Skip to item: of 885
Information about this record Back to top
Open in Universal viewer
Open in Mirador IIIF viewer

File 1356/1912 Pt 1 'Turco-Persian Frontier:- negotiations at Constantinople.' [‎58r] (125/885)

The record is made up of 1 volume (436 folios). It was created in 7 Feb 1912-25 Sep 1912. It was written in English and French. The original is part of the British Library: 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. Records and Private Papers Documents collected in a private capacity. .

Transcription

This transcription is created automatically. It may contain errors.

Apply page layout

entails another contingency; the tendency is for such islands to be reunited to the
parent bank eventually by the silting up of the intervening channel. When this
jfeppens, the Turks might be established on the Persian bank. It will be seen from
the correspondence on the subject of the “ Shalhah,” which took place in 1887, that
this possibility was not lost sight of at that time, and that the island is now much
nearer to the main shore than it then was. With the mid-channel line is also bound up
the question of fishing rights. These are very valuable, as the inhabitants of both banks
draw their principal food supply from the river ; they erect fish-traps on the mud banks
and shore on either side, and spread seine nets in the stream, the inhabitants of ^ each
bank keeping to their own side or half of the river. Fishing is free, and no taxation is
levied on the industry by either Government.
At present no friction whatever occurs in the matter of fisheries ; but if the lurks
get both banks they will probably raise the question, according to their custom, in some
crude and arbitrary form, and arouse the bitterest hostility among the tribes, who from
time immemorial have enjoyed the use of the river.
It is important, I agree, to provide against this. — A. V.
Note 6.
Page 42 : Legal Objections to the Mid-Channel Line.
While admitting the force of the arguments adduced in Mr. Parker’s memorandum
on which The Hague Court might rely in deciding in favour of the Turkish case, I
would submit that the arguments which can be derived from the international law on
the subject must also carry weight. . .. . ,
Tims, Wheaton (p. 291 et seq.) lays down that: “Where a navigable river forms
the boundary of conterminous States, the middle of the channel or thalweg ^ is
o-enerally taken as the line of separation between the two States, the presumption
being that the right of navigation is common to both; but this presumption may be
destroyed by actual proof of prior occupancy and long undisturbed possession, gnmg
the riparian proprietors the exclusive title to the river.’’ . , , ,
I apprehend that a study of the records of Turkish Arabia A term used by the British officials to describe the territory roughly corresponding to, but not coextensive with, modern-day Iraq under the control of the Ottoman Empire. and of the Ka ab for
the past 200 years, as outlined in Lieutenant Wilson’s precis, will summarily dispose
of any claim on the part of the Turks to “ prior occupancy and long undisturbed
^ I would further invite reference to the “Treaty of \ienna, 1815 (Heitslets
Commercial Treaties, vol. i, p. 3 et seq.), to which, it would appear from a foot-note,
Turkey has acceded, and which does not seem to contemplate the possibility of exclusi\ e
ownership of interstatal rivers.
See my minute on p. 4 under 8 .— A. P.
The fact moreover, that the Porte has explicitly stated to Persia that should
Turkey construct forts on the river in her territories, Persia might do likewise,- seems
inconsistent with any assertion by Turkey of exclusive rights of sovereignty over the
river since it places Persia admittedly in a position to erect forts at Mohammerah and
elsewhere, a position which would enable her to close the river at will and prevent all
access from Bussorah to the sea ; this contingency was actually anticipated m the
formal discussions which took place between His Majesty’s Government and the Porte
in 1888 regarding the fortifications at Fao.t ^ -i.
The right to build such forts upon a river bank is surely one of the fust attributes
of effective sovereignty.
Our Legal Advisers do not agree with the conclusion arrived, at by Sir P. Cox
as to the effect of fortifications on the ownership of the river {see Foreign Office
letter of the ?Ast May, 1912, 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. . —A. P.
It is as a matter of fact, stated in a foot-note to p. 27 of the foreign Office
memorandum, that Mahommerah town was excluded from this engagement; there is
nothing in the papers quoted above to indicate that such was the case, but that it
was so in practice may be inferred from the fact that in 1856 Persia had two large
* Vide enclosure to Constantinople Embassy despatch No. 314, dated August 12, 1888, enclosed in
4, 1888 »nd note to Porte dated August 9 1888,
referred to iu the embassy despatch quoted above, enclosed in Political Secretary s letter dated Jul} 2i, 1888.
[2506 m—1] D

About this item

Content

The volume discusses the disputed Turco-Persian Frontier, particularly at Mohammerah, and the negotiations in Constantinople to attempt to settle it.

