Skip to item: of 94
Information about this record Back to top
Open in Universal viewer
Open in Mirador IIIF viewer

'Report and Proceedings of the Standing Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence on the Persian Gulf' [‎29v] (63/94)

The record is made up of 1 volume (43 folios). It was created in Nov 1911. It was written in English and French. The original is part of the British Library: India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. Records and Private Papers.

Transcription

This transcription is created automatically. It may contain errors.

Apply page layout

48
Kotur.
Colonel Shell,
No. 181,
December 13,
1852.
Lord Stratford de
J’edcliffe, No. 592,
October 14, 1854.
Mr. Thomson,
No. 140,
July 16, 1854.
General Sir W. F.
Williams,
February 11,
1854;
December 15,
1857.
Lord Stratford de
Redcliffe,
No. 1,054,
December 2, 1857.
To Lord Stratford
de Redcliffe,
No. 59,
February 15, and
No. 156,
April 13, 1854.
To Mr Alison,
No. 149,
February 22 ;
No. 49.
March 22, 1858.
Mr. Alison, No. 10,
March 9;
No. 280,
May 21, 1858.
Sir H. L. Bulwer,
No. 219,
April 30, 1861.
Lahidjan.
Mr. Alison,
No. 101.
September 30,
1865.
To Sir A.
Buchanan, No. 7,
November 15,
1865.
Colonel Sheil,
No. 94,
August 10, 1852
(Enclosure 4).
Mr. Elliot,
No. 464,
October 23, 1869.
Mr. Thomson,
No. 11,
February 8, 1870.
merah, Zohab, and Suliemanieh, in accordance with the Treaty of 1847, but that
otherwise the status quo should be maintained. It is now, however, impossible to
determine what, in the opinion of the mediating Commissioners, constituted the statue
quo of 1843. The only parts of the frontier actually delimited were Mohammerah to
Howeizeh and the Province of Zohab. Kotur was merely surveyed, and the mediating
Commissioners expressed their strong opinion that this district should he restored to
Persia; they did not place on record what, in their view, constituted^ the district of
Kotur or how its frontier should run—an omission which caused much inconvenience at
a later period.
On the termination of the frontier survey the Persian Government appealed to the
mediating Powers to vindicate the rights of Persia in respect to Kotur a question
which had only been allowed to remain in abeyance pending an investigation by the
mediating Commissioners. These rights were fully established and certified by the
mediating Commissioners after their arrival on the spot, the possession of Kotur, as
comprising an important pass, being, moreover, declared by them to be indispensable to
the security of Persia. The negotiations in connection with the lurco-Persian boundary
were necessarily suspended during the Crimean War, and their suspension was prolonged
b} the rupture of relations between Great Britain and Persia. But on the return of a
general peace, the Persian Government renewed and constantly reiterated its former
appeals to the Powers for the restitution of Kotur. The Porte remained obdurate to all
the appeals of Great Britain and Russia; and it was not till 1879, in virtue of
rticle LX of the Treaty of Berlin, that the town of Kotur was restored to Persia.
The same troubles and differences which preceded and led to the Commission of
1843 became again (1858) the subject of recriminatory correspondence between Persia
and Turkey, as well of constant reference to the Representatives of the two mediating
Governments, and in 1865 notice was more especially attracted to a dispute arising out
of the pretension of the Persian Government to build forts at Merivan, Lahidjan, and
Avraman, which places, the Turkish authorities maintained, were within the districts
included in the status quo as disputed territories. In view of this contention, and of
the inclusion of Lahidjan in the district now (1906) in dispute, it is interesting to note
that Colonel Williams, in a despatch dated Ushni, the 18th July, 1852, referred to Banna,
Serdesht, and Lahidjan as “ portions of the Shah’s dominions within the status quo of
the actual boundary.”
Finally, in 1869, the identic map was ready for communication to the Turkish and
Persian Governments.
The British and Prussian Representatives communicated copies of the map to the
Porte in October 1869, and (in accordance with an agreement reached by Great Britain
and Russia in 1865) expressed the expectation of the mediating Powers that the line of
boundary between the respective dominions of the Sultan and the Shah would be found
within the limits traced on the map, and that the Ottoman and Persian Governments
would themselves mark out that line, but that, in the event of any difference arising
between them in regard to any particular locality, the points in dispute should be
referred to the Governments of England and Russia.
In February 1870 similar action was taken at Tehran.
Prolonged negotiations ensued as to how the wishes of the mediating Powers could
be carried into effect, and these negotiations were characterized by much procrastination
InDecw
jfle, in ori
Early in
Russian
Ijtliasis ofc
!i Treaty ol
Inconse
jlrte, propos
■itier Con
' Before 1
JaraDce frc
‘ i regarded
(jlpsty’s Ar
I i some cc
1 Genera]
Huattend tb
; ; be ap
i dijrera! yean
iian Go
ire procef
Sir Fenwick
The Oti
ifede the (
The fir
thian am
limed; wl
ibefnre t
Dervish
: 'y Mtooeth
1 ®fe\shel
; , is a re
■ -orte, a
: ^ Would

