"مذكرة تتعلق بالملاحة في نهري دجلة والفرات". [ظ‎‎١‎٦] (٢٨٤/٣٣)

18
Bagdad. It is an answer to a letto^
latter relating to the duties pan y
meats et les barques qui navigaent sur
Tiere et I'Euplirate." , , ».
It also mentions the Ambassadors actu
or memorandum, of which bespeaks as referring
to " les hatiments anglais." It then gives ie
substance of a report from the superintendent
of the " H6tel des Monnaies," which contains a
definition of internal river traffic, and stales
that under whatever flag " les navires ct les
barques" may carry it on they must pay the
same duties as those paid by Ottoman subjects.
The next sentence is obscure in its language,
but it no doubt is intended to mean that Uritish
vessels (" batiments") importing goods under
their own flag from abroad into the two rivers,
or exporting Turkish goods therefrom, are to
pay the duties fixed by the treaty and tariff,
and also to pay an anchorage dufey of 5 piastres.
This concludes the quotation of the report
from the " H6tel des Monnaies.
The Grand Tizier then goes on to say that
the British Ambassador has given his adhesion
to the above report; that it has been submitted
to the Sultan, who has directed that all necessary
steps should be taken in the matter.
He then directs the pasha to take from the
" barques de commerce anglaises," which shall be
engaged in the internal commerce of the two
rivers, the same dues as are levied on the
" barques des sujets ottomans," and to levy on the
~" chargements des Mtiments anglais" engaged
in the foreign trade only the duly established
customs duties and an anchorage duty of 5 piastres.
It should be noted that the superintendent of
the "H6tel des Monnaies," in his report as
quoted, speaks of "les navires et les barques"
as being engaged in the internal trade, and of
" les batiments " as being engaged in the
external or foreign trade; and the Vizier, in his
instructions to the pasha, speaks of the " barques "
only as being engaged in the internal trade, and
the batiments" only as being engaged in the
foreign trade, apparently with the intention of
making a distinction in the treatment of the two
ditferent classes of vessels.
The next document to be considered is Sir S.
Canning's No. 45 to Lord Aberdeen of the 18th
March, 1846. In this he gave a version of the
agreement which he had made, and which
con-