"مذكرة تتعلق بالملاحة في نهري دجلة والفرات". [ظ‎‎١‎٣‎٣] (٢٨٤/٢٦٧)

22
Company (p. 18), of Meesrs. Gray, Dawes, and Co. (pp. 27, 71, and 108), of Messrs. Gloyer
Brothers (p. 29), of Messrs. Steel, Young, and Co. (p. 29), of the London Chamber of Commerce
(p 95) and of Mr Cooke (p. 62), who states that the tonnage visiting the port of Bussorah,
which in 1871 was only 7,110 tons, increased in 1882 to no less than 74,760 tons. The immediate
obiect which the Turkish Government had in view in stopping the traffic of the company is the
desire to secure the exclusive profits of the navigation for an Ottoman company (A, pp. 37
and 120, Nos. 79 and 161). But there is reason to believe that political objects are also connected
with their recent action (A, p. 102, p. 64 ; E, p. 5 ; and H, p. 4).
Earl Granville, immediately on receipt of the intelligence that the traffic of the company had
been stopped by the Turkish authorities, addressed a note to the Turkish Ambassador, dated the
5th Julv, protesting against this proceeding, and expressing fhe hope that the status quo would
be re-established pending the friendly discussion of the question between the two Governments
(A, p. 21).
In a further note, dated the 11th July, his Lordship reserved all rights against the Porte for
the consequences of their action (A, p. 26).
These remonstrances led to an arrangement, which is recorded in Lord Granville's despatch
to Mr. Wyndham No. 131 of the 4th August, 1883 (A, p. 79), under which the company was
allowed to resume its traffic, without prejudice, and pending the friendly discussion of the
question between the two Governments.
In pursuance of that arrangement several interviews have taken place between the Turkish
Ambassador and the Under-Secretaries of State at the Foreign Office, for the purpose of discussing
the question, and of arriving, if possible, at some amicable solution of the difficulty (H).
Those interviews, however, having led to no practical result, the Ambassador was invited to
address a note to Lord Granville setting out precisely the grounds on which the Porte defended
their action in stopping the traffic of the company.
His Excellency accordingly addressed a note to Lord Granville on the 28th ultimo, to which
I am now to invite your attention.
In that note the Ambassador maintains that the sole right of navigation possessed by the
company is derived from the firman of 1834 and a firman of 1841, of both of which he transmits
copies (Appendix, Nos. 3 and 4).
He denies that a general right to navigate the rivers was ever granted to British vessels, and
he proceeds to give his interpretation of the vizierial letters of 1846 and 1861.
He argues that if those documents were intended to concede a general right of navigation,
the reference to the firmans of 1834 and 1841 in the vizierial letter of 1861 would have been
superfluous; that it is impossible to hold that such a right could be accorded by simple vizierial
letters; that it must necessarily have formed the subject of a treaty, the benefit of which,
moreover, would be claimed at once by all the other Powers entitled to most -favoured -nation
treatment. That the vizierial letters had no reference to British vessels entitled to carry the
British flag, but only to British-owned native craft which improperly carried the British flag and
thus escaped the payment of dues. That the object of the vizierial letters was only to record
the decision of the Porte, that British-owned native craft might continue to navigate the rivors
on payment of the same dues as the vessels belonging to Ottoman subjects, and that accordingly
they had continued to do so to this day, subject to such payment and without carrying the
British flag. That the report of the Hotel des Monnaies referred to in the vizierial letter of
1846 was only intended to lay down that native craft owned by foreigners engaged in the internal
trade must pay the same dues as vessels owned by Ottoman subjects, and engaged in the same
internal trade, and not to decide the question whether British vessels had the right to navigate
the rivers, such a question not being within the competence of that department. That owW
to the vague terms of the vizierial letters there had been confusion on the part of Her Maiestv^s
Government between British vessels entitled to carry the British flag and British-owned native
vessels, which caused them to place on those letters an interpretation as erroneous as it was
inadmissible. That the company, therefore, in its own interest, would do well to abandon
untenable pretensions, and to restrict itself to the privilege conferred by the firmans which was
limited to the navigation of the Euphrates only, by two British steamers.
As regards the argument that the company's line of steamers has been established for more
than twenty years on the Tigris, without objection on the part of the Porte, that a larsre caoital
has been expended on its establishment, that it is under contract with the British Government
or the carnage of the Indian mail, and that the stoppage of its traffic would give rise to grave
complaints on the part of the mercantile interest and in Parliament, his Excellency observes that
hf transport of the Indian mails could be effected by a Turkish steamer; that the friendly
tolerance of the Porte could not affect its imprescriptible rights; that the expenditure of the
company has been amply repaid by its profits; that its establishment on the Tigris has never
ceased to give rise to disputes; that the question is not one affecting the interests of British
commerce m general but of a private company, and that if the British Parliament and public
evinced so much solicitude for a private company, how much more was the Porte bound to safe
guard the rights of its subjects in general, and' to secure to them the adva^
navigation, following therein the example of other civilised States- that for nolifiVal « 1
economic reasons, the Porte must insist that the navigation of the Tigris shall be reserved for
0 toman vessels ; finally, that although the privilege accorded by Imperial firman to fw r v u
ss^^sfrsssr- 1 — A =»• '• ft Jftitft
Hie Excellency concludes by remarking that it had been pointed out that he had confounded