File 1356/1912 Pt 1 'Turco-Persian Frontier:- negotiations at Constantinople.' [‎264r] (537/885)

Mr. Wellesley
(afterwards Lord
Cowley), No. 48,
February 3, 1847.
First and Second
Conferences at
Mohammerah,
January 28 and 29,
1850,
Enclosures 2 and 3
in Sir Stratford
Canning’s No. 1 10,
March 30, 1850.
but be added that the note, being of an explana
tory character, could not be supposed to change
the very nature of the treaty, as contended by
Turkey. The primary object of the explanations
given was, according to Lord Cowley’s own
account, to reassure the Porte on two points :
it wished to have the anchorage ground of
Mohammerah more accurately defined, and it
was apprehensive that, under the wording of
article 2 of the treaty, it risked losing a large
portion of territory if it were to be inferred that
territory was to be given over to Persia merely
because it was occupied by tribes calling them
selves Persian.)
Now when the Delimitation Commission did
meet at Mohammerah in 1850, both the Persian
and the Turkish Delegates put forward extravagant
claims; the latter based his claims on the
‘ £ Explanatory Note,” while the former declined
to be bound by anything but the Treaty, con
tending that the Persian Envoy at Constantinople
had acted without authority in adhering to the
“Explanatory Note”: the Mediating Commis
sioners recommended a line which Persia accepted
conditionally, and Turkey rejected altogether.
The line proposed by the Mediating Com
missioners is important, inasmuch as it represents,
except in so far as proof may be adduced to the
contrary, what was the conclusion of the
Mediating Commissioners on the important
question of where, in the year 1850, Persian
territory ended and Turkish territory began. In
other words, it was the impartial interpretation,
and practical application of the terms of the Treaty
of Erzeroum,and of the “Explanatory Note” by
the Mediating Commissioners on the spot.
"Whatever arguments may be adduced in favour
of the abandonment by His Majesty’s Govern
ment of the line proposed by their own Com
missioner in 1850, and in favour of their support
of a line less advantageous to Turkey, there seems
little reason to expect that the Hague Tribunal,
whose award must expressly be based on the
Treaty of Erzeroum, will readily set aside such
leading evidence.
His Majesty’s Government have cordially
supported the proposal for submitting the
Turco-Persian frontier dispute to the Hague
Tribunal; and since Turkey, in negotiating last
year for a reference to the Hague, laid special
emphasis upon the diplomatic correspondence