File 1356/1912 Pt 1 'Turco-Persian Frontier:- negotiations at Constantinople.' [‎283r] (575/885)

The Porte, however, did not persist in this objection; hut, as difficulties were
still raised to the signature of the treaty, the Ministers of the mediating Powers at
Constantinople suggested that the treaty might be signed, and that the Turkish
plenipotentiary should present to the Persian plenipotentiary, at the time of signing,
a that the Porte would require certain modifications of the treaty to be
ass *fted to by Persia previously to the exchange of ratifications. Hut the note which
the Porte was disposed to present in conformity with this suggestion not being
satisfactory, the British and Russian Ministers suggested that the scruples of the
Porte might be removed if the mediating plenipotentiaries were to record their own
opinion as to the interpretation to be given to the article in question ; and they
proposed that such interpretation should he that the anchorage of Mohammerah was
opposite the town and within the Haffar Canal; and that the Porte, in ceding to
Persia the town, port, and anchorage of Mohammerah, did not cede anv other
territories or ports in that quarter; and tliat, as regarded divided tribes, territories
occupied by one portion of a tribe were not to be claimed by Persia simply on the
plea^ that another portion of the same tribe was located on lands admitted to he
Persian. And Lord Cowley subsequently explained that this limitation applied to
territories situated above Mohammerah.
But as the Porte w^as not satisfied with this proposal, the British and Russian
Ministers went further, and stated that under no pretence could Persia claim lands
situated on the right bank of the Shatt-el-Arab, nor lands belonging to Turkey on
the left bank, even in the event of Persian tribes being established on the said left
bank lands.
The assurances finally given by the two Ministers, on which the Porte consented
to allow its plenipotentiary to sign the treaty, and on the meaning of which the
question now under discussion depends, are contained in the note presented by them
to the Porte on the 26th April, 1847, a copy of which is contained in Lord Cowley’s
despatch No. 167. I transmit to you herewith a copy of that despatch for more
convenient reference, and your Lordship will perceive that those assurances were that
the Porte did not cede to Persia any port or territory in that quarter besides the town
and the port of Mohammerah, and the anchorage of Mohammerah opposite the town
and within the Haffar Canal, and besides the island of Khizr; that the Persian
Government could not pretend to any right of property either over the country
situated on the right bank of the Shatt-el-Arab, or over territory belonging to the
Porte on the left bank, even if Persian tribes in whole or in part were established
there.
The treaty was accordingly signed at Erzeroum on the 81st May, 1847 ; hut when
the period arrived for exchanging the ratifications, the British and Russian Ministers
had great difficulty in persuading the Persian plenipotentiary to acquiesce in the
assurances which they had given as to the interpretation of the article in question ;
and even when they had succeeded in doing so, they were met by fresh objections on
the part of the Porte, which were only removed by their formally repeating the
assurances given by them previously to the signature of the treaty. The ratifications
were thereupon exchanged on the 21st March, 1848. Lord Cowley’s despatch, of
which a copy is enclosed, contains an account of what passed with the Porte
immediately before the exchange of the ratifications. I also enclose copies of the
2 nd and 3rd articles of the Treaty of Erzeroum to which I have already referred.
No copy of the treaty as actually signed was sent home. But the signed treaty
is understood to have been identical, as far as its stipulations are concerned, with the
nine articles drawn up in 1846 by the mediating commissioners at Erzeroum.
Matters remained in this state until the beginning of this year, when the commis
sioners of the contracting parties and those of the mediating Powers met together at
Mohammerah in order to proceed to an exact settlement of the line of frontier which
was to separate the possessions of the two Mahommedan Powers in that quarter.
[2440 c—10] ✓ T
Lord Cowley,
No. 171,
December 19,
1846. (Sent to
St. Petersburgh
in No. 4,
January 12, 1847.
Lord Cowley,
No. 48,
February 3,'484V’
(Sent to
St. Petersburgh
in No. 46,
March 8, 1847.)
Lord Cowley,
No. 64,
February 15,
1847. (Sent to
St. Petersburgh
in No. 46,
March 8, 1847.)
Lord Cowley,
No. 115,
April 2, 1847.
(Sent to
St. Petersburgh
in No. 87,
May 4, 1847.)
Lord Cowley
No. 81,
March 3, 1847.
(Sent to
St. Petersburgh
in No. 65,
April 3, 1847.;
Lord Cowley
No. 167,
May 17, 1847.
(Sent to
St. Petersburgh
in No. 116,
May 15, 1847.)
Lord Cowley,
No. 41,
February 2,1848.
(Sent to
St. Petersburgh in
No. 59,
March 21, 1848.)
Lord Cowley,
No. 108,
March 17, 1848.
(Seut to
St. Petersburgh
in No. 82,
April 4, 1848.) ^
In Lord Cowley’s
No. 109,
November 3,1846,