'The Russians in Akhal' [‎56v] (64/68)

claim to a supreme authority over all the Turcoman
tribes of the Attrek and Gurgan, telegraphed home
as follows:—
“ The Shah instructed the Minister of Foreign
Affairs to reply on this matter judiciously, which, as
I read it, means not to admit pretensions of Russia,
nor to claim Persian sovereignty over them. In
my opinion, Persia is now totally unable to resist
unaided any serious demand of Russia, even if it
should be abandonment of the province of AstrabadI
Henvey’s Precis, 1872—75, p.
The inability to resist Russian demands was,
properly speaking, in the Shah, his Ministers
having, as is to be gathered from the above, shown
an eager desire to obtain for His Highness the re
quisite support of the foreign Powers, but especially
that of Her Majesty’s Government, and the Shall,
as it appears, acted on all emergencies under the
prevailing Russian influence at Teheran.
In October 1874 Lord Derby found it necessary
to instruct Lord A. Loftus to call the attention of
the Prussian Government to the circular of General
Lomakin, in which the General styled himself
Commander over the Turcoman tribes of the Attrek
and Gurgan, and to point out that General Lomakin
would not be justified in interfering in the territory
between the two rivers, “ which was unquestionably
“ Persian territory,” and “ a hope was to be ex-
“ pressed that the Government of the Emperor
“ would impress on General Lomakin the expediency
ft of abstaining from molesting the tribes who
“ frequent the country to the south of the Attrek.
The Shah had in the meanwhile passed from
London back to Teheran through St. Petersburg,
impressed with the advice that he should studiously
fulfil treaty engagements, as though Russia, and
not Persia, were the aggrieved party, and the result
of the representations made at St. Petersburg by
Lord Augustus Loftus, as conveyed in the Despatch
of the 17th November 1874 from Her Majesty’s
Ambassador at the Russian Court, was that the
Russian Government at first attempted to explain
away the agreement of 1834, and “ did not admit
“ the right of a third party to interfere in a question
“ which solely regarded Persia.” “ It was not
“ customary,” Mr. Westmann observed, “ to inter-
“ fere in the international relations between two
“ independent States, and he could not comprehend
“ in what way the incident referred to could affect
“ Great Britain.”
The Russian Minister, referring to the same
subject, so far did justice to Persia as to admit in
December 1877 that “ it was Persia who was
“ aggrieved,' adding that it was Persia “ who was
“ entitled to seek an explanation.”
In the year 1875, the Persian Government, having
taken offence at the Russian military manoeuvres
up the Sumbar branch of the Attrek to Chat and
Karri Kala, and having assumed an attitude of
resistance to the proposed establishment of a
Russian station on the peninsula of Mian Kale
under the pretext that the island of Ashurada was
Ibid, p. 95.
Enclosure to India, 27th November 1874.
K
•Henvey’s Precis, 1872—-75, p. 95.
Ibid, p. 96.
Foreign Office Letter, 10th February 1875.