"مذكرة بشأن الحدود بين المحمرة وتركيا". [و‎‎٤‎٠] (٨٢/٧٩)

The Porte, however, did not persist in tliis objection ; hut, as difficulties were Lord Cowley,
still raised to the signature of the treaty, the Ministers of the mediating Powers at 19
Constantinople suggested that the treaty might be signed, and that the Turkish (Sent'to
plenipotentiary should present to the Persian plenijwtentiary, at the time of signing, St. Petersburgh
a note stating that the Porte would require certain modifications of the treaty to he in No -
assented to by Persia previously to the exchange of ratifications. Hut the note which Januar ^ 12 ' 1 * t7#
the Porte was disposed to present in conformity with this suggestion not being
satisfactory, the British and Russian Ministers suggested that the scruples of the February 3,184v
Porte might be removed if the mediating plenipotentiaries were to record their own (Sent to
opinion as to the interpretation to be given to the article in question ; and they St. Petersburgh
proposed that such interpretation should be that the anchorage of Mohammerah was March If'1847 )
opposite the town and within the llaffar Canal; and that the Porte, in ceding to Lord Cowley
Persia the town, port, and anchorage of Mohammerah, did not cede any other No. 64,
territories or ports in that quarter; and that, as regarded divided tribes, territories February 15,
occupied bv one portion of a tribe were not to be claimed by Persia simplv on the 1847 - (^ent to
• St Pptpr^mirirn
plea that another portion of the same tribe was located on lands admitted to be i n Vo 46
Persian. And Lord Cowley subsequently explained that this limitation applied to March 8,'1847.)
territories situated above Mohammerah. L or( j Cowley,
No. 115,
April 2, 1847.
(Sent to
St. Petersburgh
in No. 87.
May 4, 1847.)
Eut as the Porte was not satisfied with this proposal, the British and llussian Lord Cowley
Ministers went further, and stated that under no pretence could Persia claim lands No. 81,^
situated on the right bank of the Shatt-el-Arab, nor lands belonging to Turkey on J^g^tto' 184 '*
the left hank, even in the event of Persian tribes being established on the said left g t Petersburgh
bank lands. in No. 65,
April 3, 1847.;
The assurances finally given by the two Ministers, on which the Porte consented Lord Cowley
to allow its plenipotentiary to sign the treaty, and on the meaning of which the , 1 i > 7' i847
question now under discussion depends, are contained in the note presented by them (Sentto '
to the Porte on the 26th April, 1847, a copy of which is contained in Lord Cowley's St. Petersburgh
despatch No. 167. I transmit to you herewith a copy of that despatch for more m 116 '
convenient reference, and your Lordship w r ill perceive that those assurances were that " ay 1847 -)
the Porte did not cede to Persia any port or territory in that quarter besides the town
and the port of Mohammerah, and the anchorage of Mohammerah opposite the town
and witliin the llaffar Canal, and besides the island of Khizr; that the Persian
Government could not pretend to any right of property either over the country
situated on the right bank of the Shatt-el-Arab, or over territory belonging to the
Porte on the left bank, even if Persian tribes in whole or in part were established
there.
The treaty was accordingly signed at Erzeroum on the Slst May, 1847 ; but when Lord Cowley,
the period arrived for exchanging the ratifications, the British and llussian Ministers 9
had great difficulty in persuading the Persian plenipotentiary to acquiesce in the (Sent to
assurances which they had given as to the interpretation of the article in question; St. Petersburgh in
and even when they had succeeded in doing so, they were met by fresh objections on 284^0
the part of the Porte, which were only removed by their formally repeating the J ^c ow 'i e r
assurances given by them previously to the signature of the treaty. The ratifications
were thereupon exchanged on the 21st March, 1848. Lord Cowley's despatch, of March 17, 1848.
w r hich a copy is enclosed, contains an account of what passed with the Porte (Sent to
immediately before the exchange of the ratifications. 1 also enclose copies of the jj 1 t '^ et g9 Sburgl1
2nd and 3rd articles of the Treaty of Erzeroum to 'which 1 have already referred. April"4,1848,)
In Lord Cowley 's
No. 109,
November 3,1846»
No copy of the treaty as actually signed was sent home. But the signed treaty
is understood to have been identical, as far as its stipulations are concerned, with the
nine articles drawn up in 1846 by the mediating commissioners at Erzeroum.
Matters remained in this state until the beginning of this year, when the commis
sioners of the contracting parties and those of the mediating Powers met together at
Mohammerah in order to proceed to an exact settlement of the line of frontier which
was to separate the possessions of the two Mahommedan Powers in that quarter.
[2440 c—10] T