‘Memorandum respecting the frontier between Mohammerah and Turkey.’ [‎40v] (80/82)

70
Sir S. Canning - , Your Lordship will perceive from Sir Stratford Canning's despatches, of which
hi T it ^ 11 '' c0 I^ es ai,e enclosed, that tlie commencement of the proceedings of the commissioners
has not heen satisfactory, and that in all probability the mediating Powers will have
to pronounce an opinion on the respective claims of the two parties in regard to the
country in the neighbourhood of Mohammerab. tier Majesty's Government therefore
think it expedient not to delay communicating with the Court of St. Petersburgh on
this matter, in the hope that, if the views of the two Courts should coincide, the
expression at Constantinople of their decided opinion on the matters in dispute may
tend to an early settlement of these matters.
The Turkish commissioner, as will be seen from the enclosed papers, interprets
the explanatory note addressed to the Porte by the Ministers of England and llussia
at Constantinople previously to the signature of the Treaty of Erzeroum as securing
to the Porte all districts not specifially mentioned as ceded to Persia, and he maintains
that the note precludes all discussion in regard to any other districts. But this is far
from being the correct interpretation of the note. The note merely says that nothing
is ceded by treaty beyond the points specified, but it does not fetter the action and ^
discretion of the boundary commission, or say that if in the course of the investiga
tions set on foot by the commission it should appear that Persia is entitled to other
districts the commission should nevertheless be precluded from assigning such districts
to her. The note precludes all discussion in regard to Mohammerah, its port and
anchorage, and the island of El Khizr, for those places, being absolutely ceded by
the treaty and admitted to be so by the Porte, the boundary commission have no
discretion to exercise in regard to them. But the note does not say that the boundary
commissioners should not ascertain whether, in addition to the districts specifically
ceded to Persia, there might not be other districts in the same neighbourhood to which
Persia might make good her claim. On the contrary, the note, by admitting that
• districts on the left bank of the Shatt-el-Arab belonging to Turkey should continue
to belong to Turkey, even though occupied by entire Persian tribes or by parts of
Persian tribes, clearly implies that there might be districts in that neighbourhood
which would turn out on enquiry not to belong to Turkey. That such was the
understanding of the British and Russian Ministers at Constantinople is evident from
the words in red ink on the margin of their note of the 26th April, 1847, which your
Lordship will sec by Lord Cowley's despatch No. 167 of the I7tli May that they
proposed to insert, and which they only abstained from inserting in order to avoid
reopening the whole subject with the Porte ; and on being, moreover, assured by the
Turkish Minister for Foreign Affairs that whatever portion of the left bank of the
Shatt-el-Arab might be declared by the future commission to belong to tribes
appertaining to Persia would be secured to Persia.
It is manifest from this that in seeking to limit the possessions of Persia in the
neighbourhood of Mohammerah to the points specified by name in the note of the
English and Russian Ministers, the Turkish boundary commissioner is attempting
to give to that note an interpretation which it was never intended that it should
bear. o
Such being the case as regards the construction of the note of the 26th April, r-
1847, the pretensions of the two Mahommedan Powers in regard to the line of
boundary by which their respective territories are to be separated appear to be as
follows ; The Turkish commissioner, admitting that the island of Khizr is to belong
to Persia, claims as the Turkish boundary a line considerably to the eastward of that
island, which would then be separated on the east from the Turkish territory by the
Bamishere Channel, in the same manner as it is separated on the west from the same
territory by the Shatt-el-Arab. The ground of the Turkish claim is that the district
in question is occupied by a tribe which originally emigrated from Nedjid, and obtained
grants of lands from the Sultan.
The Persian commissioner claims the whole country to the eastward of the Shatt-
el-Arab from the point a little below Korna where the Kerkha Iliver (Jaab) flows into
it, to the Persian Grulf; and he grounds his claim, first, on the fact that the sources of
the Kerkha are in Persia; and secondly, on documents showing that for many years
past the tribes occupying that country have been to a certain extent subject to Persia.
You will find in the tracing enclosed in Sir Stratford Canning's No. 110, the
lines marked as claimed by the respective Mahommedan commissioners, and also a
third line recommended by the commissioners of the mediating Powers.
With regard to the line claimed by the Turkish commissioner, it is to be observed
that if the Porte contemplated setting up any claim to the territories lying to the
eastward of the island of Khizr, it would in all probability have insisted upon some