File 1356/1912 Pt 1 'Turco-Persian Frontier:- negotiations at Constantinople.' [‎255v] (520/885)

22
objections to the proposals about Mobammerah
would not be easily overcome: this forecast
proved correct.
A treaty was eventually signed at Erzeroum
in 1847 : but the settlement was only one in Sir A. Kemball.
semblance, as, before consenting to the con- ^ e? batim.)
elusion even of the Preliminary Treaty, the Porte
required that assurances should be given to it as
to the meaning of some of the articles, and made
conformity with its views on the part of Persia
indispensable to its acceptance of the proposed
engagement.
After considerable negotiations, in which the Tj0rc ^ Cowley,
Persian Government, or its agents, took no part, j une 2 , 1847.
it was arranged, with a view r to secure the pre
liminary signature of the Treaty, that the desired
assurances should be given in writing by the
representatives of the two mediating Governments
at Constantinople; and, as a further precaution
against their rejection by the Persian Com
missioner on the spot, and his consequent refusal
to sign the Treaty, it was determined to keep
him in ignorance of the arrangement. It was
hoped, indeed, that the Treaty once signed, the
Persian Government would be readily induced
to indorse these “ assurances,” or, if not so
induced, it was argued, the Persian Government
might still, if it pleased, decline to ratify the
Treaty.
The Porte for the nonce accepted this com
promise, but at the same time declared emphati
cally that, if the Persian Government did not
adopt the assurances, the Treaty must be con
sidered nul et non avenu.
Under these circumstances, tbe Treaty was
signed.
The assurances in question did not, however. Colonel Shell,
meet with the concurrence of the Persian Govern- t 0 ' ^
June 27, 184/.
ment. Tearing some covert object which it
could not comprehend, it persisted in its dissent
from them to the Representatives of the mediating
Governments at Tehran, and the course it deter
mined to pursue, without refusing to ratify the
Treaty, was simply to ignore them. Its Pleni- Lord Cowley,
potentiary, therefore, acting presumably on the Febrtary 2 ;
tacit recognition by all parties of the views of his ^ T °- 57 >
Government, declined to exchange ratifications Lord B^mMd 48 '
if the ratifications of the Porte were to be coupled No - 34,
with arriere-pensees as to the import of the * ebluai > 7 2 °’ 1848 '
To Lord Cowley,
1 reaty; but, yielding eventually to extreme No. 38,
pressure exercised by the mediating Ambassadors March lo ’ 1848,