Page 218 - Gulf Precis (VI)_Neat

192 Part III.
was issued to secure for him from local authorities such aid and protection ns. ho might
require.
If, then the Firmans of 1834 and 1841 arc to bo regarded as irrelevant, upon what
basis can the claim of British merchants in general to trade on the Tigris in British regis­
tered vessels Hying the British ling be said to rest ? The answer is, that claim rests—
(1) Upon usage for many years prior to 1846.
(2) Upon the terms of the arrangement of 1846 ; which nrrangoment was confirmed and
renewed by thu Porta in 1801 and 1802.
(3) By the usago of the last twenty years.
As to usage prior to 1840 Bawlinson, writing in 1845, says that “Turkish (i.e.,
country built) boats possessed by British owners, or owners under British protection, have
been htthoto permitted for a period of forty years to navigate the river under the British
flag". Again, in tin agreement signed in 1823 by Daud 1’asha, then Vali of Baghdad, the
following clauBo occurs, which shows that vessels the proporty of British merchants wero then
employed in navigating the Tigris between Baghdad and Basrah :—
" Clause G. No tax except ono previously well defined and arranged shall he lovied on
boats, tho property of British subjects and proteges, such, for instance, at pass between
Baghdad and Hn*rah ; nor shall tho property of merchants being British subjects or protepds
arriving at Baghdad, othorwise than is u<ual on the arrival of the satuo at Basrah, enter the
oustom-housc contrary to stipulation and covenant.
Next, as to the arrangement of 1S46 ; I think it was something nv'-ro than an under­
standing. There were in 1846 two questions under discussion. One was precisely the ques­
tion now under consideration, vis., the right of the British merchants to navigate the Tigris
(and tho Euphrates) under the British Hag ; the other, the dues which such merchants should
pay. Tho correspondence shows that the facts that British vessels were employed, and
had for a long swrics of years been employed, in navigating the Tigris, was admitted; but
the Najib Pasha, then Vali of Baghdad, “ questioned tho right of any British vessel to
navigate tho river, except under special Firman from the Bone." The result was a com­
promise. Sir Stratford Canning waived the right of British vessels other than those quali­
fied to navigate as such, i.e., registered vessels to fly the national Hag on the Tigris, and the
Porto gave in respect to these vessels, and under certain conditions as to dues, its formal
sanction to the continuance in future of the us age of tho past. This settlement was described
by Sir Stratford Canning ns an agreement ; it was submitted to the Sultan ; and, as stated
in the Vizierial letter of the 2nd April 1846, received His Majesty’s assent. The definite
character which attaches to this agreement is however evident, not only from Sir Stratford
Canning’s despatches of the 18th and 25th March aud 4th April 1846, and from the Vizicr-
ial letter of the same year, but uls-o from tho Foreign Office letter of the 17th February
186U, written under Lord John ltussell’s orders to Lynch and Company, and from tho
Vizierial letter of too lath January 1*61, which speaks of “ a renewal of the orders which
were sent concerning the British steamers and boats authorized by His Majesty to ply on the
Tigrit and the Euphrates.”*
I submit, therefore, that the arrangement of 1846 is, and was understood at the time to
be, a foimul agreement issued under the direct authority of the Sultan, whereby the usage
of the past was acknowledged, and its further continuance sanctioned under certain definite
conditions agreed to by both parties.
There remains the question of «he manner in which tho right of British vossels to navi­
gate the Tigris has been exercised during the last twenty years. It is a fact which cannot
be denied, thit for the whole of this petiod two British steamers have maintained a weekly
service m the Tigris between Baghdad and Basrah for tho conveyance of cargo, passengers
aud British mails. But it is also true that difficulties have from time to time been raised by
the Turks and in the correspondence connected therewith the weak point of the case may
perhaps be thought to lie. In this correspondence the Turks, starting with the assumption
(based on the Euphrates Firman of 1834; that two, and only two, British si earners woro
allowed to navigate the Tigris, declared that the British Company.-which owned tire steamers
was employing or intended to employ m<r« than two steamers. As noticed by Mr. Kennedy,
the British. Company in question for reasons of its own, was not averse to the idea that
only two British steamers were allowed to navigate the Tigris, and the Turkish objections
were met, not by pointing out the fundamental error in their argument, but I y showing
that, as a matter of fact, only two steamers were being employed by the Company. ln
other words, the Turks were told that, assuming only two British steamers arc allowed on
the Tigris, that number and no more are being actually employed in the navigation of the
river. It may be unfortunate that this lino of argument was followed, but the faot remains
that the steamers wore placed on the Tigris, and have been maintained on that river ever
since, in pursuance of the agreement of 1846, renewed and confirmed in 1861 and 1802
with special reference to them. Mornover, if it were really tho case that owing to this
corrckpondonce the agreement of 184) had become invalid, it might be expected that tho
Porto would urge this plea. But it has not done so, and surely it is not for the British
Government to rake the question. On the contrary, if the telegrams in the papers arc true,
• All the reference! have been quoted or citod above In Section* (vi) aud fvii) except Lord RuMol'a loiter of X7th
February I860, which cannot be traced.