INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES

Author(s): A. Henry McMahon

Source: Journal of the Royal Society of Arts , NOVEMBER 15th, 1935, Vol. 84, No. 4330
(NOVEMBER 15th, 1935), pp. 2-16
Published by: Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and
Commerce

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41360599

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce is collaborating
with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the Royal Society of Arts

This content downloaded from

202.41.10.108 on Sun, 06 Aug 2023 06:00:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF ARTS Nov. 15, 1935

NOTICE

NEXT WEEK
Wednesday, November 20TH, at 8 p.m. (Ordinary Meetihg).
A. Taylor, A.R.C.A., F.I.B.D., Head of the School of Art, Hackney T
Institute, " Art Training for Industry on the Continent." Harold W. Sand
member of the Council of the Society, will preside.
The paper will be illustrated by lantern slides and the epidiascope.
selection of original work in graphic art, including fashion design
be exhibited.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SOCIETY

FIRST ORDINARY MEETING

Wednesday, November 6th, 1935

Colonel Sir Henry McMahon, G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O., K.C.I.E., C.S.I. ,

Chairman of the Council, in the Chair

The Chairman delivered the following Inaugural Address : -

INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES

By Colonel Sir A. Henry McMahon, G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O., K.C.I.E., C.S.I.

Since the foundation of this Society some 180 years ago, in 1754, it has been
an established custom for the Chairman of the Society to deliver what is termed
" an Inaugural Address " at the opening meeting of the year.
Many and varied have been the subjects chosen by my predecessors, and
I have not unnaturally found considerable difficulty in selecting as the theme of
my present address any that has not been already dealt with by more masterly
hands.
My excuse for selecting the subject of this evening is partly because it is one
that has never yet been adopted for an inaugural address, and partly because it
is one in connection with which many years of my life have been spent.
It may well be asked how my subject comes within the scope of this Society
of Arts, and the answer to this question has been given by no less an authority
than the late Lord Curzon, who, in an address to which I shall hereafter refer,
said that the laying down of frontiers is an art and not a science, " so plastic and
malleable are its forms and manifestations."
It may also be asked how I can possibly deal with so vast a subject in a short
address. I admit the impossibility, and must content myself with a few
brief observations of a general and sometimes personal nature.
In the first place I would like to call to your notice the curious fact that, vital

This content downloaded from

202.41.10.108 on Sun, 06 Aug 2023 06:00:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Nov. 15, 1935 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF ARTS 3

though the question of frontiers must be to all the nations of the world, no book
or treatise has ever yet been written embracing the subject as a whole. The only
attempt to do so, as far as I am aware, was that made by the late Lord Curzon in
the Romanes Lecture delivered by him at Oxford in 1907. In commenting upon
this strange absence of literature on a subject of such international interest, he
called attention to the fact that the land frontiers of the British Empire are by far
the longest in the world.
Let us consider this point for a moment. If we consult the atlas we find that,
apart from our limitless sea frontiers, and apart from the interior boundaries
separating the Dominion States and the Colonies and Protectorates of our Empire,
we possess exterior land frontiers of no less than the following extents : -
In North America . . . . . . . . Over 4,900 miles.
„ South America . . . . . . . . ,, 1,800 „
„ Asia and Malaya . . . . . . ,, 9,300 „
„ Africa

Total

This is no less th

I have been asked

of this address.
necessarily mean
meaning than a
border country,
boundary line. Su
North-East Fron
independent trib
a similarly indef
also, was the old N
Throughout the w
by one giving pla
more defined ch
mentioned, their
those of the Nor
and Afghanistan
North-East Front
and of the North
U.S.A. of 1903.
I come now to th
A boundary can
an atlas to learn
the world differ from each other in character. Such differences are due in each

This content downloaded from

202.41.10.108 on Sun, 06 Aug 2023 06:00:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
4 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF ARTS Nov. 15, I935

