince Governor of Kermanshah], a Persian subject, as it could draw the British Government into inappropriate litigation (ff 96-101).8) The agreement concluded by HM Consul in Tabreez, between the Governor of Oroomeeya [Urmia, or Orumiyeh], Afshar Chiefs and proprietors, and Daood Khan [Daud Khān] (a Christian nominated by Sheil and the Russian Minister Count Medem [Aleksandr Ivanovich Medem] to superintend the Nestorian Christians of Oroomeeya) for a more equitable arrangement for both ‘Mahomedans’ and Christians (ff 53-60).9) Hindrances to the ratification, by the Persian and Turkish Governments, of the Treaty concluded at Erzeroom on 31 May 1847, notably: the objections of the Persian Government and Prime Minister to the Porte’s ‘needless’ insistence that Persia officially declare that Turkey’s cession of Mohemmera does not imply the abandonment of any other territory or port belonging to Turkey, and that Turkish territory in which Persian tribes have settled is not devolved to Persia, and agree to the non-fortification of the Shat-ul-Arab. Included is Sheil’s correspondence with Hajee Meerza Aghassee (ff 62-67 and 117-126).10) Sheil’s complaint to Hajee Meerza Aghassee regarding the detention in Asterabad, on the orders of Sulieman Khan [Sulaymān Khān, also spelled Saleeman Khan in this item], Governor of Asterabad, of a reply messenger sent by the Khan of Khiva with gifts and letters for Sheil, and demand for the recall to Tehran of Sulieman Khan, an apology, and the reimbursement of the messenger's losses (ff 68-79).11) Detailed observations by Sheil on the composition, condition and strength of the artillery force of Persia (ff 102-112), specifically the regular and the irregular infantry and cavalry. In his critical assessment Sheil alleges corruption, poor conditions, incompetence, indiscipline, insubordination, lack of training, defective arms, poor uniforms, lack of medical facilities, poor transport, and badly administered systems of food distribution and pay, whilst praising the soldierly quality of ‘a native of Persia’ as ‘robust, healthy, cheerful and full of alacrity, patient of hunger, cold and fatigue, in short of every hardship excepting thirst…’ (ff 104-105).12) Sheil’s opinion that a general state of disorganisation is creeping over Persia, notably: detailing various disturbances in the province of Khorassan [Khorasan] and Khuzistan [Khuzestan]; criticising the ‘corruption, deceit, incompetency, falsehood, ignorance, poverty of the Government and people and ….mutinous troops’; and lamenting the role of the elderly Hajee Meerza Aghassee whom he asserts monopolises every function of government but has ‘ceased to possess the energy mental or bodily, for even a partial performance of its duties’ (f 115).13) The movement of Persian troops to Khorassan which has lately been cut off from all communication due to the ‘marauding’ incursions of the Toorkomans [Turkoman or Turkmen people], and rumours of a force collected by ‘rebel’ Jaffer Koolee Khan [Jaʿfar Qulī Khān, also spelled Jaffir Koolee Khan in this item], Chief of Boojnoord [Bojnord] to threaten Persia, including: confirmation that infantry and guns have marched from Tehran but are ordered to wait at Bestam [Bastam, also spelled Bastian in this item] (half way to Meshed) for reinforcements who refuse to march without receiving arrears of pay from the Persian Prime Minister; and Sheil's fear that the disorganised and untrained Persian force would lose in any engagement with Jaffer Koolee Khan.Physical description: 1 item (129 folios)
Abstract: This item comprises copies of enclosures to a despatch from the Government of Bombay Secret Department to the Secret Committee, Number 47 of 1856, dated 25 June 1856. The enclosures are dated 22 April-13 May 1856.The enclosures comprise copies of despatches sent by Richard W Stevens, HM Consul in Tehran, to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, copies of which are forwarded for the information of the Government of Bombay and the Government of India. The despatches chiefly relate to the Persian [Iranian] military campaign against Herat, notably:Intelligence that the Persian Army of Prince Sultan Moorad Meerza [Prince Sulṭān Murād Mīrzā] defeated the Heratees in a battle at Ghorian [Ghurian] which is now garrisoned by the Persian ArmyThe apparent plan of the Shah [Shāh] of Persia to also conquer Kandahar [also spelled Candahar in this item] where there is purported opposition to Dost Mahomed Khan [Dūst Muḥammad Khān Bārakzāy], and the order of a detachment of Persian troops to Kandahar via Seistan [Sistan]Unverified