Assyrians, Kurds, and Ottomans: Intercommunal Relations on the Pe ...

During his forced exile of nearly four years, he had become well informed about the role and attitude of all concerned parties towards the tragedy of his nation. News of his second escape came from Tabreez when Stevens reported to Palmerston that Mar Shimun had arrived in Urmia, justifying his action by saying that he feared for his life after he had received notice from Ambassador Cowley requiring him to visit the capital in order to receive a firman from the sultan recognizing his authority. Stevens, who had considerable experience on the subject, reported that Mar Shimun had expressed himself willing to take his advice, which, however, he could not give without official instructions from his government. He also warned that the Porte might take umbrage at the escape, since the patriarch had fled from the sultan’s dominions to Persia, and advised the Foreign Office to seek assurance from the Turkish government that the patriarch would be received in a satisfactory manner if he returned.³⁷

The success of Mar Shimun’s second escape created a renewed flurry in diplomatic circles, because it displayed the futility of British policy on the Assyrian crisis. On 3 August 1847, Ambassador Cowley wrote to the Foreign Office, noting the serious consequences of the patriarch’s prolonged absence from his people; among other considerations, it would encourage the French to approach his followers, and they would then be able to convert them to their own doctrine, which would strengthen their political influence, especially when they were offering the people their protection if they joined their Catholic Church. To this end, the ambassador mentioned that he was contacting Aali Effendi on the subject and moving with great caution.³⁸

Mar Shimun’s escape from Mosul to Urmia clearly provoked an angry reaction among British circles in the city. Ross, the former diplomat, reported on the event to Layard, stating,