case to some or other specific reason. In some instances Nature has kindly
provided convenient and prominent geographical features, such as seas,
mountains, lakes, rivers or deserts, to form effective natural obstacles in the path
of national expansions, and these have consequently been used to define
international boundaries.
All countries are not so fortunate, and their boundaries have to follow
courses of varied and often complicated nature, irrespective of important
geographical features. Sometimes it has so happened that either owing to the
peculiar nature of the intervening country, or to amicable relations between the
countries concerned, it has been found possible to define international boundaries
by long straight lines between fixed points, and even in merely astronomical terms
by parallels of latitude or meridians of longitude.
As instances of this we have a stretch of some 1,800 miles of the frontier between
Canada and the U.S.A. ; the boundary between Canada and Alaska ; the boundary
between the Soudan and Egypt ; between the Soudan, Egypt and Libya, and
many others.
The world is ever changing, and so also are the boundaries of the nations that
comprise it. New boundary lines are evèr being required, and this brings us to
the subject of the determination and laying down of boundary lines.
The laying down of boundaries comprises two distinct and important stages,
and in order to explain what those stages are some definitions are required. When
I was first thrown into boundary work, I discovered that the distinction between
these two stages was not yet recognised, and that there were no two terms in
common use by which to define them. I was therefore compelled to invent some
of my own. After much thought I selected the two following terms,*
" Delimitation " and " Demarcation."
On consulting my dictionary I found that both words meant one and the same
thing, but they were the only two words that I could find to meet my need, and
I ventured to give them different meanings, which have ever since admirably
served their purpose. " Delimitation " I have taken to comprise the determination
of a boundary line by treaty or otherwise, and its definition in written* verbal
terms ; " Demarcation " to comprise the actual laying down of a boundary line on
the ground, and its definition by boundary pillars or other similar physical means.
The force of circumstances, such as the necessities of national defence, fiscal
protection, and so on, has led in many cases, both in past and present times, to the
demarcation of international boundaries by very whole-hearted methods. Hence
we find the Great Wall of China, the Great Wall of the Roman Emperor Hadrian
in Northern England, and, sad to relate, we still find at the present day in Europe
frontiers where boundary pillars are supplemented by forts, palisades and e'en
electrified wire fences.

* I first made use of these definitions in a lecture given to a military institute at

Woolwich about 1897, and Lord Curzon paid me the compliment of adopting them in his
Romanes Lectures at Oxford in 1907.

This content downloaded from

202.41.10.108 on Sun, 06 Aug 2023 06:00:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Nov. 15, 1935 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF ARTS 5

Many, however, of the international boundaries of the world are still

undemarcated. Treaties, conventions, or arbitral awards have in those cases
stopped short at mere delimitation, and the boundary line has sometimes been
left defined in verbal terms of an inadequately definite nature. This may have
appeared good enough at the time, but seemingly unimportant sections of a
boundary have a way of becoming, from strategic, economic or political reasons,
of vital importance at some later date, and many a war has been the result of this
consequent misunderstanding.
Delimitation can, it is true, be expressed in such clear and exact terms of
geographical and topographical definition as to preclude the need of actual
demarcation, but this seldom has been the case. The lessons of history teach us
the grave potential dangers of an ill-defined and undemarcated frontier.
One need only look at the present trouble in Abyssinia. The southern frontier
of that country, delimited though it was by several treaties, has remained
undemarcated, and hence the misunderstanding about the ownership of Walwal
which is said to have been one of the causes of the present lamentable war. I fear
that future history may have to record yet further wars arising from disputes
over undemarcated boundaries.
Someone may ask on what principles the work of actual demarcation "on the
ground should be carried out. It is not an easy question to answer in a few words,
as the conditions and circumstances of every boundary differ, and even in any
one boundary may differ greatly along its course.
In the first place, and in every circumstance, it is essential to make or secure
the most accurate and detailed survey possible of the country through which the
line runs. Where the line agreed to follows the course of well-defined natural
features, such as the crest of mountain or hill ranges, watersheds, rivers, etc.,
demarcation by pillars is generally superfluous and unnecessary, and it suffices to
show the course of the line accurately on the map. But where the line joins or
leaves such features - where it runs on a course, so to speak of its own - boundary
marks are called for. Their nature must depend on the character of the locality
and the resources of the boundary officials concerned. They may take the
form of massive erections of masonry, of varying height and size ; of cairns
great or small, made of boulders or rocks ; or, again, in waterless desert tracts,
of mere mounds of earth and sods.
In each and every case the exact position of a mark must be carefully shown
on the map, and its compass bearings to adjoining pillars and to prominent natural
features, if any, within sight of it, must be carefully recorded. Where possible,
also, the altitude of its site above sea level should be carefully recorded. Every
mark should, if possible, be visible from the next mark on either side of it. Every
precaution should be taken by the above or other means to ensure the easy and
accurate determination of the site of any pillar that may be destroyed or removed.
To facilitate this and to baffle those removing boundary marks with evil intent,
I have always, wherever possible to do so, adopted the following measures : -

This content downloaded from

202.41.10.108 on Sun, 06 Aug 2023 06:00:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
6 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF ARTS Nov. 1 5, I935