intelligence received from the news-writer at Meshed [Mashhad] that the brother of the Ruler of Herat, Mahommed Youssuf [Muḥammad Yūsuf], and Essau Khan [ʻĪsá Khān], the anti-Persian vizier of Herat, have arranged terms of surrender with Sultan Moorad MeerzaIntelligence received from an Italian officer (ff 395-396) whose brother is attached to the Persian Army of Herat, alleging: Essau Khan’s defection to the Persians; the surrender of Herat due to scarcity of provisions; the garrisoning of Herat on the orders of the Shah; the poor condition of the Persian Army; and the agreement of the Heratees to all of Persia’s terms apart from the permanent occupation of Herat. (The copy of the original intelligence is in Italian, with an English translation. A duplicate of the Italian letter and translation is in IOR/L/PS/5/487, ff 426-436, ff 430-432)Intelligence brought to Tehran by the post-master of Semnaan [Semnan] claiming that Persian regular troops had entered Herat, the postponement of celebrations in Tehran following reports that the news was false, and punishment of the messengerReports in Tehran that Essau Khan in fact discovered Mahommed Youssuf in secret talks with the Persian Commander, ousted him in a coup, expelled him to the Persian camp ironically offering him as peeshkesh [peshkash, a fine or a present to the ruling authority on receiving an appointment or assignment of revenue], and did not surrender to the Persians.The item also covers the following matters:Russia’s expression of friendship for Persia by withdrawal of protection to the family of a Russian subject who died in Persia last year owing the Persian Government half a million tomansThe Persian prime minister’s intention to spread anti-English propaganda, in Bokhara [Bukhara], Khiva and Afghanistan, following the Ottoman Sultan’s firman placing his ‘non-Mussulman’ [non-Muslim] subjects on equal footing with ‘Mahommedans’ [Muslims] (referring to the Treaty of Paris March 1856 in which an alliance of the Ottoman Empire, Great Britain, France and Sardinia ended the Crimean War with Russia)Intelligence from Asterabad [Gorgan] of the murder of the Khan of Khiva by a group of Turcomans [Turkmen] of the Yamoot [Yomut] tribe, and fighting between Yamoots and Yoozbegs [Uzbeks] potentially leaving Khiva vulnerable to Russian ‘designs’The circulation in Tehran of an article originally printed by a Persian-language newspaper in Bombay [Mumbai], and Stevens’s assertion that only a complete retraction by the Persian Government of the ‘unfounded accusations’ and ‘calumnious statement’ contained in it will repair the ‘injurious effect’ (f 387) on Britain’s image.Physical description: 1 item (16 folios)
Abstract: This item comprises enclosures to a despatch from the Government of Bombay [Mumbai] Secret Department to the Secret Committee [Bombay Secret Letter], No. 24 dated 2 April 1856. The enclosures are dated 29 February-24 March 1856.The papers comprise:1) Copies of despatches of Charles Augustus Murray, HM Envoy to Persia [Iran], at Tabreez [Tabriz], to the Earl of Clarendon, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, forwarded for information to the Government of Bombay and the Government of India, including relevant enclosures. They include the following matters:Intelligence that Persia has negotiated a commercial treaty with France and allegedly attempted to introduce a clause whereby police superintendence of Gulf commerce would in future be entrusted to France, and has a similar projected treaty with the United States of America, which Murray criticizes as proof of the ‘hypocritical semblance of friendship’ (f 444) of the Persian Prime MinisterClaims of the: disarray, weakness and mutinous disposition of the Persian Army; and the Persian Government’s unpopularity with the local populace, including reports of rebellions in Khorassan [Khorasan] and Isfahan against the central and local authoritiesA description of the state of affairs in Herat, including Murray’s assertions that: news of the seizure and occupation of Herat by Persian forces is entirely without foundation; the present ruler of Herat, Prince Mahomed Yoosuf [Muḥammad Yūsuf Khān, Regent of Herat], did not recover the throne with either aid from or the knowledge of Persia; Prince Yoosuf wishes to be independent but has probably solicited the support of the Persian Government in response to internal enemies and the advance of Dost Mahomed Khan [Dūst Muḥammad Khān Bārakzāy]; Persia may use the situation to incite trouble in Afghanistan in order to divert troops from India to that area and has