About this item

Content

The report was printed for the Committee of Imperial Defence, November 1911, and approved on 14 December 1911. It concerns the situation in the Persian Gulf Historically used by the British to refer to the sea area between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. Often referred to as The Gulf or the Arabian Gulf. regarding the extent to which Turkish claims aligned with British interests, and engagements already made with the Sheikh of Koweit [Kuwait] and other chiefs.

It includes the following:

  • Report - The Standing Sub-Committee advise on the terminus of the Baghdad Railway, control of the navigation of the Shat-Al-Arab [Shatt al Arab], and the limits of Turkish sovereignty in the Shat-Al-Arab and on the shores of the Gulf.
  • Proceedings - minutes of the First Meeting, 24 May 1911; and minutes of the Second Meeting, 15 June 1911.

The following appendices are also contained in the report:

I. Memorandum on Turkish aggression in the Persian Gulf Historically used by the British to refer to the sea area between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. Often referred to as The Gulf or the Arabian Gulf. , by the Foreign Office.

II. Memorandum on local action in the Persian Gulf Historically used by the British to refer to the sea area between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. Often referred to as The Gulf or the Arabian Gulf. , by the General Staff, War Office.

III. Letter on the Shat-Al-Arab and Koweit, from the Naval Commander-in-chief, East Indies, to the Government of India.

IV. Report of the Inter-Departmental Conference on the Baghdad Railway terminus, by the Foreign Office, 1907.

V. Foreign Office correspondence on the frontier of Muhamrah (Mohammerah)[Khorramshahr].

VI. Memorandum on the Turco-Persian boundary question 1833-1906, by the Foreign Office.

VII. Foreign Office correspondence on the frontier of Mohammerah, 1906-1911.

Some treaty extracts and agreements are in French.

Also contains three maps:

f 25: 'MAP OF MOHAMMERAH AND DISTRICT PREPARED IN 1850'

f 43: 'Sketch of APPROACHES TO KUWEIT HARBOUR AND SHATT AL ARAB'

f 44: ' PERSIAN GULF Historically used by the British to refer to the sea area between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. Often referred to as The Gulf or the Arabian Gulf. AND ADJACENT COUNTRIES'

Extent and format
1 volume (43 folios)
Arrangement

The file consists of a single report and three accompanying maps. A contents page at the front of the volume (ff 3-4) references the volume’s original printed pagination.

Physical characteristics

Foliation: the foliation sequence (used for referencing) commences at the inside front cover with 1, and terminates at the inside back cover with 45; these numbers are written in pencil, are circled, and are located in the top right corner of the recto The front of a sheet of paper or leaf, often abbreviated to 'r'. side of each folio. Pagination: the file also contains an original printed pagination sequence.

Written in
English and French in Latin script
View the complete information for this record

Use and share this item

Share this item
Cite this item in your research

'Report and Proceedings of the Standing Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence on the Persian Gulf' [‎29v] (63/94), British Library: India Office Records and Private Papers, IOR/L/PS/20/130, in Qatar Digital Library <https://www.qdl.qa/archive/81055/vdc_100041003698.0x000040> [accessed 22 October 2019]

Link to this item
Embed this item

Copy and paste the code below into your web page where you would like to embed the image.

<meta charset="utf-8"><a href="https://www.qdl.qa/en/archive/81055/vdc_100041003698.0x000040">'Report and Proceedings of the Standing Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence on the Persian Gulf' [&lrm;29v] (63/94)</a>
<a href="https://www.qdl.qa/en/archive/81055/vdc_100041003698.0x000040">
	<img src="https://images.qdl.qa/iiif/images/81055/vdc_100000000912.0x000040/IOR_L_PS_20_130_0063.jp2/full/!280,240/0/default.jpg" alt="" />
</a>
IIIF details

This record has a IIIF manifest available as follows. If you have a compatible viewer you can drag the icon to load it.https://www.qdl.qa/en/iiif/81055/vdc_100000000912.0x000040/manifestOpen in Universal viewerOpen in Mirador viewerMore options for embedding images

Use and reuse
Download this image