'Navigation of the Tigris and Euphrates by British Merchant-Vessels' [‎108v] (5/14)

4 #
sanction to navigate the rivers of the country with British registered steam-vessels and
Colonel Kemhall further intimated that Messrs. Lynch and Co. intended to coral "®" ce
operations with one steamer, and if the speculation succeeded to increase the numbe
their vessels, re ^ ^ ^ ^ COI . respondenC e which it is convenient to notice. One,
that Messrs. Lynch and Co. did not apply for leave to em P lo y tw ° °he queft^n
soecific number; their request was general in its terms. Ihe °ther, that the qu st
asked by Colonel Kemball at Messrs. Lynch and Co. s instance in his letter dated thi
15th October, 1859, and Messrs. Lynch and Co.'s subsequent application 1 . >
show clearly that that firm cannot possibly claim a right to navigate the Tigris and
Eunhrates under the terms of any exclusive Firman A Persian word meaning a royal order or decree issued by a sovereign, used notably in the Ottoman Empire (sometimes written ‘phirmaund’). bearing an earlier date than thib j ear.
In P o^r words! the two Firmans of 1834 and 18.1, quoted ia paragraph 4. have, by the
evidence of Messrs. Lynch and Co.'s own letters, no application to that firm.
11. No answer was received to Messrs. Lynch and Co. s application until 861. In
t n™ nf that vear Sir Henrv Bulwer transmitted, m original and translation, a
Vizirial letter to the Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. of Bagdad " relative to the navigation of the Mesopotamian
rivers by British steam-vessels and boats, and confirming the aiTangements ° f ^
I inclose copy of the Vizirial letter, which is dated 3rd Rejeb, li/7 (13th January,
1861 and the terms of which show that the Grand Vizier fully understood the d.s inc .oa
between the two Firmans of 1834 and 1841, and the arrangements made by Sir Stratford
Canning- in 1846. Thus, its recital correctly describes the two Firmans above mentioned
as havinc been granted to the British Government and as having reference only to the
Euphrates • further, that the arrangements of 1846 covered both Tigris and Euphrates,
and included British merchant -vessels in general which m.ght trade on the two rivers
^h^y^^ggtabhshmen^oftthe^'EuphratesC^indTigris Steam Navigation Company, with
Messrs Lvnch and Co. as agents, quickly followed the issue c.t this \ izinal letter and
in the summer of 1862 the Company's first steamer, the "City of London, was placed on
the T lf The correspondence dealt with in the preceding paragraphs indicates with
sufficient clearness the nature of the title of the above -mentioned Compan) to run steamers
on the Tigris. That title evidently rests upon the Vizmal letter dated the 15th January,
1861, and consequently upon the earlier arrangements of 1846, which that letter con
firmed and which Sir Henry Bulwer set aside. It may, perhaps, he argued that the
Firmans of 1834 and 1841 were also confirmed by the Vizmal letter of 1861, and that
consequently the Company is entitled to draw upon the provisions of those Firmans as
well as upon the arrangement of 1846. If such a contention were made, it could he easily
refuted. The Firmans in question were granted expressly to the British Goveinmen , anc
not to any private firm; and there is no trace in the Viz,rial letter of 186 of any transfer
of the concession from the one to the other. On the contrary, that letter recapitulated
existin" rights and renewed and confirmed them without alteration. Moreover, the
Firmans specify only the Euphrates, and they cannot be held to confer any right to
establish a line of steamers on the Tigris. I do not think that the Euphrates and Tigris
Steam Navigation Company would have any cause to regret a conclusion which established
thefr" tie to run steamers" on the Tigris, not upon either or both of the two Firmans
above cited, but upon the comprehensive settlement of 1846. They would immediately
occupy a far stronger position, with infinitely more extensive rights than any which they
can possibly obtain inder the Firmans. The latter not only restrict the number of
vessels to be employed to two steamers on the Euphrates, but provide that even this
small concession shall be atany time liable to revision. The arrangements of 1846 include
both rivers, and place no limit upon the vessels which may be employed in the navigation
Possiblv but not. I hope, probably, the Company may hold hat the views which I
maintain are more advantageous to British commerce in general than to their own peculiar
Interests. They might, in "fact, prefer that their own exclusive right to run two steamers
nn the Tigris should be established than that the navigation of both the Tigris and the
Euohrates should be open to the commerce of the world. I conceive, however that this
view of the case would not find ready acceptance or support from Her Majesty s
Government, even if the exclusive right could be shown to exist. A mere claim to such a
rio-ht. unsupported by any substantial evidence, is not likely to meet much encourage-
ment i3 To resume the narrative of the Company's operations on the Tigris. Notwith-
Qtandiiff the Vizirial letter of 1861, the Ottoman authorities at Bagdad were not inclined
to withdraw their opposition to the establishment of the steamer " City of London. In
his letter to the Ambassador, dated the 21st May, 1862, Colonel Kemball wrote .