(1) Besides leaving the serial number of the pillar deeply cut in a stone set in the
face of that pillar, I either buried another stone, similarly engraved, beneath the
foundation of the pillar, or when the pillar is built on solid rock, cut a similar
inscription on the rock face beneath the pillar. (2) I buried beneath the pillar at
a depth of one or two feet, where conditions of soil permitted it, a bag or two of
charcoal. This should be done, of course, without attracting undue notice. The
object of this is easily explained. Even in a country of little rainfall, very little
moisture causes the colour of the charcoal to spread gradually outwards over a
wide area and to furnish a tell-tale proof of the site of a pillar or mark for many
years after it has disappeared.
In addition to marking the exact course of the boundary line and the position
of all marks on the map, it is essential to place on record full details of each
boundary mark, together with the compass bearings and altitudes mentioned
above.

It has so happened that many years of my life have been devoted to boundary
work, and I hope you will pardon my taking up a few minutes of your time by
a brief reference to personal experiences in this connection. They began in 1891,
when by the British occupation of large new tracts of frontier tribal country
on the Afghan border and their inclusion in the new British Province of Baluchistan,
it became necessary to lay down the boundary between Baluchistan and the
adjacent areas administered by the Governments of the Punjab and Sind. It fell to
my duty to represent Baluchistan in the delimitation of this boundary, and in its
subsequent demarcation for a length of some three hundred miles. This formed my
first experience of boundary work, and taught me many valuable lessons. My next
experience followed soon after, and was one of delimitation. I was sent with the
mission under Sir Mortimer Durand to Kabul in 1893. One of the main objects
of our mission was to arrive at some mutual understanding with the great Amir
Abdul Rahman regarding a boundary line between the areas under British and
Afghan control, or, in other words, a boundary between India and Afghanistan.
When one reflects that this comprised a stretch of some 1,500 miles from
Gilgit and Chitral in the north and east to Persia in the south and west - a stretch
of country then largely unmapped and but little known, occupied by wild and
warlike tribes who boasted their independence of the Government of either
side - the difficulty and magnitude of the task before us can be understood.
Nevertheless, the seemingly impossible was accomplished, and after months of
anxious negotiation the boundary line, since known as the Durand line, was agreed
to by both Governments. The boundary thereby delimited was one roughly
defined in words, and owing to the impossibility of more detailed definition was in
places one of considerable vagueness, more especially along the western half of
it, where neither Government possessed any accurate knowledge of the nature of
the country or the limits of the occupation of the tribes inhabiting it. Of the
disadvantages of that vagueness I was fated to become intimately aware, because
I found myself appointed in 1894 as the British Boundary Commissioner for the

This content downloaded from

202.41.10.108 on Sun, 06 Aug 2023 06:00:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Nov. 15, 1935 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF ARTS 7

8 I
¡ I
1 1
& t
1« 0»
m
|ä

fri
lír
ili
gl»
gl'йS йц-ц-
1*1 ц-
i°
8*3
В® § •

I1
ï 44 Ь"?
fc
ь fc S
о

f M ✓

This content downloaded from

202.41.10.108 on Sun, 06 Aug 2023 06:00:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
8 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF ARTS Nov. 15, 1935

demarcation of the whole length of that boundary from the Gomal River westwards
to Persia. It was a stretch of over eight hundred miles, of which the first half
consisted of high rugged mountains and deep river beds, the home of many strong
warlike tribes, and the other half of an all but uninhabited, and for the most part
waterless desert of barren hill and sandy plain. Regarding only about three
places in the whole length of this line could the definition in the Agreement be
said to be sufficiently precise to assist demarcation. Of these, one was the starting
point, viz, y Domandi (at the junction of the Gomal and Kundar Rivers), another
about half-way along the line, viz., the British outpost of Chaman, and the third
the terminus of the line at a mountain named in the Agreement as the
Koh-i-Malik Siah on the Persian border. This mountain had been so named as
the southern point of the boundary between Persia and Afghanistan laid down
in an arbitral award by Sir Frederick Goldsmid in 1873.
Such was the scanty material on which I had not only to commence, but finish
my work. I say " finish " because at the very end of my boundary line I was
confronted by a grave difficulty arising from faulty delimitation and the error of
basing definition on unverified details. The western terminus of my line as
specified in the Durand Agreement was, as I have just said, the Koh-i-Malik
Siah, the mountain named by Sir Frederick Goldsmid as the southern terminus
of the Afghan-Persian boundary. He had never been able to visit it, but had
taken the answer to a question about the name of a high mountain to be seen in
the far distance, i.e., " Big Black Hill," as authentic.
To be brief, there is no such mountain, but fortunately the discovery of a shrine
in the neighbourhood, known as Ziarat-i-Malik Siah Koh, justified the selection
of a high and conveniently situated mountain peak to represent the missing feature.
As the Koh-i-Malik Siah with its massive boundary cairn on its summit, I trust
it will long continue to form the tri-junction pillar of three countries, India, Persia'
and Afghanistan.
Of the difficulties and hardships which the demarcation of those eight hundred
miles entailed I have no time to speak. Suffice it to say that it took two and a half
long years to accomplish. This was largely due, of course, to the necessarily
vague manner in which the course of the line was defined in its delimitation in
the Kabul-Durand Agreement. For purposes of actual demarcation it was
necessary not only to determine whether the various tribes concerned should
rightly come under British or Afghan rule, but to ascertain- and this was a much
more difficult matter - what were the territorial limits of such tribes. Semi- or
wholly nomadic as some of these were, they often, at certain seasons of the year,
overlapped each other's territories, and the actual position of their intervening
boundary was sometimes a matter of mere supposition or tradition. Needless
to say, the raising of any question about their mutual boundary stirred up tribal
feeling to a pitch of frenzy, and in the case of some of the strong, warlike tribes
concerned, created situations of considerable anxiety and even danger, especially
when local sentiment was further inflamed through outside intrigue.

