"مذكرة تتعلق بالملاحة في نهري دجلة والفرات". [و‎‎٩‎٠] (٢٨٤/١٨٠)

27
1874
Sir H. Elliot,,
Nos. 49 and 50,
Commercial,
August 29
and 31.
To Sir H. Elliot,
No. 140,
September 5.
♦[Note .—This statement was founded on
the Law Officers' report of June 14, 1864,
see p. 21.]
Foreign Office
memorandum,
September 10.
Sir IL Elliot,
No. 247,
October 20.
(cont.) as well as the external trade of the country, and
has even on occasion declared Bagdad to be a
port, and has fixed the rates leviable as port dues
—but this concession is understood to apply
exclusively to sea-going vessels, and is futile
as regards the country situated above Kurna.
.... The Porte has persistently refused to
allow river craft owned by foreigners and
carrying a foreign flag to navigate the waters of
Mesopotamia or to engage in the internal trade
of the country, the three English vessels (river
steamers) only excepted."
Sir H. Elliot reported that the Turkish
authorities had refused to allow a launch, the
property of Messrs. Lynch, to carry passengers
between Bussorah and Mohammerah. Its deten
tion had been demanded by the Governor of
Bussorah, but refused by the vice-consul on the
ground' that Bussorah was a free port and
Mohammerah foreign territory. In connection
with this incident. Sir H. Elliot was instructed
that u Great Britain has no treaty stipulations
with Turkey giving the right of navigating the
internal waters of Mesopotamia.'^
It was held that Her Majesty's Govern
ment could not claim a right for this launch
to ply unless it came under " the privilege
granted by the vizierial letters of 1834, 1846,
1861," and, <{ as some doubts may exist as to the
vizierial letter of 1846 being still in force, Sii
H. Elliot was instructed to ascertain whether the
privileges had ever been abrogated.
Sir H. Elliot replied that he thought "it
would be unsafe to make any enquiry at the
Porte which could be regarded as implying
that there was a doubt upon the subject, but
that he had alluded to the subject in conversation
with Aarify Pasha, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
who said he would look into the matter. But his
Excellency added: "If our rights upon these
rivers are limited to those granted by the firman
and vizierial letters, we do not seem entitled to
claim more than the maintenance of the two
vessels originally named."
Sir H. Elliot also said that he had heard taat
the' Porte were having the whole question
examined, and thought that if it was considered
that there were sufficient grounds for denying,
our right to navigate the rivers, this would be
before long officially intimated, and that ther