'Report and Proceedings of the Standing Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence on the Persian Gulf' [‎30r] (64/94)

49
and arbitraly delay on the part of the Mussulman Powers, and more especially Turkey.
Meanwhile there p as no abatement of the frontier incidents (particularly in the Pusht-i-
Kuh district), which had ever been a chronic source of annoyance to all the Govern
ments concerned. On the contrary, these differences rather gained in intensity between
18(0 and 1873, and furnished occasions of appeal more urgent than usual for the inter
vention of the mediating Powers. It appeared that a new element of discord had been
introduced by a Convention which was concluded in August 1869, by which Turkey and
Persia undertook that, pending the settlement of the disputed boundary, the status quo
should be maintained, and no new building should be erected upon the debatable
territories. The status quo therein prescribed, being differently appreciated by either
litigant, proved to be a varying quantity, of which each side endeavoured to appropriate
the larger share.
The Persian Government persistently applied for the status quo to be re-established
on the basis of 1 843, as ind'cated in Colonel Williams’s Peports, but these, as has been
shown, were no longer forthcoming.
In December 1874 Persian and Ottoman Commissioners at length met at Constan
tinople, in order to trace out the definitive frontier on the identic map.
Early in January 1875 the Persian Minister at Constantinople informed the British
and Russian Ambassadors that the two Commissioners had been unable to agree upon
the basis of delimitation, the Persian Commissioner desiring to proceed upon the basis of
the Treaty of Erzeroum, the Ottoman to revert to the Treaty of 1639.
In consequence of this deadlock the Ambassadors addressed identic notes to the
Porte, proposing that British and Russian Delegates should attend the sittings of the
Frontier Commission, as requested by the Persian Government.
Before the Ottoman Government would assent to the proposal they elicited an
assurance from Her Majesty’s Ambassador that the “explanatory note” of 1848 would
be regarded as no less formal an instrument than the Treaty of that year. Her
Majesty’s Ambassador, while acceding to the request of the Porte, expressed the hope
that some compromise would be reached as a basis of negotiation.
General Sir Arnold Kemball was now (March 1875) nominated British Delegate
to attend the conferences at Constantinople. The Russian Delegate w T as Colonel Zeleoni.
The appointment of Sir A. Kemball, who had served in Persia, and had spent
several years as Consul-General at Bagdad, was received with much satisfaction by the
Ottoman Government. He was already acquainted with parts of the frontier zone, and
before proceeding to Constantinople had the advantage of much verbal intercourse with
Sir Fenwick Williams, his predecessor on the Commission.
The Ottoman Commissioner was again Dervish Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. , who had done so much to
impede the Commission in 1848-185:2.
The first conferences of the new Commission took place in June 1875. The
Ottoman and Persian Commissioners w T ere each invited to trace, within the frontier zone
indicated on the Identic Map of 1869, a line showing the boundary they respectively
claimed ; when ready these tracings, together with explanatory Memoranda, were to be
laid before the Commission.
Dervish Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. expressed his inability to do this, since the line he intended to trace
lay altogether to the east ot the so-called frontier zone, and was based on the solitary
survey s he had made while separated from his colleagues on the former Commission.
As a result of this attitude, the Ambassadors made energetic representations to
the Porte, and stated that any line passing outside the frontier zone on the Identic
Map would not even be taken into consideration by the meditating Delegates.
The Porte hereupon formally recognized the zone as embodying the limits within
which the frontier line should be traced 5 but this admission, it was added, would ipso
facto lapse if the Commission then sitting did not arrive at a definite settlement of the
frontier question.
About this time the Persian Government intimated that they would agree to the
arbitration of Great Britain and Russia, and accept any line within the zone laid down
by the mediating Delegates. _ „
The last sitting of* this Commission was held, in Jcinusxy 18/ 3. the XurKish
Memorandum, and °the tracing of the frontier as claimed by the Porte, were duly
presented ; but, owino" to a misapprehension on the part of the Persian Comtnissioner,
the Persian Memorandum and tracing were not ready. Much delay ensued in conse
quence, and in July 1876 the outbreak of the Servian war put a stop to all further
proceedings. The Persian documents were only communicated on the eve of this war.
[1054] P
To Sir E. Thornton
No. 95,
April 19, 1881.
Pusht-i-Kuh.
Mr. Elliot,
No. 337,
August 6, 1869.
To Sir IT. Elliot,
June 11, 1873.
Malcolm Khan,
June 27, 1873.
Sir IT. Elliot,
No. 36,
June 11, 1874.
Sir II. Elliot,
No. 57,
January 13, 1875.
January 12, 1875.
Sir H. Elliot,
No. 261,
May 28, 1875.
Sir H. Elliot,
No. 172,
March 31, 1875.
Sir H. Elliot,
No. 375,
July 22, 1875.
Sir H. Elliot,
No. 498,
August 29, 1875 ;
No. 552,
September 15,
1875.
Mr. Thomson.
No. 125,
August 12, 1875.
Sir II. Elliot,
No. 141,
February 1, 1876.