File 1356/1912 Pt 1 'Turco-Persian Frontier:- negotiations at Constantinople.' [‎58v] (126/885)

10
forts at the mouth of the Karun, where it joins the Shatt-el-Arab ; these forts were mad
use of, unsuccessfully, to prevent British men-of-war from bombarding and landin'^
troops at Moharnmerah in the year 1857. ^
My authority for my statement that Mohammerah town was excluded is th
official correspondence which excluded it (tee pp. 61 and 65 of Part III of rtrint d
correspondence respecting the frontier). I should not have made such a cateaorionl
statement “as a matter of fact” without proper authority. — A. P. ^
I venture in conclusion to doubt the accuracy of the statement made at +
of p. 42 of the Foreign Office memorandum, to the effect that “ Pe Jans could 1
navigate any part of the Shatt-el-Arab without being liable to the duties levied n
shipping and merchandise by the Ottoman authorities.”
my aumonty for this statement is Sir S. Cannings despatch No n-f a
1st November 1844(see pp. 115 and 116 of Part III of plated
It will be noticed that his Excellency states that “from the collection of these
duties an annual revenue of some amount accrues to the Pashalik of Bandnd ”
A further search will be made in the Bagdad records .— A. P.
1 am not aware of any evidence that such was the case in practice while old
records seem to indicate that from 1760 to 1780 at all events, the Ka’ab rather than
ie Turks were paramount on the river. Again, the latter are mentioned in 1766 as
n^^city to Ip thl^ ° f the ^ and th6 TUrk8 are refeed *0 as being in
A little later, in 1769, the Ka’ab are found to be in alliance with the Turks on
e river, for operations against the Muntafik, while in 1775 they excelled all their
previous exploits by sacking Bussorah. Were it not for the abs^e of furthe
records, I have no doubt I could adduce other instances of action on the part of the
bJ of ~
r Ihe Status m Turkish Territory of the Sheikh and his Tribesmen
foll 0 w r s h :_ PrOViSi0n ° f th6 Tl ' eaty ° f Erzeroum beari ^ upon the subject is as
whomJjre^a diTnuran^T 1111 * 111 State ^ haVe a S reed that the tribes concerning
tbeThoice and eSon o rh SUZ T m 18 ! lot sha U. once and for all, have
tribes whose subjection is know/shah fn 6 ^ h f ncef J rward reside ’ and the
to which they belong.” " oruhly returned to the territory of the State
Bead in connection with the Treatv nf i
that the wandering or Ilvat trihp- nf el 7 f p 18 " 3 , th ! S P rovislon seems to indicate
the settled tribes of the Shatfil 1 i the ! 10 rt h^n border are referred to rather than
to know whether the word‘Hribu*”^n th ^ 111 COn ^ tl0n W ° uld be interestin g
Persian or Turkish text ^ Fl>ench text 18 ^ ov Tawa ’ if in the original
in the treaty are natnomadT but 1847, t}iatt}ie trihes referred to
despatch No 81 of the i^ eS ^ see endo ^res in Mr. Wellesleys
corLpondencef-A. P/ d ^ 1847 ’ Part 111 ’ PP- 39 and 40, of printed
The sec d
bearing on the question fnr^if 10 ^? Powers also has an important
the possibility of tribes L-enuinpf tb f t ^ ur ^ e y fh en contemplated without demur
partly in Turkey, as lo di TL 7 de P endent 011 P orsia finding themselves established
y, also did the representatives of the mediating Powers.
I am unable to aarep ?pith c,,Vv. ~d > i -i •
contained in Lieutenant T/P/7 > , . deduction, which is similar to that
to that of the Zdi7Ln dS ° n 8 P : eC - S ’ either as t0 the attitudc °f ^e Porte or as
sentatives confined their rpZ" af>l 1 CS 1 ' tdle reason why the mediating repre-
the printed co“ 11 p 40 In I
^ V ng the frontier, viz., that the point was already
l ide W ilson s precis, pp. 5 and 6, based on SaJdanha’s Bombay selections.