'A Précis of the Relations of the British Government with the Tribes and Shaikhs of 'Arabistan By Lieutenant A T Wilson, Acting Consul for Arabistan' [‎35v] (75/143)

56
tribes in regard to whom, their suzerain being unknown, there is a dispute, the
to choose and designate the places where they will henceforward always reside; and i
is agreed that tribes whose dependence is known will be forced to return to the b a e
to which they owe allegiance.
By the temporary Boundary Agreement of 1869, which is discussed in
detail in the preceding chapter, it is provided that disputes in regard to uie
disputed territory along the frontier must in the first place be discussed be
tween frontier authorities and by them referred to their respective Central
Governments if they are unable to agree.
This provision affords a possible reply to the claim, raised by the Wail
of Basrah in 1910, that discussion of frontier disputes should be conducted
between himself and the Persian Consul-General at Basrah and not between
himself and the Shaikh of Mohammerah.
The Convention 1 of 1875 is, however, most important of the instruments
regulating the rights and duties of the two Governments in regard to the
subjects of each other. It may be considered as in full force at present,
and has not been modified by any subsequent enactment, as far as is known,
although certain explanations in regard to it are contained in a Turkish
Wazirial letter of January 4th, 1876. This letter, not being included in
Aitchison’s “ Treaties, etc.,” and being of importance, is reproduced as
Appendix I to this Volume.
Article I of the Convention provides for the trial and punishment of
offences committed by the Persian subjects by Ottoman tribunals but with
the cognizance of Persian agents unless the misdeed in question took place
openly and publicly. 2
For the execution of sentences relating to commerce or rights, by which
Persian subjects may be condemned, recourse is to be had to the intervention
of Persian Agents, but rf within the allotted period the said decrees are not
executed in this way the Ottoman officials will execute them directly.
Persian subjects may enter trade guilds, but shall be subject to all regu
lations, customs and laws in the same way as Ottoman tradesmen, and in
commercial matters will be individually subject to Ottoman tribunals and
officials.
Persian subjects are exempt from military service.
Suits of every kind between Persians shall be settled by the Persian
Consular Courts, though such delinquents may be arrested by the Ottoman
police and detained pending communication with the Persian Agencies, to
whom they shall be delivered on demand.
In regard to the naturalisation of Persians as Ottoman subjects, it must
conform to the special rule observed in regard to other foreign subjects, and
to the special regulations on the subject, which were communicated in 1868
to all Embassies. Unless these formalities are complied with no one
Persian subject is to be received as an Ottoman subject. This clause like the
others to be conditional on reciprocity on the part of Persia.
The possession of real property by Persians to remain on the same foot
ing as before pending the negotiation of a separate Convention on the subject. 3
In matters not specially regulated by this Convention, Persians in
Turkey, and Turks in Persia, are to enjoy most favoured nation treatment.
The non-execution of any clause in the Convention by the Persian Gov
ernment will entail similar action on the part of the Ottoman Government.
The importance of the foregoing provisions, whilst they would naturally
form the basis of any diplomatic discussions on the subject of the relations
of the Shaikh of Mohammerah with the Turks, may be easily exaggerated.
1 For Ftench text see Aitchison’s Treaties. Yol. XII, 4th Edition, App. 20. For a translation into English
see Hertslet’s Persian Treaties, 1891, p. 179. The original text appears to have been Peis'an.
2 His Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople, however, telegraphed on 3rd May 1910 to His Majesty’s
Consul, Basrah, that the Persian Government claim under this article the right to the same capitulary treatment
in criminal aff.iir other Powers enjoy. The Turks, however, do not admit this right. There is of course no
question of extradition in the case of a Persian subject who has found refuge in Persian territory and he would
not be surrendered to Turkey.’^ The Convention of 1875, however, does not appear to give Persians the same
extensive capitulary rights in judicial matters, or with regard to a civil or criminal jurisdiction as are enjoytd
by other Powers under their capitulations.
3 As far as is known, no such Convention has been drawn up.