This content downloaded from

202.41.10.108 on Sun, 06 Aug 2023 06:00:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
NOV. 15, 1935 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF ARTS 9

The determination of a boundary in such circumstances was often one of very

great difficulty, and many were the expedients that had to be adopted to secure
agreement. Of these there was one which seldom, if ever, failed to succeed, but
it was one which it was extremely difficult to get any two disputing tribes to
consent to adopt. This was the laying down of a boundary line by oath. Let us
take a case where both sides have at last agreed to this expedient. Some leading
man of one or other side is chosen and accepted by both sides for the ordeal.
Then, when his reluctance to undergo that ordeal has been overcome, the fateful
moment arrives amidst a scene of excited tribesmen stilled for the moment by
anxious expectation. With the Koran firmly held on his bare head and with bare
feet, the oath-taker steps forward, but not until every care has been taken to
ensure that no loophole has been left him for the saving of his soul from the sin
of perjury. The Koran must be a genuine Koran ; it must be held on his bare
head, with nothing intervening ; and the soles of his feet must be both bare and
clean, with no particle of his own tribal soil adhering thereto. Thus prepared
the oath-taker steps out, and the course he follows becomes the boundary line of
tribal territory. Sometimes that line follows a quite unexpected course, differing
greatly from the lines claimed by either party, and yet it has subsequently been
found to be an old and long-recognised boundary.
On one occasion of this kind a curious thing happened. Two tribes had urged
widely divergent claims, but eventually consented to settlement by oath. The
oath-taker, an aged greybeard, staggered off on a course that took both sides
genuinely by surprise. It was a line of unusual nature and paying little or no
regard to the natural physical features of the country, but found to be marked
at salient points by a series of crumbling rock cairns, evidently of great age, whose
history and even existence seemed generally unknown to both sides.
I fear I have dwelt too long on this one boundary line* between India and
Afghanistan, but the two and a half years which it took to demarcate it seemed also
long to those engaged on it. I, for one, hoped never to see a boundary line again.
Nevertheless, I was fated to do so, and in 1902 I found myself appointed as
His Britannic Majesty's Arbitrator to arbitrate between Persia and Afghanistan
in their dispute about their boundaries and water rights in Seistan, a large tract
of country in the south-east corner of Afghanistan, lying partly in Afghanistan
and partly in Persia. I will not burden you with the history and details of my
mission in Seistanf ; I need only say that, owing to the fact that the disputes which
had led to British arbitration were largely due to instigation from Russia, who

♦ An account of this boundary mission is given in a paper, " The Southern Borderlands
of Afghanistan," read by Captain A. H. McMahon at the Royal Geographical Society,
February 22nd, 1897.
t An account of this mission and of Seistan is given in a paper, " Recent Survey and
Exploration in Seistan/' read by Colonel Sir Henry McMahon, at the Royal Geographical
Society, and in his paper, " Some Physio-Geographical Problems of the Seistan " Lake-
Basin," at the same Society, on April 9th and May nth, 1906. Also in his paper, " Seistan,
Past and Present," read at the Royal Society of Arts, on April 26th, 1906.

This content downloaded from

202.41.10.108 on Sun, 06 Aug 2023 06:00:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
IO JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF ARTS Nov. 15, 1935;

Fio. 2. - Part of a Map (of the Year 1906) showing the Afghan-Persian
Frontier in Seistan, as Demarcated by Colonel Sir Henry McMahon.
(By courtesy of the Royal Geographical Society.)

