"مذكرة تتعلق بالملاحة في نهري دجلة والفرات". [و‎‎١‎٠‎٤] (٢٨٤/٢٠٨)

55
1891— {cont,)
India Office,
September 25.
To Sir W. White,
No. 212,
Sept. 29.
Sir C. Ford
(Constantinople),
No. 281,
September 12,
Euphrates and
Tigris Steam
Navigation
Company,
September 27.
1892.
Euphrates
and Tigris Steam
Navigation
Company,
August 9, 1892.
the levying of blackmail under the pretence of
quarantine on British-Indian craft. The Otto
man Grand Vizier objected to such use of the
" Comet" as being in excess of the limits laid
down by the Porte when giving permission for a
British gun-boat to be stationed at Bagdad.
With the approval of the India Office, instruc
tions were given to the Ambassador at Constan
tinople to inform the Grand Vizier "that, in the
opinion of Her Majesty's Government, the terms
of the firman of the 29th December, 1834, did
not restrict the navigation of the two steamers
mentioned therein to Bagdad and its immediate
neighbourhood, but sanctioned their navigating
the Euphrates, and that the employment of the
" Comet" in the manner proposed could not be
regarded as constituting a departure from the
provisions of the firman."
1S92. — The Euphrates and Tigris Steam
Navigation Company stated that they believed
a Turkish company was being formed at Bagdad
whose shares were to be exclusively held by
natives, and they apprehended that, in view of
the restrictions their two steamers were subject
to, they would not be able to compete successfully
with the boats of the new company. They there
fore asked that Sir C. Ford (Her Majesty's
Ambassador at Constantinople) should be in
structed to urge the Porte to remove the restric
tions.
Sir C. Eord transmitted a memorandum by
Mr. Dragoman Block dealing with the formation
of the new Turkish company. Mr. Block stated
that the scheme had been under consideration by
the " Civil List" for some time, and that the Sultan
would hold a large number of shares. Mr. Block
thought that for this reason the company would
be made a paying concern.
The company wrote specifying the restrictions
which they wished removed. They were :—
1. Restriction to use of two steamers only.
2. Prohibition of navigation of the Euphrates
and of the Tigris above Bagdad.
3. Prohibition of towing of barges.
The company also desired to use a small
steamer (" bateau mouche "). If these restric
tions were removed the company thought they
would be able to carry on the service.
f0t>