'Report and Proceedings of the Standing Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence on the Persian Gulf' [‎34v] (73/94)

58
Enclosure 1.
Consul-General Cox to Mr. Marling.
(Confidential.)
Bushire, May 8, 1910.
’ I HAVE the honour to refer to Sir George Barclay’s despatch No. 20, dated the
6th December, 1909, to my address, communicating the views of His Majesty’s
Government on certain aspects of the question of the Turco-Persian boundary in the
neighbourhood of the Shatt-el-Arab. '
His Majesty’s acting consul, Mohammerah, submits a further representation, in
which, now that he knows for certain which is the documentary boundary suggested
by the mediating commissioners in 1850, he urges two additional grounds for the
suggestion that, if it is by any means possible, Great Britain should seek arguments
which will enable her to disregard the <c recommendations ” of the mediating commis
sioners and support an adherence to the boundary line actually recognised by the local
authorities on the spot for years past.
These two grounds are :—
1. That the mediating commissioners’ paper line is found on examination to throw
the sheikh’s personal residence, court-house, &c., at Failieh, and the head ol an important
creek into Turkish limits.
2. That whereas the centre of the fairway used by the steamers is the dividing
line universally recognised in practice for many years past, the commissioners 1 line
gives the Porte the whole channel, including two important islands now Persian
territory.
These considerations are, I submit, of sufficient liveliness and cogency to warrant
my submitting the question to you again, in the hope that the position will be
reconsidered, and that His Majesty’s Government will perhaps see their way, by
arrangement with Russia or other means, to support the existing order of things in
the event of the question coming into lively issue.
I, of course, quite realise that it is greatly to the interests of Persia and ourselves
that it should not be so raised, and that the present boundary as now practically
recognised should rather inure by passage of time. Recent events, however, cle .rly
demonstrate the expediency of our knowing definitely, in advance, as far as possible
what attitude we can adopt in case we are obliged by force of circumstances to make
a declaration on the subject.
Lieutenant Wilson’s paragraphs speak sufficiently for themselves, and I do not
think I need add comment, except to say that I generally endorse his remarks. I may
mention, however, that I do not quite follow him in paragraph 8 of his letter, and that
the page of Mr. Alwyn Parker’s memorandum to which he alludes therein refers to a
Government of India print. The passage in question will be found in paragraph 6, p. 8,
of Foreign Office print, Confidential 8S00, dated December 1906.
I should explain, in conclusion, that although the acting consul’s letter is dated
the 12th March, and was awaiting me on return to Bushire from leave on the
31st March, Lieutenant Wilson, after discussing the map with me personally a few days
later, asked permission to modify one or two passages. His amended letter did not
reach me till the latter part of April, and I had not been able to study it up to the
moment when the sudden quarrel between the Yali of Bussorah and the Sheikh of
Mohammerah supervened, and, curiously enough, threatened to involve this question.
I have, &c.
P. Z. COX, Lieutenant-Colonel,
British Resident in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. .
Enclosure 2.
Lieutenant Wilson to Consul-General Cox.
I HAVE the honour to refer to the correspondence on the subject of the
Turco-Persian frontier at Mohammerah forwarded to me under your endorsement of the
8th March, 1910.
2. Sir George Barclay states in his despatch No. 20 of the 6th December, 1909,
that the map enclosed in my letter to you of the 12th June, 1909, is that of the
mediating commissioners of 1850.