This content downloaded from

202.41.10.108 on Sun, 06 Aug 2023 06:00:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
NOV. 15, 1935 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF ARTS II

herself then had designs on Seistan, the task of settlement proved very difficult,
and took another two and a half long, weary years of work to complete.
Leaving aside the settlement of water rights, which are outside the scope of
this address, my boundary work in Seistan fell under both of the two heads,
i.e., delimitation and demarcation. Under delimitation came the work, after
making an accurate map of the whole country, of ascertaining and determining
a boundary line which best represented the just limits of the territorial ownership
of each country, and of defining that line in writing in an Arbitral Award. Then,
when that Arbitral Award haš been accepted by both the Governments of Persia
and Afghanistan, came the task of demarcation, i.e., the marking of the two
hundred miles of that boundary line on the ground by boundary pillars. This
boundary started at the Koh-i-Malik Siah, of which I have already given you the
history, and ran some two hundred miles to its northern terminus. This, as
defined in a previous Arbitral Award of 1873, was a mountain named therein,
the Siah Koh. Once more local examination and survey proved a terminal point
to be missing, and no trace could be found of our northern limit, the Siah Koh.
The only mountains that fulfilled our local requirements were two peaks, known
respectively as the Male and Female Deer. Of these, one was chosen and mutually
accepted by both sides and duly demarcated, so all ended well ; but the incident
affords another instance of the danger of delimiting a boundary on insufficient
local information.
The long period of two and a half years, spent, as it was, under canvas, by the
Seistan Mission in the work of this boundary, was one of great hardship to all,
owing partly to the climate and its great extremes of temperature, ranging as it
did from a shade temperature of 1200 of heat to below zero of cold, and partly
to the diversity of character of the country in which we had to travel and work -
at one moment coping with wide rivers and floods, the next with waterless deserts.
Each took from us their toll of life, as was shown by the varied nature of our
casualty list of men and animals. Of men, some died from heat, some were frozen
to death, some died from thirst and some from drowning. Of our animals, no less
than 4,900 camels and 117 horses succumbed to hardship and disease. Some of
these casualties occurred under very tragic circumstances, and I cannot refrain
from telling you the story of one of them.
It befell one of our survey parties under the charge of an old and very
experienced Indian surveyor, who, overcome by his zeal to fill up a blank in our
map, ventured too far into that dread tract, the Dasht-i-Margo (Desert of Death)
- a desert on the Afghan fringe of Seistan into which no one had ever been known
to enter. Of his party, only one survivor returned, an Indian survey subordinate,
named Saidu. It appears that the surveyor had pushed into the unknown until
all their water was exhausted and prudence called for retreat, but the discovery
of a pool of water tempted him to risk a longer stay and continue his work. Alas,
the water proved salt ; it increased their thirst, rendered them incapable of return,
and hastened their end. Saidu alone remained alive, but even at this awful moment

This content downloaded from

202.41.10.108 on Sun, 06 Aug 2023 06:00:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
12 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF ARTS Nov. 15, 1935

he made duty his first care. He cut off from the surveyor's plane table the precious
map for which so much had been risked, and knowing he could not long retain
consciousness, he wrapped it round his waist in his waist-cloth and started off in
the faint hope of surviving. For two days and nights, he said, he struggled on in
a state of semi-consciousness, and woke up one night to find himself half lying
in a pool of water. There a wandering Afghan found him and carried him on his
back to the nearest habitation. Thus was a blank in the map filled up and its
survey preserved. It cost us seven valuable lives.
One of the most uncomfortable of our experiences occurred in our last winter
in Seistan.

