"مذكرة تتعلق بالملاحة في نهري دجلة والفرات". [و‎‎١‎٠‎٠] (٢٨٤/٢٠٠)

47
1883— {cont .) Bussorali to replace Major Mockler, liad beea
conveyed to his post in one of Her Majesty's
ships.
The India Office stated that the new " Gomet"
would be ready in the following January, and
suggested that the Porte should he informed.
This Lord Dufferin was instructed to do. It was
also mentioned that the old " Comet" would be
broken up at Bagdad before the arrival of the
new one.
1884. —Lord Dufferin reported that he had
informed the Minister for foreign Affairs of the
intended replacement of the old " Comet," and
that the Vali of; Bagdad had been instructed
accordingly, though he anticipated objections on
the latter's part.
To Lord Dufferin, Lord Dufferin was instructed to inform the
No. 19
Telegraphic, Porte that the new " Cometwas under orders
April 1. fa p rocee( i to Bussorah, and firmly to protest
against any opposition.
Lord Dufferin, Permission was subsequently accorded for the
No. 233, July 15. , . i -r» -i i .
new Comet to proceed to Bagdad on condition
that the old one was withdrawn, and Mr. Wynd-
Mr. YVyndham, ham reported »a little later that he had informed
September 17. the Porte that the old " Comet " had been
broken up.
To Law Officers, The Law ^Officers were asked whether in their
February 19. . .
opinion—
1. There was, in fact, such an agreement in
1846 as is recorded in Sir S. Canning's No. 45 of
the 18th March. %
2. If so, whether Her Majesty's Government
are precluded by the course of action followed
since that date, as well as by the insufficiency of
the evidence and the conflict of interpretation
from now claiming the benefits of that agree
ment.
3. Whether (assuming that agreement to be
abandoned) the vizierial letter of January 1861,
and the fact of the enjoyment by the company of
the privilege for twenty-two years without pro
test, are evidence of an agreement by the Porte
to the establishment of the two steamers of the
company on these rivers, and if so whether in the
circumstances Her Majesty's Government are
entitled to insist on the maintenance of the
sta(us quo. (See Appendix XXI.)
A draft reply to the Turkish Ambassador was
also forwarded for the approval of the Law
Officers.
India Office,
November io.
To Lord Dufferin,
No. 395,
November 15.
1884.
Lord Dufferin,
No. 34,
January 30,1884.