'Egyptian Claims to Sovereignty over the Somali Coast.' [‎4v] (8/62)

8
*
mature to discuss how far those places might be said to have passed
under the dominion of Egypt. The letter, however, went on,—
“In regard to the authority of the Porte over these places, there are
“ no doubt grounds for believing that, since its occupation of certain
^ portions oi the Arabian Coast in 1849, the Turkish Government has
c assumed suzerainty over the first named town in virtue of an annual
“ payment of ancient date made by its Chief to the Sheriff of Mocha.
« T} l ere 1S ’ h° wever > nothing on record in this Office to show that the
“ Chiefs of Zeyla and Tajourra have ever disregarded the stipulations of
, ^ treaties entered into with the British Government in a manner to
necessitate the interference of the British authorities at Aden, or that
‘ these treaties have ever been called in question by foreign powers.
The claims of the Egyptian Government to the territory occupied by
the Somalis south of the Straits of Bab-el-Mandeb, including Berbera
* Foreign Office to India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. , “ I! , ull if > were cleariy set forth* in
28th July 1870. “ 18*0 by the Khedive s Eoreign Mim-
“ ster, who asserted that the territory in
“ question had f ton jours H6 Ottoman, sur lequel flottait depuis des
cc f t ' 1 * s drapeau Ottoman, and that ‘ en vertu d’un firman A Persian word meaning a royal order or decree issued by a sovereign, used notably in the Ottoman Empire (sometimes written ‘phirmaund’). Im-
“ c periale il a ete compris dans la cession faite par la Porte au
Gouvernement Egyptian des provinces de Massowa et de Souakin,
“ ‘ amsi que de leurs ddpendances.’
Kmd Salisbury has nothing in his possession to show that Zeyla and
41 a J 0U ^ w ® re eyer considered to be dependencies of Massowa or Souakin,
or that kmtan had given Zeyla and Tajourra to Egypt, or could show
‘ any real claim to a right of sovereignty over the coast line fromBab-el-
{ anae } ^. 0 Guardafui sufficient to justify the demands of the Khedive
to annex it under authority of the firmans of 1866 and 1873.
{ These circumstances have made it desirable to draw Eord Derby’s
c{ attention to the stipulations of our engagements with Zeyla and
C( . lajoura, m order that they may not be forgotten in the projected com-
c£ ^unication to the Egyptian Government, or be hereafter ignored by the
“ Khedive on the ground that their omission implied a consent to abandon
to claims yet unproved the territories and commerce of Somali Chiefs
“ whose transfer to the sovereignty of Egypt might interfere with the
tieaties of 1840, and is apparently not justified in official records.
“ Salisbury is the more desirous of inviting attention to this
matter m view of the decided opinion of the Indian Government
“ objecting to a compliance with the request of the Khedive to cede His
Highness certain islands obtained from Zeyla and Tajourra under the
“ same engagements of 1840, the validity of which engagements His
Highness did not attempt to challenge.
CC
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
In gh ing this explanation I am to remind you that, whatever may
be the ultimate policy of Her Majesty’s Government in regard to the
above mentioned places, Berbera stands in a different and more im
portant position, although it is claimed under pretence of the same
hrman. It is opposite Aden, it commands the supplies of that port,
and the claims of Turkish or Egyptian suzerainty over it have been in
no way previously assumed or recognized.
As far, therefore, as the information now before him enables him to
judge, Eord Salisbury is inclined to adhere to the opinion that the
extension of Egyptian power over the Somali Coast (with especial
reference to Bulhar and Berbera) is not, under existing circumstances,
o ic desired ; for it cannot be looked upon at present as tending to
to the suppression of the slave trade or the diminution of Ottoman
influence m the neighbourhood of Aden.”