Hydrophobia, a disease almost unknown in that country, suddenly broke out

among the jackals which abounded there. Several of our men were attacked at
odd times when out in the jungles, but of those bitten fortunately only one died
from madness. Then from the jackals it spread to the dogs with which the country
swarmed, and their owners were driven in panic to destroy them. Many mad
dogs were killed in our camp. Still worse was to come, for, lastly, the rabies
spread to the wolves ; these proved a greater danger than either jackals or dogs,
for when smitten with madness they travelled far and wide, attacking man
and beast. Careful watch had to be kept round our camp and several mad
wolves were killed, but one night, in the midst of a wild blizzard, two mad
wolves succeeded in entering our camel lines and savaged everything they met.
Luckily our camel men escaped, but next morning no less than seventy-eight
camels were found to have been bitten. Of these, in due course, no less than
forty-six went mad and had to be destroyed. A horse also which had been with
the camels on that fatal night, and which had shown no signs of injury, suddenly
developed madness one day and made an alarming attack on our camp.
At the end of the Seistan Mission, on which I fear I have kept you too long,
I once more fancied myself free from further boundary work, but again this was not
to be. In 19 13 I was appointed British Plenipotentiary to conclude, in conjunction
with Plenipotentiaries of China and Thibet, a tripartite treaty settling the differences
that existed between those three Governments regarding Thibet. Among the above-
mentioned differences of opinion were those relating to the boundaries between the
countries concerned. Thus again, once more, I found myself plunged into boundary
work. I need only refer here to the boundary portion of our treaty work, which on
this occasion was a matter purely of delimitation, i.e., the determination and verbal
definition of the boundaries between Thibet and India, and Thibet and China.
Including the boundary between China and Thibet, the line we had to deal with
was of very formidable length - over 1,500 miles - but the want of accurate local
knowledge and absence of detailed surveys rendered it impossible to define large
portions of it, except in somewhat general terms. That portion, however, which
for some five hundred miles formed the boundary between India and Thibet,
owing to our greater local knowledge and more detailed survey, supplemented
by the results of special survey parties sent out to examine the less known areas,

This content downloaded from

202.41.10.108 on Sun, 06 Aug 2023 06:00:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Nov. 15, 1935 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF ARTS I3

admitted of more detailed and exact definition. For great lengths of it lofty
mountain ranges and watersheds buried in eternal snow facilitated verbal definition
and rendered demarcation on the ground (except in a few small special and more
inhabited areas) either impossible or superfluous.
Although our task was one of delimitation only, it took ij- years of polyglot
negotiation to bring to conclusion.
So much for personal experiences. They comprise participation in the
delimitation of over 3,200 miles, and the actual demarcation of over 1,300 miles
of international boundary. I have only brought in such personal references as
I have made with a view to illustrating the two phases of boundary work and how
widely they differ. No work I know of is more full of interest than boundary
work, and no branch of it more full of incident and adventure than that of
demarcation.
In conclusion, I beg your kind forgiveness for the length at which I have spoken.
If I have succeeded in my purpose - that of interesting you in the subject of
International Boundaries - I will feel amply rewarded.

The Chairman then presented the Society's silver medals awarded for
papers read during the last session as follows : -

Papers read at Ordinary Meetings : -

Mrs. Towers Settle, " Dress Fabrics."
Gordon M. Forsyth, R.I., A.R.C.A., " British Art in British Pottery."
Mrs. D. M. Bembaron, " Leather and its Esthetic Possibilities."
Robert Francis Wilson, " Colour and Colour Nomenclature.' '
Lieut. -Colonel James Douglas Restler, O.B. E., M.Inst.C.E., M.I.Mech.E.,
M.I.E.E., M.Cons.E., " Water Supplies from Underground Sources."
S. A. Main, B.Sc., F.Inst.P., " Properties, Characteristics and Uses of
Stainless Steel."
E. M. O'R Dickey, " Industry and Art Education on the Continent."

Papers read before the Indian Section ; -

B. C. Burt, C.I.E., M.B.E., " The Indian Sugar Industry."
F. J. F. Shaw, D.Sc., A.R.C.S., F.L.S., " Indian Oil Seeds."

Papers read before the Dominions and Colonies Section : -

E. W. Bovili, " Empire Production of Essential Oils for Perfumery."
Mrs. Tawse Jollie, " Native Administration in Southern Rhodesia."

Trueman Wood Lecture : -

Sir Frederick Gowland Hopkins, M.A., D.Sc., D.C.L., LL.D., P.R.S., " The
Study of Human Nutrition : The Outlook To-day."

Sir George Birdwood Memorial Lecture : -

Sir George Schuster, K.C.S.I., K.C.M.G., C.B.E., M.C., " Indian Economic
Life : Past Trends and Future Prospects."

