Page 208 - Gulf Precis (VI)_Neat

182 Part III.
You will bo so good ns to not according to tho above rule.
(Sealed) MEIIEMED.
_3rd R«Jnn 1277.
IC1I1 Jauunry I SGI.
G3. Messrs. Lynch & Co. accordingly despatched the City of London for
service on the Tigris.
64. The authorities at Baghdad wero, however, opposed to tho establish­
ment of steam navigation, and in July 18G2 the Ambassador at Constant!noplo
obtained the issue of a new Vizirial letter,
Mr. Plowden'* memo. In Secret, May 1882, No*.
221-272. the terms of which were identical with
those of the letter of 1861. We shall
quote below as to tho proceedings of 1804 the summary of Mr. Plowden in
tho collection noted in the margin.
In 1861, when the intention of tho Company to place a second steamer on the Tigris in
connection with the Indian Mad Service became
8co Colonel A. B. Keioludl'* letter dated 7th Sop- known, Manik Pasha renewed his objections,
tember 1861, to Sir II. L. Dulwer ond autocquvnt And it is in the correspondence which then ensued
”?oMfc”!T'K.v.mbCr 1W4. Nn,. 1B0-1B1. t!>at l,'° 0lt°"’an asserted for the lirst
Political a., December 18G-1, No*. 263-204. time that under existing iirmans only two British
steamers were permitted to navigate the Tigris.
And tho persistency with which they reiterated this statement apparently ended in securing its
undisputed acceptance. They have, in fact, induced people to regard tho British Government
and o local Brilhh lirm as identical entities, and to apply to tho operations of that firm on the
Tigris a sanction granted to the British Government for the Euphrates; and having shown
that the terms of that concession allowed only two steamers, and that two steamers—the City
of London and tho Comet—wero as a matter of fact already stationed on tho Tigris, there
was no other conclusion possible but that the firm in question had no right to bring out
what was described as a third steamer. One statement in this argument, that the Comet belong­
ed to the Euplnates and Tigris Company, was immediately assailed ; and it having been proved
that this vessel belonged to the Indian Government, the new stenincr brought out by the Com­
pany, tho Lei!eh, was permitted to run. The Porte, however, gained one important advnntago
from this discussion. The little mis-statement about the Comet diverted attention from the
substantial issue, and gave them the opportunity to discard without detection the correspond­
ence of 1816. Consequently after that misstatement had b«en set right, with the result that
the Company attained their immediate object in view—withdrawal of opposition to the Uejlch—
nobody thought it worth while till the year 1883 to traverse the far more important assertion
that the Company’s right to navigate the Tigris rosted on a specific firman applicable to the
Company alone and restricted to two steamers.
Colonel Kcmhall, having learned that Namik Pasha contemplated opposition to the D'jleh,
drew His Excellency's attention to existing arrangements whereby British merchant steamers
were at liberty to navigato tbe Tigris without any limit as to number of vessels, and asked him
to specify his objections.
Namik Pasha replied that in the Vizirial letters preserved in his archives it was clearly
laid down that tho British Government was permitted to run only two steamers on the Tigris,
and to run them by turns ; and as two steamers were now present, he was unable to perecivo
on what grounds a third steamer could he claimed. Manik Pasha's view was firmly supported
by his own Government; and the correspondence which ensued was pcrsistantly conducted by
the Turks on the basis that only two stoamers were admissible ; that thcro was no distinction
between the Company’s steamers tho City of London and the Government steamer Comet ; and
that no third steamer could be allowed. And the British authorities appear to have been so far
oonvinccd of the soundness of tho Turkish case, that they seem to have agreed to withdraw the
Comet to make way for the Company's new steamer, tho Dejlch. This stage of tho contro­
versy terminated with Ali Pasha’s note, dated 1st October 186t, a copy of which was forwarded
to Colonel Kcmhall in a despatch from Her Majesty’s Chargi dlAffaires, No. 17, dated 3rd
October,
This note, in deciding the question at issue, comnionced with a statement that Hor
Majesty's Embassy had asked the Porto—
M Qui des ordres soient transmis au Gouvcrocur General do Baghdad a l'ofTot de ne pas
s'opposcr a la navigation sur 1c Tigre du nouveau bateau a vapeur quo Messieurs Lynch ot
Co. feront veoir do Londres dam lc bid de remplacer le “ Comet " un des deux bateaux sous
pavilion Anglais qui out t’autorisation de navigner sur le dil Jleuvc.
It is not clear whether Ali Pasha quoted correctly the English memorandum; but as
shown by Mr. Plowden it will be obvious from the statements in the foregoing paragraphs
that tho words italicised altogether misrepresent the true position of affairs, Ali Pasha's note
proceeds —
“ Vous savez, Monsieur le Chargd d'Affaircs, quo l'autorifation accordec a cot effet
comperte outre la reserve slipulde pour le cas oh des inconYcnients locaux scraiont siguales