recruited influential inhabitants of Herat to promote the Shah’s capture of that town and Candahar [Kandahar]Intelligence regarding Persian military movements at Kirmanshah [Kermanshah] and the despatch of troops, guns and ammunition to the southern frontier of Persia.2) Copies of despatches from Richard Stevens, HM Consul at Tehran, to Murray, forwarded for information to the Government of Bombay and the Government of India, with relevant enclosures. They cover a number of matters including the following:French and [Ottoman] Turkish concerns regarding Persian military movements and preparations in KermanshahReports and rumours of: Persian intentions to capture Herat in order to deflect Dost Mahommed Khan’s purported plans; Herat’s successful capture by Persian forces; and Persia’s intention to seize CandaharDetails of Persian military command appointments, for forces due to proceed to Affghanistan [Afghanistan], Mohamera [Khorramshahr], Seistan [Sistan] and Bushire [Bushehr] (f 457)News that the Persian Government has authorised Jean David to conclude a commercial treaty with Austria similar to that concluded last summer with France (f 467), and copy of a draft treaty he has been authorised to conclude with the United States of America (ff 458-465)Copy of a note containing the Persian Prime Minister’s instructions to the Persian Ambassador at St Petersburgh [St Petersburg] to ensure that Russia considers the situation of Persia during the [Crimean War, 1853-1856] peace negotiations with Britain (f 466)Substance of an article in the
Tehran Gazetteby the Persian Minister of Foreign Affairs accusing Britain of supporting Dost Mahomed Khan (ff 469-472); substance of a circular by the Persian Prime Minister addressed to all Foreign Missions explaining the reasons compelling Persia to adopt measures against Dost Mahomed Khan; and copies of twelve letters ostensibly from Affghan sirdars [Afghan leaders] professing their loyalty to the Shah and the Persian Government (ff 478-491)Copy of a letter which, Stevens states, the Persian Government ‘pretends was written by Mr Secretary Thomson to Syd Mahommed Khan [Sayyid Muḥammad Khān] of Herat’ apparently undermining the Persian Government and promoting British interests in Herat (ff 492-493).3) Copies of despatches of Commander James Felix Jones, Acting Resident in the Persian Gulf, to the Secretary to the Government, Bombay, maintaining that the steam vessels
Victoria,
Adjahaand the HC [Honourable Company] sloop of war
Cliveare required at Bushire considering the political situation with Persia.4) Copy of a despatch from the Secretary to the Government of India, to the Secretary to the Government, Bombay, indicating a reluctance to escalate the quarrel with Persia due to uncertainty regarding Persia’s true intentions in Afghanistan, and emphasising that until orders are received from the Secret Committee which show that the despatch of an expedition is called for by the British Government, the Government of Bombay should not comply with Mr Murray’s requisition for troops, but may however institute naval and military preparations for an expedition.Physical description: 1 item (61 folios)
Abstract: This item comprises copies of enclosures to a despatch from the Government of Bombay Secret Department to the Secret Committee, Number 39 of 1856, dated 27 May 1856. The enclosures are dated 22 March-23 May 1856.The enclosures notably comprise the following:A despatch from the Secretary to the Government of India to the Secretary to the Government of Bombay concerning the situation with regard to Herat and current Persian [Iranian] aggression against the town, and whether or not instructions from the Secret Committee debar the Government of India from all action in the matter. The despatch covers:The original request by Mahomed Yusuf [Muḥammad Yūsuf, also spelled Yoosuf and Yussuf in this item], Ruler of Herat, for Persian assistance against a feared attack by Dost Mahomed Khan [Dūst Muḥammad Khān Bārakzāy], and his dismissal of the Persian envoy who was sent to liaise with the Persian Army but actually joined them in their advance towards Ghorian [Ghurian or Ghoryan]The subsequent hoisting of the British flag in Herat and request of the Ruler and inhabitants of Herat for British money and an Agent to aid their resistance of the Persians, and the Government of India’s wish to disclaim any connection with those actionsThe Government of India’s belief that they cannot assist Herat as the Secret Committee’s instructions were based on Persia and Herat combining against Dost Mahomed Khan rather than Persia