"دليل الخليج. مجلد I. القسم التاريخي. الأجزاء Iأ و Iب. ج.ج. لوريمر ١٩١٥" [‎١‎٤‎٢‎٣] (١٧٨٢/١٥٧٨)

>1
It ?«,
I®, r
m J..:
1423
to Rumelia. The Persians, however, neglected to give effect to the agree
ment, if agreement it was, and even seemed prepared to repudiate it; and
at Baghdad there were allegations that the Shah, on the offenders being
sent to him by the Governor of Zohab, had received them with favour
and presented a jewelled sword to their chief.
Colonel Herbert, the British Political Agent at Baghdad, suggested
to Her Britannic Majesty's Minister at Tehran that British influence
might be used with the Persian Government to bring about the extradi
tion of the Hamawand, as the Turkish demand seemed reasonable and
compliance with it would avert threatened complications on the frontier;
but, the Shah being clearly determined not to concede the point,
Mr. Alison deemed it inexpedient to intervene, more especially as
pourparlers were on foot between Turkey and Persia for a direct settle
ment of all their frontier differences without recourse to the good offices
of the British and Russian Governments.
This Hamawand dispute leads back to the question of the Turko- Question of
Persian boundary, the surveys connected with which had been finished ^5^°'
in 1852 The maps prepared on the basis of the British and Russian
surveys were ready in 1865 ; but on examination they were found to 1861 - 1876 -
contain inaccuracies, obliging the Ambassadors of Britain and Russia at
Constantinople to withhold their signatures. The maps were accordingly
revised, and were not finally passed till 1869.
In August 1869 a* Convention was entered into by Turkey and Persia
under which both powers undertook, pending a definitive settlement,'
to maintain the tia/ut quo and not to erect any new buildings
in disputed territory. As the M ub quo, however, was differently
understood by the parties, and as the materials bearing on it collected
by Sir F. Williams were lost, the Convention was productive of no good
results. On the contrary many annoying frontier questions cropped up,
of which the Hamawand affair may serve as an example; the trouble
extended to the Pusht-i-Kuhf section of the border, of which little bad
previously been heard; and from 1869 to 1873, notwithstanding a
mutual agreement to remove refugees from across the frontier to a dis-
• The Protocol is given in Aitihison'« Treaties, vol. XII, pages kii and liiii
tThe principal dispute in the Pusht-i-Knh section related to the ownership o£
certain lands, known as the Saifi Malkhatai, to the east and north -east of Badrah • and
with special reference to <ome of these, known to the Tarks as Saiyid Hasan and t'o the
I ersiam as Baksa. and Ghuraiheh, the Turko-Pereian Convention of 1869 was formally
renewed ™ im. Sec Captain D. L. R Lorimer's Report o,i Pusht-i-E,lh, Wj
page 32, and b'™tonant A. T. WiWs Precis of the Delations of the Brit,si
Government with the Trtles and Shaikhs of 'Arab 1912, page 54.