This content downloaded from

202.41.10.108 on Sun, 06 Aug 2023 06:00:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
14 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF ARTS Nov. 15, 1935

Mr. John A. Milne, C.B.E., in proposing a vote of thanks to the Chairman, said :
It falls to my lot to propose a hearty vote of thanks to Sir Henry McMahon for his
delightful, original and most interesting address. It seems to me that many of us have
thought - if, in fact, we have thought at all - that boundary marking must be a very
simple matter. We have probably visualised the parties concerned as sitting round
a table with a map on it, possibly enjoying a quiet cigar and even a little light refresh-
ment, and then in a pleasant frame of mind agreeing that this or that line would be
suitable. We have been undeceived this evening, and now realise not only that
boundary marking demands a very high degree of geological and geographical know-
ledge, but that it can only be accomplished at the expense of very great endurance,
hardship and risk. I will tell you a little secret. Sir Henry McMahon consulted me
a little while ago as to what form his lecture should take. I replied, " Tell us some
of your personal experiences." Any of you who know Sir Henry will realise that he
at once deprecated the use of the personal pronoun. However, I succeeded in talking
him over, and I am quite sure that you will all be glad that I did so.
There is one point which Sir Henry mentioned which I would like to refer to, and
that is where he quoted Lord Curzon as having said that " the laying down of
frontiers " - and I suppose this also meant the marking of boundaries - " was an art
and not a science." That struck me as something in the nature of a paradox, because
the field of art knows no boundaries ! At the same time, if anyone could delimit and
demarcate them it would be Sir Henry, but I believe that every boundary mark he
set up would prove to be nothing but a will-o'-the-wisp.
I am not going to recite a list of the Chairman's many claims to distinction. It
would be too formidable a task, and I must ask you to take them as read. Suffice it
to say that since his active work abroad, Sir Henry has filled, and still fills, many
important positions. Is he not Chairman of this Society ? Also, among other things,
he was Chairman of the British Section of the great Exhibition at Wembley, and more
recently he took an active and prominent part in what I may call our own particular
Exhibition at Burlington House early this year. There, among other duties, he was
Chairman of one of the most successful sections, the leather section.
With regard to that Exhibition, in which, as I have said, Sir Henry took a
prominent part, I do not think that its success and the splendid results which
followed it are even now sufficiently appreciated. It gave a stimulus to manufacturers
and designers in this country, which is increasing day by day, to the lasting benefit of
trade. In fact, fresh instances are constantly coming to our knowledge which show
that the Exhibition not only fulfilled its objects, but that it has left a mark which will
not easily be eradicated. We must see to it that the good work goes on.
So great was the undertaking that it soon became evident that it could not be a
financial success. There appears to be a popular impression that the resulting
financial obligations were shared by others, but such is not the case. The burden was
borne entirely by certain Fellows of this Society, and not one penny of loss fell on
other shoulders. It is therefore another instance of the magnificent work which has
been done by the Society in its long and glorious history. The public memory is very
short, and not nearly enough recognition has been given to this great Society and its
public-spirited guarantors for the conception and financing of what was no more and
no less than a purely national undertaking of the first importance.
This Society has done more than any other in the kingdom - probably more than
any other in the world - to advance the cause of industry and the education and welfare
of the people. Nothing has been too great, nothing too small, to come under its
notice and to receive its support, and it is not too much to say that the world would
be a poorer place to-day were it not for the foresight, encouragement and stimulus

This content downloaded from

202.41.10.108 on Sun, 06 Aug 2023 06:00:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Nov. 15, 1935 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF ARTS 15

which has been displayed by the Society in every walk of life. It has been truly called
a Fairy Godmother. Unlike many others, it does not shout from the house-tops, nor
seek the limelight ; it goes on unobtrusively doing things and not talking about them.
Could there be a finer form of greatness ?
The greatest figures in the land for the last 180 years have taken a prominent part
in the work of the Society, and our Royal Patrons and Presidents have actively
participated. No one has done more than our Vice-Patron, the Prince of Wales, who
from the moment he launched the Exhibition at a dinner of the Society until he
finally expressed his satisfaction at the result, kept in close touch and gave invaluable
help, which was largely responsible for the success of the Exhibition. I believe I am
right in saying that His Royal Highness fully realises the valuable work that this
Society is doing in the interests of the country, the welfare of which he has so much
at heart. I think the Chairman will agree with me when I say that those facts cannot
be made too widely known, and that those of you who are Fellows may well be proud
of the great Society which you represent.
In Sir Henry McMahon, our Chairman, we have a man not only distinguished in
the widest sense, but also a very human one, and possessed of a delightful sense of
humour which is one of the attributes of his native country. He is also a keen
sportsman. I say that advisedly, because I think that it is the instinctive element of
sportsmanship in the British outfit which has produced such pioneers as Sir Henry,
and which has made this country what it is. I think it is hardly too much to say that
" playing the game " is the keynote of our greatness. The Society is to be
congratulated in the choice of Sir Henry as its Chairman, and I am sure you will all
join with me in wishing Sir Henry a very happy and successful term of office.

