"مذكرة تتعلق بالملاحة في نهري دجلة والفرات". [و‎‎٨‎٦] (٢٨٤/١٧٢)

^
1864— (cont.)
Euphrates and
Tigris Steam
Navig-ation
Company, May 27.
Mr. Stuart
(Constantinople),
No. 39, October 10.
To Mr. Stuart,
No. 78,
December 12.
To Mr. Stuart,
No. 63,
November 30.
Mr. Stuart,
No. 162,
December 21.
20 a
arraegemenls of that service made it requisite
that it should remain at the disposal of the
Euphrates and Tigris Steam Navigation Com
pany.
The Euphrates and Tigris Steam Navigation
Company, who had been granted a subvention
from the Indian Government for the carriasre of
O
mails, proposed to put a second steamer on the
Tigris, but the project was opposed by Namick
Pasha on the ground that, as the " Comet" and
"City of London" were then on the river, the
new vessel would be in excess of the number
(two) alluded to in the vizierial letter of January
1861. Representations were made to the Porte
on the subject by Mr. Stuart, charge d'affaires
at Constantinople, and a note was received from
tbe Turkish Minister for Eoreign Affairs (dated
the 1st October, 1864) granting permission for a
new steamer to navigate the Tigris in place of
the " Comet," and " repeating the condition
attached to the original grant that no more
than two British steamers should at one time ply
on the river." Mr. Stuart pointed out to the
Porte that it was not intended that the new
steamer^ the " Dijleh," should replace the
" Comet," and obtained permission for the pro
visional retention of the latter until thecompletion
of the line of telegraph between Bagdad and Fao.
Her Majesty's Government were of opinion, how
ever, that tbe "Comet " ought to be allowed to
remain permanently, and Mr. Stuart was so
informed.
With reference to the Porte's note giving per
mission for the employment of the " Dijleh," it
was pointed out to Mr. Stuart that no mention
was made in the arrangement of 1846 of the
number of vessels allowed to navigate the rivers
of Mesopotamia, and that the vizierial letter of
January 1861, confirmatory of that arrangement,
gave permission for two steamers to be stationed
on the Euphrates, but did not state that the
number was to be limited. He was instructed to
report whether the original agreement or any
written agreement could be construed as bearing
out the Porte's contention that the vessels to be
employed w r ere restricted to two or any other
specified number.
Mr. Stuart reported that " Count Pisani (first
dragoman) informed him that there was no trace
in the archives of the embassy of any written
agreement having been signed by Sir Stratford
[163] F*