The correspondence focuses on:

  • the differences of opinion over the actual boundary at Mohammerah, including several maps demonstrating these differences;
  • movements of Turkish and Russian troops;
  • ownership of the Shat-el-Arab and questions of access for navigation;
  • copies of treaties, correspondence and memoranda dating back to 1639 relating to the question of the Turco-Persian frontier.

The principal correspondents in the volume are the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Edward Grey); the Secretary of State for India (Robert Offley Ashburton Crewe-Milnes, 1st Marquess of Crewe); the Political Resident A senior ranking political representative (equivalent to a Consul General) from the diplomatic corps of the Government of India or one of its subordinate provincial governments, in charge of a Political Residency. in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. (Sir Percy Zachariah Cox); the British Ambassador to Constantinople (Sir Gerard Lowther); the British Ambassador to Russia (Sir George Buchanan); the Viceroy of India (Charles Hardinge, 1st Baron Hardinge of Penshurst); the British Ambassador to Tehran (Sir George Head Barclay); representatives of the Foreign Office (particularly Alwyn Parker) and the 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. ; and Arthur Talbot Wilson, on special duty in relation to the Turco-Persian Frontier.

This volume is part one of two. Each part includes a divider which gives the subject and part numbers, the year the subject file was opened, the subject heading, and a list of correspondence references contained in that part by year. This is placed at the back of the correspondence.

Extent and format
1 volume (436 folios)
Arrangement

The papers are arranged in approximate chronological order from the rear to the front of the volume.

The subject 1356 (Turco-Persian Frontier) consists of 2 volumes, IOR/L/PS/10/266-267. The volumes are divided into two parts, with each part comprising one volume.

Physical characteristics

Foliation: the foliation sequence commences at the first folio with 1 and terminates at the last folio with 436; these numbers are written in pencil, are circled, and are located in the top right corner of the recto The front of a sheet of paper or leaf, often abbreviated to 'r'. side of each folio.

The foliation sequence does not include the front and back covers, nor does it include the leading and ending flyleaves.

Written in
English and French in Latin script
View the complete information for this record

Use and share this item

Share this item
Cite this item in your research

File 1356/1912 Pt 1 'Turco-Persian Frontier:- negotiations at Constantinople.' [‎58r] (125/885), British Library: India Office Records and Private Papers, IOR/L/PS/10/266, in Qatar Digital Library <https://www.qdl.qa/archive/81055/vdc_100036171270.0x00007e> [accessed 29 March 2024]

Link to this item
Embed this item

Copy and paste the code below into your web page where you would like to embed the image.

<meta charset="utf-8"><a href="https://www.qdl.qa/en/archive/81055/vdc_100036171270.0x00007e">File 1356/1912 Pt 1 'Turco-Persian Frontier:- negotiations at Constantinople.' [&lrm;58r] (125/885)</a>
<a href="https://www.qdl.qa/en/archive/81055/vdc_100036171270.0x00007e">
	<img src="https://iiif.qdl.qa/iiif/images/81055/vdc_100000000419.0x00009f/IOR_L_PS_10_266_0129.jp2/full/!280,240/0/default.jpg" alt="" />
</a>
IIIF details

This record has a IIIF manifest available as follows. If you have a compatible viewer you can drag the icon to load it.https://www.qdl.qa/en/iiif/81055/vdc_100000000419.0x00009f/manifestOpen in Universal viewerOpen in Mirador viewerMore options for embedding images

Use and reuse
Download this image