"مذكرة تتعلق بالملاحة في نهري دجلة والفرات". [ظ‎‎١‎٣‎٤] (٢٨٤/٢٦٩)

24
established hv treaty," cites the report of the Hotel des Monnaies. to which the British Embassy
had given its adhesion, and which had been submitted to and approved by the Sultan.
That report declares what are the proper dues payable by vessels engaged in the internal
trade, " under whatever flag they may sail,' and those payable by British vessels entering the m ers,
or issuing therefrom tor the purposes of the external trade, and it prescribes the amount of
anchorage toll for the lattei. The Grand Vizier then proceeds to declare that His imperial
Majesty had approved the report, and had ordered that it should be put into execution, and
he accordingly directs the vali to levy on British-owned vessels engaged in the internal trarac
the same dues as on native vessels, and to levy on the cargoes of British vessels " qui viennent
du dehors et qui vont a I'^tranger," the established customs duties, and an anchorage toll ol
5 piastres.
The vizierial letter of the 15th January, 1861, is still more explicit on the point.
The Grand Vizier commences by stating that the British Ambassador had requested " a
renewal of the orders which were sent concerning the British steamers and boats authorised, by His
Majesty to ply on the Rivers Tigris and Euphrates " ; and after referring to the privileges formerly
granted by Imperial firmans in 1834 and 1841, he proceeds to set out the yizierial instructions
issued in 1846 at the request of the British Embassy. He cites the distinction therein laid
down between the internal trade and the trade carried on " by British vessels, whether coming
loaded from abroad and entering one of those two rivers with their cargoes, or issuing therefrom to
the sea laden with Ottoman produce, and bound for foreign countries, which (he states) are
liable only to the treaty tariff and to the mooring toll " on entering or leaving the Tigris or
Euphrates, like all other foreign ships coining to other ports of the Ottoman Empire ; and he
renews the order that those rules should be carried out.
5. The above passages would be inexplicable were the Porte's interpretation of the vizierial
letters to be accepted. On the other hand, they are entirely consistent with the agreement of
1846, above mentioned, and recorded in Sir Stratford Canning's despatches of that year.
6. With respect to the argument of the Turkish Ambassador that such an agreement could
not be concluded otherwise than by a treaty, it is to be observed that if such an agreement was
made it is not the less valid as an international agreement because the Porte did not think fit to.
give effect to it by an Imperial firman, or to insist on making it the subject of a formal treaty.
7. But even if it be conceded that the contracting parties were not ad idem in respect of the
agreement, and that there was no intention on the part of the Porte to grant to British shipping
in general the right ot navigating the rivers, it is contended that the vizierial letter of 1861 having
been issued for the very purpose of enabling the company to put their two steamers on the Tigris
and Euphrates, was intended to confer, and did confer, tliat privilege on them.
The company have enjoyed that privilege ever since, with the knowledge and acquiescence
of the Porte.
It is true that, as stated by the Turkish Ambassador, disputes have arisen as to the
substitution of new steamers for old ones, the towing of barges, and other matters; but the right
of navigation of the two steamers of the company has never before been contested, which shows
that the attitude of the Porte during the last twenty-two years has not been one of " friendly
tolerance," as suggested by his Excellency, but one of acquiescence in a claim of right. On the
faith of that acquiescence the company have invested a large capital in depots at convenient
points on both rivers, and in establishments for working the mail, passenger and cargo services,
and they have developed a large trade, to the great benefit of the country.
8. Her Majesty s Government are not called upon, therefore, to invoke, in the present case
the general right of navigation claimed by them on the Rivers Tigris and Euphrates.
vv hatever may be the true construction of the agreement of 1846 as to the general right of
navigation, Her Majesty's Government consider that the attitude of the Porte during the last
twenty-two years debars them from now disputing the validity of the rights claimed and exercised
by the company under the vizierial letter of 1861, and that they are entitled to insist on the status
quo of the company being maintained.
• JS* 8 se ?f e during the discussion of the case with the Turkish Ambassador it was
pom e out to his Excellency that if Her Majesty's Government were to waive their claim to the
JespectefrdmaSed 011 ' ^ hithert0 enj0yed by the COmpany 0n tlle river8 must be
•i-u 9 " ^ ke a brupt and arbitrary action of the Porte in forcibly stopping the traffic of the comnanv
Otfn n0 e, and for no other cause than the desire to secure their business and profits for an
man company, is marked by a singular lack of friendliness and courtesy towards Her Maiestv's
ssssates s-sr •*-"*' in "» t - «• J— aSK?
the note of the Turk^ P™ "P^ as to wLther
above submitted thereon • and if not tint P J e a ^ swer ed in the sense of the observations
Majesty's Government b the mattt in/I t itf t aS to the ri g ht8 ^ Her
returned to the Turkish note. ' substance of the reply which should be
I have, &c.
JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.