acting against both Herat and Candahar [Kandahar, also spelled this way in this item]Disapprobation by the Government of India of Lieutenant-Colonel John Jacob, Acting Commissioner in Sind [Sindh] for effectively speaking in the name of the British Government on a matter of national importance by replying directly to Mahomed Yusuf that the British Government had no intention of interfering in Herat.The enclosures also include:Copies of intelligence (ff 257-261) received by Jacob from the Acting Political Superintendent on the Frontier of Upper Sind relating to Herat (notably from sources in Kelat [Kalat]), and forwarded to the Governor of Bombay, reporting the besieging of Herat by the Persian Army, the apparent intention of Dost Mahomed Khan to send an army for its relief, the surrender of Mahomed Yusuf to the Persian force and the advance of a portion of the Persian Army towards Candahar against Dost Mahomed KhanCorrespondence of Rear Admiral Sir Henry J Leeke, Commander-in-Chief of the Indian Navy, with the Government of Bombay, regarding which vessels should remain in the Persian Gulf during the monsoon season, including: Leeke’s strong recommendation that the
Ajdahaand
Semiramisbe ordered back to Bombay [Mumbai] before the monsoon for repairs and that the
Victoriais better suited for the Gulf; the Government of Bombay’s agreement that the
Semiramisreturn to Bombay when the
Victoriaarrives at Bushire [Bushehr], but that the
Ajdaharemains at Bushire on the express wishes of the Political ResidentCorrespondence of Commander Felix Jones, Acting Resident, Persian Gulf, with the Government of Bombay, concerning a ‘venomous article’ in the
Bombay Timeson the supposed cause of the rupture between the British Mission at Tehran and the Persian Government, including his admonishment of Commodore Richard Ethersey, Commander of the Indian Naval Squadron in the Persian Gulf, regarding the impropriety of naval officers discussing public questions in their private letters.Physical description: 1 item (36 folios)
Abstract: This item comprises a copy of an enclosure to a despatch from the Government of Bombay Secret Department to the Secret Committee, Number 53 of 1856, dated 28 July 1856. The enclosure is dated 19 May 1856.The enclosure comprises copies of despatches sent by Richard W Stevens, HM Consul in Tehran, to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, copies of which are forwarded for the information of the Government of Bombay and the Government of India. The despatches notably cover and include:The bastinado (punishment by caning the soles of the feet) of the post-master of Semnaan [Semnan], convicted of bringing false news of the capture of HeratIntelligence from a European (Italian) officer attached to the Persian [Iranian] Army at Herat that the Ruler of Herat, Mahommed Youssuf [Muḥammad Yūsuf], has been sent a prisoner to the Persian camp by his Vezier [vizier, minister] Essau Khan [ʻĪsá Khān], that the Vezier has ‘sold himself to the Persians’ (f 428) and with other Heratee leaders has agreed to all Persian surrender terms apart from the admission of troops into Herat (ff 430-432. (The copy of the original intelligence is in Italian, with an English translation. This is a duplicate of a document in item IOR/L/PS/5/487, ff 381-396, on ff 395-396).Stevens’s belief that Essau Khan has not surrendered but has: pretended to espouse the Persian cause; got the Persian Army to withdraw to Bernabad [Baranabad] 25 miles from Herat; ‘set the Persians at defiance’ (f 429) after disposing of the Ruler of Herat to the Persian camp; and infuriated the Shah [Shāh] and Persian CommanderReports of great Persian losses during attempts to storm Herat, and the assembling of more Persian troops in Khorassan [Khorasan] and Teheran [Tehran]Authorisation given by the Persian Sadr Azem [Ṣadr A‘ẓam, minister] to the Commander of the Persian Army at Herat to confirm Essau Khan in power provided he allows the town to be garrisoned by Persian troopsThe Sadr Azem’s claim that Persian troops have occupied the forts of Laush, Jeven [Lash-e Juwayn?] and Kohak, former dependencies of KandaharDetails of the present distribution of the Persian Army (f 434)Intelligence that prior to peace negotiations in Paris (to end the Crimean War) Russia amassed war stores at Lankeran [Lankaran] and Bakoo [Baku] for troops collected at Astracan [Astrakan], which would have been sent to Herat to assist PersiaIntelligence regarding friendly relations between the Governor of Asterabad [Gorgan] and Russian agents stationed there.Physical description: 1 item (11 folios)