File 1356/1912 Pt 1 'Turco-Persian Frontier:- negotiations at Constantinople.' [‎124v] (258/885)

opposite bank of the river—a not altogether
desirable result, considering the great importance
of this route in connection with British Indian
trade. Lord Cross was, therefore, glad to learn
that instructions had been sent to Her Majesty s
representative at Constantinople to suppoi ie
protest which the Persian Ambassador was
preparing to address to the Sublime Porte ;
hut suggested, for Lord Salisbury s consideration,
whether it might not he desirable that supple-
mentary instructions should be issued to kir YV.
White, directing His Excellency, without awaiting
the result of any personal representations which
Mohsin Khan might make to the buitau, to
formally intimate to the Turkish Ministers that
Her Majesty’s Government could not view with
indifference the action taken by the Ottoman
Government in this matter. ,
Instructions to this effect were accordingly issued
to Sir W. White on the 21st August.
9 . His representations were not well received ^by
the Porte as appears from his report of the 25th
August, which is as follows :—
“ Said Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. (Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs) to whom
the subject appeared to be very distasteful, observed with much
animation, if not irritation, that he did not see on what grounds
the two Governments, the British and the Persian, could fairly
dispute the right of a great independent State to erect forts or
fortifications on its own territory, adding at the same time that
the fort in question, which was but a very insignificant one, was
not at all intended to interfere with the free trade and navigation
of the river.
“ Said Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. concluded the conversation by stating that he had
also been spoken to by the Persian Charge d’Affaires who had
invoked in support of his representations the Treaty of Erzeroum
of 1847 which he (Said Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. ) wished now to consult together
with any other documents which might exist at the Porte, before
entering into any further discussion on the subject with the Persian
Embassy.”
10. Ill consequence of this denial by the Porte
of the right of Her Majesty’s Government or even
of the Persian Government to object to the con
struction of a fort at Eao, and of the Turkish
contention that it could not he considered as
interfering with the free navigation of the Shat-el-
Arah, the Eoreign Office sent to Sir W. White
“ copies of two memoranda relative to the nego-
“ tiations connected with the Treaty of Erzeroum
“ in 1847,” and stated that the contention of the
Turkish Minister for Eoreign Affairs was in direct
contradiction with the view held by the Porte in
1847.
“ At the time when the Treaty was drafted by the British and
Russian Commissioners, who acted as mediators, the Turkish
Government objected to the relinquishment to Persia of the
Island of El Khyzr, on which a portion of the town of
Mohammerah is situated, and only withdrew their objections on
the condition that no fortifications should be erected on the Island
or at any point Avhere they could interfere with the free navigation
of the river.
“ In March 1848, the Turkish Government submitted to the
British Commissioner a proposal for an addition to Article 2 of
the Treaty, which they desired should be inserted in the Acts of
Ratification.
r
Letter from Foreign Office, 5th September
1887.
Letter from Foreign Office, 9th September
1887. II. C., Vol. 97, page 143,