"مذكرة تتعلق بالملاحة في نهري دجلة والفرات". [و‎‎١‎٤] (٢٨٤/٢٨)

13
imported goods beyond those which are stipu
lated in our commercial treaty. But it appears
fioiTi youi statement (and there is nothing in the
letter of Messrs. Hector and Co. to contradict it),
that the additional charges they complain of are
levied not upon the goods, but upon the boat;
not upon the freighter, but upon the owner of
the boat; that they are levied equally when the
goods are native as when they are foreign, either
in origin or in ownership ; and that the object of
their imposition is to secure the goods from
plunder on their passage up the river. If all
this be so, and there is no reason to doubt it,
m e are not only without just ground of com
plaint, but we have a strong motive in policy
tor not seeking to disturb the existing arrange
ments. In order to avoid the payment of the
contribution in question the British merchant
must either deprive the Arab chiefs of their
customary profit, or he must obtain an
equivalent for them out of the import duties
payable on his goods to the Turkish custom
house. In the latter case the Porte would not
obtain the amount of duty secured to her by
the treaty. In the former the Arab chiefs
w 7 ould be unable to restrain their tribes from
plunder, and a loss far heavier than the amount
paid to them would probably devolve upon the
British merchant. It is therefore my opinion
that resistance to the payment of these estab
lished dues, besides being equivocal, in point of
right, would probably be unsuccessful, and that
even if it were to succeed, to say nothing of the
injustice done thereby to the native merchant, a
greater evil than the one avoided would be
incurred."
In reporting the matter to Lord Aberdeen
Sir S. Canning eaid that he understood from the
consul that the addition of the charge in question
to the 2 per cent, and 3 per cent, import duties
w 7 ould not be more than the trade to Bagdad
could reasonably bear.
With the concurrence of the Board of Trade
To Sir S. Canning-, Sir S. Canning was informed that he had taken
No. 76, a correct view of the different points brought
under his consideration by Consul Taylor with
reference to the charge in question.
In September 1845 Colonel Eawlinson reported
that the question of the payment by British
merchants of the " qalibiyeh " (" kalibiyeh ")
[163—1] E
July 4, 1842.