Page 126 - Gulf Precis (VII)_Neat

110
with tho country; hut her relation to the Chaab at tlio same timo bore the
character of intimidation on the one hand and of concession on the other, rather
than of the assertion and fulfilment of the acknowledged rights of a superior
Government: no attempt teas ever made by Persia to assess the lands, to appoint
a Governor of the tribe, to levy troops for the defence of the stale, or in fact
to cxeroisc any of the legitimate functions of sovereignty. Sho was content on
ordinary occasions to accept of a Pceshkush, which the Chaab now assert to
havo been in liou of tho rent of the Persian lands in their possession, and when
sho had adequate means at her disposal she violently extorted ns much as tho
Chaab had tho means of paying.
Since the reign of the present Shah it must beadmittod that tho proceedings
of Persia in regard to Chaab have been
Latterly control ol Persia has boon coniploto.
conducted in a manner more clearly to
establish and to realize a right of sovereignty. Sho has displaced and appointed
Governors, exacted hostages, garrisoned Chaab towns with Persian troops, levied
an annual revenue, and latterly she has undertaken to assess tho lands according
to the value of the produce in the same manner as is customary in other parts
of the empire. But whether these acts
Present state of the qncstiou of depondeucy.
may be considered to have legalized tho
former partial and undefiuod dependency, or whether they are to he regarded
as mere aggravations of trespass upon Turkish rights can only be decided by
determining to what extent a claim to allcgiauco may exist “ do jure ” after it
has ceased “ de facto.”
I have heard the claim of Turkey to the lands of Guban frequently insisted
on as a strong grouud in favour of hor right to tho dependency of the Chaab;
but it appears to me that an undue consequeuce has been attached to this
point. 'Jhat the Chaab wore Turkish subjects at tho period of Sultan Murad's
treaty with Shah Tahmasp, which in its definition of tho territorial right of
either Government is supposed to be still in force is unquestioned. That the
tribe has been virtually independent of Bussorah for tho last century is equally
a matter of notoriety. How then does it affect the present question of depen­
dency whether intermediately between these periods the tribe resided in Persian
or Turkish territory.
Right of territory.
I now proceed to examine the right of territory respectively possessed by
Turkey and Persia to the countries at the
Bight of territory.
embouchures of the Euphrates and at
Karoon.
The treaties of 1822 and 1746 refer back to the convention between Sultan
Murad and Shah Tahmasp for the definition of the territorial limits of tho two
Empires, and unfortunately I have never been able to obtain a copy of that
document. I have understood, however, that a broad geographical distinction
is alone contained in it, between the possessions of Persia and Turkey in their
conterminous southern territory by the
Boondarici of tho two Esupiroi Irak-i-Arab and
Khuiiaian. attribution of Khuzistan to tho former
power and of Irak-i-Arab to the latter ;
and in an age when maps and surveys were unknown it appears to me, I
confess, that this is the only territorial division that could have been conveni­
ently adopted.
I shall assume therefore that the question of right is thus correctly stated
and endeavour in consequence to fix the
.Bmia of geographical diatiuctioo between tbo
provinces. true geographical limits of the two pro­
vinces.
The rule of appropriation from the time of authentic history appears, then
to have been simply this; that the lands deriving water from the Tigris and
Euphrates belonged to trak-i*Arab, while the country along the banks of the
Karoon, or deriving water from the Karoon, was within the limits of Khuzistan,
nothing perhaps could bo more simple in principle than this distribution : but
nothing could be more fluctuating and perplexed than it lias proved in practice,
owing to the numerous changes in the courses of the rivers.