'Report and Proceedings of the Standing Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence on the Persian Gulf' [‎29r] (62/94)

47
in x
ttuntryso
»y Persian
''izerainti
ival Com-
sed of at:
dis claims,
session as
as Win#
ate witliin
undary t« :
mediatin#
weize^as J
ween tic 1
political!
a portioi t
le west of t
.on, wlil.
proacli to j
i to abate
nds of as |
daks j®, I
jances. |
accept tie I
mity will
cation for s
ted in ite
line Ml
icepted by :
weyed by |
renounce,
•ritoriesio t
jrstandi^ |
ion sboM |
necessary
•erring 1° ^
sing tb^ y
(jito0 1
jnerseM!
ie Hi
[ tie le R l
e 0^
%
■ I A
Government engages on its side to abandon to the Persian Government the eastern portion,
that is to say, the mountainous districts of the Province of Zohab, with the Valley of Kerrind.”
The mediating Commissioners commented on these proposals as follows :—
Les pretentions du Commissaire Ottoman, poussees par les cimes des hautes montagnes
presque a la nontieie oiientale de Zohab, ne laissent a la Perse a pen pres rien de cette province.
Dun autie cote, les pretentions du Commissaire Persan ii’abandonnent a la Turquie one la basse
plaine a 1 extremite occidentale de Zoliab.”
Colonel Williams and his colleague, after laborions surveys of the geographical
features of the province, prepared a map (see Appendix C) indicating the line which,
in their opinion, the frontier should follow. 4 his w T as communicated to the two
Mussulman Commissioners, together with a Memorandum setting forth the logical
considerations upon which their decisions were based.
Early in 185*2 the situation w 7 as again rendered more difficult by the declaration of
the Ottoman Commissioner that he must suspend his Commission until the Persian
Government had re-established the status quo, as understood by the Porte, at
Mohammerah and Zohab. The three other Commissioners then determined, as the
only alternative of an indefinite suspension of their labours, to survey together the
country comprising the line of frontier between Mendeli and Howeizeh. As this
ground had been already twice travelled by* their Turkish colleague and his engineers,
they only placed themselves on an equality with him by now examining it.
The only issue from the deadlock which now supervened consisted, in the opinion
of the two mediating Ambassadors at Constantinople, in substituting arbitration for
mediation as a means of settlement, and their opinion was adopted by their respective
Governments, though not without material reserve by Itussia. But this isme, however,
palatable to the Shah, who accepted it without further reservation than the restitution
of Kotur and the admission of the Treaty of Erzeroum as the basis of delimitation, was
peremptorily and persistently rejected by the Porte. The only resource that then
remained for adoption was to restrict the labours of the Commission to the construction
of a map, comprising a zone of country from 20 to 50 miles broad, within whose limits
the common frontier would have to be subsequently traced, and to the collection of
information to elucidate that frontier, the actual work of delimitation being thence
forward postponed until the requisite materials should have been provided. This course
was by mutual consent adopted.
In April 1852 Colonel Williams reported that he had then in his possession such
detailed surveys as w T ere necessary to construct a map of the frontier from the Persian
Gulf to the north point of Zohab.
Early in May the Ottoman Commissioner rejoined his colleagues.
The progress of the Commission from Zohab to Mount Ararat was everywhere
marked by the defection of the Ottoman Commissioner, who devoted himself to a
course of secret intrigues—more notably at Serdesht, Banna, Lahidjan, and Ushni for
the purpose of seducing Persian subject from their professed and (in the opinion of the
mediating Commissioners) w ell-established allegiance to the Shah.
On the 14th September, 1852, Colonel Williams reported to Her Majesty’s
Government the conclusion of the survey of the Turco-Persian frontier, together
with the necessary investigations, along the whole line from the Persian Gull to
Mount Ararat. . .
Colonel Williams proceeded to England on leave early in 1853, and the supervision
of the map-work thereupon devolved upon Lieutenant Glascott. In Novembei 1857
the British Commission w r as transferred from Constantinople to St. Petersburgh, and in
1865 it was announced that the maps were completed. On examination, however, the
Russian and English maps proved so inaccurate that the respective Ambassadors at
Constantinople refused to sign them. 4 he work of revision then lasted until 1869.
In a despatch to Lord Malmesbury, dated Constantinople, the 4th January^ 1853,
Colonel Williams spoke of his intention of drawing up a Report, in conjunction with his
Russian colleague, embodying their opinions and decisions upon every portion of the
frontier. Unfortunately all the notes and memoranda upon which this Repoit was to
be based were lost on their passage np river to Woolwich.
It is important to emphasize the effect of this loss. In a de-patch dated the
26th February. 1850, to Colonel Shell, Lord Palmerston had laid it down as the view
of Her Majesty’s Government that territorial restitution should be confined to Moham-
Colonel Shell,
No. 17,
February 20, 1852.
Colonel Shell,
No. 30, March 5 ;
No. 94, August 10 ;
No. 96, August 13 ;
and .No. 98,
August 15, 1852
Sir S. Canning,
No. 280,
September 17,
1851; No. 32,
February 18, 1852.
Colonel Shell,
No. 24,
February 23;
No. 38,
March 31, 1852.
Sir S. Canning,
No. 115, May 19 ;
No. 127, June 5,
1852.
Colonel Rose
(Therapia), No. 4,
July 4, 1852.
Colonel Rose
(Therapia), No. 2,
July 2, 1852.
Colonel Shell,
No. 94,
August 10: No. 96,
August 13, 1852.
Lahidjan-
Colonel Williams
to Foreign Office,
September 11,
1852.
To Mr. Elliot,
No. 292,
September 14,
1869.
Lord Lyons,
No. 15,
January 10, 1867.
Sir A. Kemball’s
letter of
October 30, 1878.
Colonel Shell,
No. 94,
August 10, 1852.