"مذكرة تتعلق بالملاحة في نهري دجلة والفرات". [و‎‎٤‎٢] (٢٨٤/٨٤)

67
Chesney's steamers were retained on the
Euphrates after the expedition was broken up)
had no bearing upon the general right of naviga
tion of the r l igris by British vessels, which was
based upon—
(a.) The usage for many years prior to 1846;
(b.) The terms of the 1846 arrangement, con
firmed and renewed in 1861 and 1862; and
(c.) The usage of the past twenty years.
Mr. Plowden maintained that the arrangement
of 1846 was, and had been maintained at the
time to be, a formal agreement issued under the
direct authority of the Sultan, whereby the
usage of the past was acknowledged and its
future continuance sanctioned under certain
definite conditions agreed to by both parties. As
regards the distinction between the Euphrates
and Tigris, Mr. Plowden did not think that any
inhabitant of Mesopotamia could possibly confuse
the two streams.
3. Memorandum (Lord E. Eitzmaurice), 18th
August, 1883.
This memorandum gave the substance of the
conversation between the Turkish Ambassador
and Sir J. Pauncefote and Lord E. Fitzmaurice
at an interview at the Eoreign Office on the 15th
August, 1883, in the course of which Musurus
Pasha advanced the contentions and arguments
which were subsequently embodied in his note of
the 28th December, 1883, when he formally
stated in writing the Turkish case. When
recording the position taken up by Musurus
Pasha respecting the arrangement of 1846, Lord
E. Eitzmaurice remarked that there could be no
doubt that the terms of Sir S. Canning's despatch
were a loose rendering of the terms of
the vizierial letter, and that the latter,
not the former, was our title-deed; but he
claimed that the vizierial letter of 1846 was not
to be limited by reference to the firmans of 1834
and 1841. He further observed that British
vessels had since 1846, and even before that date,
been allowed to navigate the Tigris, which fact
constituted a usage, and he was inclined "to
base the British case on that usage rather than
on the dubious terms of the letter of 1846, and
the still more dubious geography of the letter of
1861, or on the free translation of the letter of
1846 by Sir S. Canning."
f