'Report and Proceedings of the Standing Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence on the Persian Gulf' [‎26v] (57/94)

42
until finally, in the summer of 1842, when an unexpected attack was made by the
Turkish authorities of Suliemanieh against the summer camp of the Yah of Ardelan,
preparations were made for war and a rupture appeared imminent.
The earlier incidents were briefly as follows :—
In 1835 a Kurdish Chief, dwelling in the district of Van but virtually independent
of Turkey, made a raid on the important strategical position of Kotur, in Azerbaijan,
and plundered the surrounding country. About the same time the district of Mergawer,
near Urumia, was attacked by a large body of troops belonging to the Meer of
Kowanduz, and completely ravaged with great bloodshed. Later, the thriving com
mercial town of Mohammerah, which was considered a dangerous rival to the prosperity
of Bussorah, was attacked and razed to the ground by Turkish troops acting under the
orders of the Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. of Bagdad.
Sir S. Canning,
ts T o. 236,
November 26,
1842.
Colonel Sheil,
No. 20,
June 24, and
No. 21,
June 25, 1842.
Sir S. Canning,
No. 236,
November 26 r
1842.
Sir S. Canning,
No. 234,
November 2,1843.
Colonel Williams,
No. 3,
January 14, 1844.
Colonel Williams,
May 20, 1843.
Sir S. Canning,
Memoirs.
So much for the grievances of Persia. The Ottoman Government, on the other
hand, complained that the Persians were constantly intriguing in the Pashalic of
Suliemanieh, where they had endeavoured to establish by force a Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. who had been
rejected by the Porte. In 1840 Persian troops had attacked and captured this town.
Moreover, as early as 1883 the brother of the Shah had made an incursion into the
Bayazid district (on the northern extremity of the frontier) and plundered and laid
waste several villages. Persia had also, it was contended, retained the district of
Zohab during a number of years and unjustly appropriated the revenue.
These disputes were in part due to the doubtful allegiance and semi-independence
of the nomad tribes occupying the frontier provinces, who were in the habit of taking
up winter quarters in one country and migrating in summer, for purposes of pasturage,
to the other.
In enumerating these incidents, Colonel Shell, then Chargd d’Affaires at Tehran,
expressed the view that the losses of Persia far exceeded those of Turkey, although
it transpired later, upon investigation by British and Bussian Agents on the spot, that
Persia had been the aggressor in 1842, and that the attack on the Yali of Ardelan had
been undertaken with the object of forestalling a further attempt to reinstate the
ex- Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. of Suliemanieh.
When the attack on Ardelan became known, the Persian Government addressed
communications to Sir Stratford Canning and to the Bussian Ambassador at Constanti
nople, calling attention to the incident and requesting their friendly intervention with
the Porte.
The British and Bussian Bepresentatives at Constantinople and Tehran anticipated
the instructions of their Governments by counselling moderation, but for a considerable
time the prospects of peace were not hopeful, and troops continued to be massed upon
both sides of the frontier. Colonel Sheil considered that if a conflict were to take
place the issue would be doubtful, and he estimated that Persia could place 90,000 men
in the field.
The Ottoman Government were at first disposed to admit the least possible degree
of foreign interference into their affairs, but at length, in deference to the representa
tions of Sir S. Canning, it was agreed that there should be a simultaneous
withdrawal of troops, and British and Bussian Agents were sent to each camp to
hasten this.
After much discussion it was decided that a Joint Commission of Plenipotentiaries
of the two Mussulman Powers should, in concert with British and Bussian Delegates,
be convened at Erzeroum to investigate, and if possible to compromise, the rival
claims.
It was also understood—though not apparently embodied in a written agreement—
that the status quo should meanwhile be preserved on the frontier. This is frequently
referred to in the subsequent correspondence as “the status quo of 1843.” The
principle of the status quo was formally confirmed and placed on record in a temporary
Agreement concluded in 1869, which is still theoretically in force. In January 1844
the Ottoman Plenipotentiary communicated to the Commission a map (see Appendix A)
indicating respectively the boundary of possession in 1843 and the boundary as then
claimed by Turkey from Mount Ararat to Zohab. This map is not without interest in
relation to the dispute of 1906.
The first conference of the Commission was held in May 1843. The British
Commissioner was Colonel Williams, who later rose to distinction as the defender
of Kars.
The obstacles to a settlement were indeed formidable. To draw a boundary-line
through migratory tribes is in itself an almost insoluble problem. In addition, there