'Navigation of the Tigris and Euphrates by British Merchant-Vessels' [‎108r] (4/14)

. . , r ^spect to vessels built in the country and owned by subjects of Great Britain,
which cannot by our own regulations legally carry the national flag without registration
under British authority, they will not pay higher duties than those required of the most
lavoured ciass oi natives engaged in the internal trade, but they must be content to
navigate like other vessels of the country. Though it is not impossible that such vessels
as have hitherto abusively enjoyed the privilege of carrying their national colours may be
tacitly allowed through favour to continue the same practice, it would not, I conceive, be
proper for any British authority to support a claim which, be the state of the Turkish law
what it will, is manifestly at variance with the enactments of our own legislation.
" r I he prospects which are opening to our trade in the eastern part of the Empire, and
the importance which may justly be attached to the free navigation of its great rivers,
wherever our vessels can find a sufficient depth of water for that purpose, have made me
anxious to place our very natural though somewhat doubtful claims upon a sound looting,
sanctioned by the acknowledgment of the Porte itself. This object could only be
gained by frankly admitting such of its pretensions as we could not in fairness or consistency
dispute."
In a subsequent despatch, dated the 4th April, 1846, Sir Stratford Canning for
warded a copy in translation of the Vizirial instructions addressed to the Vali of
Bagdad on the subject under consideration. For convenience of reference, I inclose a copy
of this document, which is dated 6th Rebel Akhir, 1262 (2nd April, 1846).
7. By this settlement, 44 sanctioned by the acknowledgment of the Porte itself, the
Rivers Tigris and Euphrates were, it appears to me, thrown open to British merchant-ships,
without any restriction as to the number or description of the vessels to be used, and
without any limitation to any particular firm. Ihe sole condition was that the dues as
agreed upon should be paid.
8. In the year 1859 Messrs. Lynch and Co. contemplated placing a steamer on the
Tigris, to run between Bagdad and Busrah, and based their ri^ht upon the correspondence
of 1846, dealt with in the preceding paragraphs. Colonel Kemball, to remove all doubts
upon the matter, on the 15th October, 1859, referred Sir H. Bulwer, then Her Majesty s
Ambassador at Constantinople, to Sir Stratford Canning's despatch of the 25th -i aic ,
1846, and to the Vizirial letter dated the 2nd April, 1846, and inquired whether the latter
document constituted " a sufficient authority for British merchants to engage in the
navigation of the rivers of Mesopotamia, or is a Firman A Persian word meaning a royal order or decree issued by a sovereign, used notably in the Ottoman Empire (sometimes written ‘phirmaund’). or other special sanction
necessai).^ Bulwer in his despatch dated the 13th February, 1860, replied as
ioiiows^— could not be considered as conferring any permanent
right. Such Xument giving, in fact merely a temporary Pe™-,on m,g t be revo ed
at any moment by another document of a similar character—nor to I deem "
tiv&Tt 'JSXvrssT* tya vs ssn
such an especial grant had icsulted < P , r a or concession to
"-i <"'■'<• "■ "" id ^
• v ™. jg* s-g-gp
a doubt whether his Excellency had )e 01 e g ir gtratford Canning's despatch ot the
Kemball. I cannot find any expressm^ e ther^n Mat o ^ ^
25th March, 1846, or in the \izirial Ute ■ tended to be other than a definite and
"r Str"" " ,s "
the Tigris and Euphrates as far as the y cou ^ sir H enr y Bulwer's decision may have
The explanation which occuis to -Pirmans cited in the margin,* and with the
been founded upon either or both o - reconciled. For it is indisputable that the
Sma'i Bil" ll» "S'S ..d Co gubmitledj
10. Upon receipt of bir H. Bul^ e P u grant i n g them the requisite
through Colonel Kemball,t an app ica ■ ^ and ltejeb 1337 (1841).
• ^ tci Ambassador. March 21, 1860.