Dr. E. F. Armstrong, F.R.S., said : It is my privilege to try in a few words to

second the vote of thanks which has been so admirably and eloquently put to us. It
always gives me, personally, a great thrill to come into this room. In it, during the
long period since the Society of Arts was first established, nearly all the great
industrial innovations have been described in their very early days, in it nearly all the
great movements connected with the application of art and science to industry had
their inception, and in it the Royal Academy itself was born. The mere four walls of
the lecture hall, however, cannot in themselves have been sufficient to fertilise all
these discoveries and intentions ; there must have been something more. I venture
to submit to your consideration that the something more has been those men who
formed the Council of the Society, and in particular those gentlemen - a long line of
distinguished men - who have given their time and thought to act as Chairman of our
Council. Sir Henry, the latest of that line, is, I am sure, no exception among the
distinguished men who have gone before him. He has told us this evening how his
work has been far flung out beyond the Empire, demarcating or delimiting its boundaries.
But he has also shown us that from time to time he has grown very weary of doing
such work ; and therefore it is quite clear that in becoming our Chairman he has come to
the right place. For the Society of Arts has no boundaries, never will have boundaries,
and will not demarcate them ; even a bag of charcoal would not be sufficient to make
them keep within boundaries ! We have only one boundary, and that is our affection
and love for this hall and our reverence for those great people, our Chairmen, who
have taken the Chair year after year during the 180 years the Society has been in
existence. I think that if you look at the matter from that point of view, you will
agree with me that we owe Sir Henry a hearty vote of thanks.

The resolution was put to the meeting and carried unanimously.

This content downloaded from

202.41.10.108 on Sun, 06 Aug 2023 06:00:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
l6 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF ARTS Nov. 15, 1935

The Chairman, in response, said : I do thank Mr. Milne and Dr. Armstrong for
their very kind remarks, so kind that I feel absolutely overwhelmed. I do not think
I can quite live up to them, but I will give you this assurance : proud as I am to fill
the office of Chairman of this great Society, and thankful as I am to you for having
put me here, I promise you I will do my best to live up to the reputation of those
distinguished men who have preceded me.
The meeting then terminated.

NOTES ON BOOKS

The Protectorates of South Africa - The Question of their Transfer to the

Union. By Margery Perham and Lionel Curtis. Oxford University Press.
London : Humphrey Milford, 6s.
This book is based on articles by Miss Perham and Mr. Curtis in The Times , but
contains further material of considerable interest. Its sections are admirably
arranged, the whole slender volume is well set out, and the authors have done a public
service in presenting, in such an attractive form, the arguments for and against a,,
proposal of very great significance to all affected by it. Bigger topics of international
importance have contrived to thrust this domestic Empire problem into the back-
ground, but it will be prominent again, and the issues involved have applications and
possible repercussions beyond South Africa.
The opposing champions are admirably qualified to put the main points of the
controversy before us. Miss Perham has equipped herself, academically and other-
wise, to be able to utilise her wide experience of African travel, and gives shrewd and
penetrating judgments. Mr. Curtis has a long-standing knowledge of South Africa,
and is, at the same time, a well-known and popular Englishman. He writes with great
persuasiveness and obvious sincerity.
The historical chapters, dealing with matters fundamental in the controversy, are
clear and fairly stated on both sides. The various references to conditions in the
Protectorates and the lot of the Union native differ in emphasis and intention, but
combine to give a fairly complete picture. The conflicting views of the justice and
effect of the proposed transfer do not lack frankness, in spite of the evident
appreciation of the need for treading on as few corns as possible. Miss Perham, as is
the prerogative of her sex, gets the last, as well as the first word, though Mr. Curtis
equals her output in chapters.
Miss Perham argues the case, not for final refusal, but for delay, while Mr. Curtis
is for early transfer. Miss Perham marshals strong evidence of the " obligations of
honour of the greatest possible weight " - quoting Lord Selborne - which lie upon
Britain in respect of these Protectorates, in connection with the various treaties and
promises which Britain has made. She shows, further, that, at time of the passing
of the Union Act, uneasy members of Parliament were assured that the Cape
Franchise was absolutely secure, and that what enabled the Bill to get through was
the expectation that the Cape tradition would, in time, leaven the whole Union. We
have seen how illusory, alike, were the assurances and the expectations.
She makes also the important point that the Government in the House of Commons
interpreted the schedule as purely permissive. In view of the claims which have been
based on this schedule, it is well to have Miss Perham's dictum, for which she gives
authoritative backing, that " the schedule appears, not as a promise, but as a
permission, and one dependent upon conditions and safeguards."

This content downloaded from

202.41.10.108 on Sun, 06 Aug 2023 06:00:26 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms