"مذكرة" [و‎‎٤‎٨] (٦/٣)

MEMORANDUM.
should like to submit for consideration the following observations
on the subject of the steamer now being built to replace the the “ Comet ” at
Baghdad.
2. Much correspondence has passed on different occasions between the
Forte and the British Government in respect to the “ Comet,” and the con
ditions on^ which that vessel is stationed at Baghdad. At page 3, vol. vii. of
Artchison s Treaties the result of these discussions is described as follows :—
In addition to these two vessels (^.e., the two steamers sent out from
“ England to navigate the Euphrates) an armed despatch boat, The ‘ Comet ’
{ was many years attached to the Residency, for service in the waters of
Turkish Arabia. In 1864, the Porte sanctioned provisionally the continued
stay of the ‘ Comet/ and in 1869 consented to a new vessel of war being
“ sent to replace her. The consent here referred to was given in a note
verbale* dated 13th July 1869, which describes the “ Comet” as stationed on
the rivers of Mesopotamia (i.e., on both the Tigris and the Euphrates), and
agrees to its being replaced by another vessel of the Royal Navy. This
consent not having been immediately acted on, it was thought advisable,
some years later, in order to prevent the question of lapse being raised, to
get a renewal of the Porte’s sanction. I know that this was obtained, but I
do not know whether the later permission differs in any way from that of
1869, and what conditions are attached to it.
3. It is desirable to have a precise understanding on the subject, because
objections may be raised by the Turks to the passage of the new steamer up
the Tigris, and to its remaining at Baghdad after it has succeeded in getting
there. It is true that the note verbale of 1869 intimates that the Vali of
Baghdad has been instructed on the subject of the new steamer. But the
question is what is the nature of the instructions which have been given him ?
It is generally believed at Baghdad that the replacement of the old steamer
by a new one will be opposed, a supposition which derives support from the
fact that the local authorities took prompt exception to my employment of
the “ City of London ” as a temporary substitute for the 44 Comet.”
4. Under these circumstances, it appears advisable that the Resident in
Turkish Arabia should be instructed both as to the line to be taken in the
event of Turkish opposition to the new steamer, and as to the conditions
under which that vessel is allowed to navigate the “waters of Mesopotamia.”
The last point involves the question of the legal status of the “ Comet.” On
what footing is that steamer stationed at Baghdad, and what immunities and
privileges belong to it ? I gather from the note verbale of 1869 that the
Porte regards the “ Comet ” in the same light as the “ Stationnaires ”
attached to the different embassies at Constantinople, and this is the light
in which the vessel in question might most conveniently be regarded. In
short, I think, the “ Comet ” ought, to be declared to be what the Porte in
the above-cited “ note ” describes it, viz., a vessel ofj the Royal Navy. And
this suggestion would seem to meet another difficulty, that of providing for
the discipline of the crew. I do not know whether the provisions of the
Bill relating to the Indian Marine will cover a vessel employed in the inland
waters of Turkey, where the Government of India has no jurisdiction, but if
they do not cover it, and in any case until that Bill becomes law, offenders
on board the “ Comet ” can only be punished under the provisions of the
Ottoman Order in Council.
5. I have said that the passage of the “ Comet ” up the Tigris may be
opposed. I think it would be a good thing if it were arranged that the new
8170 .
# The full text of this note will be found at page 16 , vol. vii., Aitehison.