Page 220 - Gulf Precis (VI)_Neat

194. Part HI-

105. Tlio following memorandum of a conversation between tho Turkish
Ambassador, Sir Julian Paunccforte and Lord E. Pitz-Mauricc, datod 15th
. August 18S3, disclosos tho arguments of
Beorot E., Norombor 1893, Nos. 20*110 (No. 21). Porte Oil tllO question
« Musurus Pasha began by paying that tho Firman of 1831, applied to the Euphrates
only, and gavo an exclusive privilege to Lynch's Company for two vessels, and two only.
When, in reply to this, it was pointed out to him that the Firman paid nothing about Lynch*
and his Company, but spoko of tho British Government, ho said thcro was another Firman,
dated 1842, in which Lynch was expressly mentioned and identified with thograut of 1834.
This Firman is uot known at tho Foreign Offioe, but I understand that it is known to the British
Embassy at Constantinople. Tho Turkish Ambassador then proceeded to follow up this same
line of argument, and tried to run together tho Vizierial lottcrs of 1816 and 18GL with the-
Firmans of 1834 and 1812 and to limit tho grant made by the former by rcfcrcuco to the terms
of the laltor.
it was, in reply, pointed out to him that tho Vizierial letter 1810 did not mention the
Firmans of 1834 and 1842, but related to a distinct matter, and that tho Vizierial letter of
18G1 only mentioned them in tbc preamble. This letter, howevor,^ it was agreed, was a difficult
documont to follow, as it spnko of Baghdad as being on the Euphrates.0 Musurus Pasha
eaid it was signed by a man who knew nothing, and could not sign his own name, and that
it was merely confirmatory of tho letter of 1810, to the terms of which we then went back.
His Excellency thereupon proceeded to argue that the despatch of Sir Stratford Canning
of the 25lh March 1846 was not a fair or accurate version of the terms of Vizierial letter of
1846. The recital, in the fourth paragraph of the letter, of an extract from the roport of the
Superintendent of the Hotel dcs Mommies was, he said, without binding force, and the only
words of gvnut were those contained in paragraph 5, which differed from those in paragraph 4,
und were intended to grant less. The words were .—
fEu consequence jc vous ecris ct vous cuvore ccttc dcpeche afin quo votre Excellence
mettc scs soins h co que l’on premie dcs barques dc commerce Anglaiscs, qui, commoilaete
dit plus haut, scront dcsormais occupces h. faire le commerce intericur sur les deux fleuves sus-
dits, dSs droits couformes a ccux que I'on prend des barques dcs sujets Ottomans et co pue
Fon neprenne sur les chargcmcnts des bailments Anglais qui viennent du dehors ct qui vont
dans un pays ctrangcr, quo les droits dc douanco etablis, et qu’un droit d'aucrage consistaut
cn b piastres.'
These words, he said, were not fairly represented in the despatch, the words of which are
as follows :—
‘ British-owned vessels will continue to navigate the waters of Mesopotamia under their
national colours equally whether they are engaged in the Foreign or in the internal trade,
and they will pay upon the merchandize which they convey tho amount of duties respectively
applied to each case by the convcutiou of Balta Liman.
‘In the event of their being employed above the usual ports of entry io tho internal traffic
of the country, they will be liable to the anchorage duty which is always paid here, and which
is sanctioned by the Capitulations but instead of paying 12 paistres as levied upon each vessel
io tho harbour of Constantinople, they will only pay 5 paistres.' 1
The only privilege, accorded, according to Ilis Excellency, was to British-owned ,r barques "
to navigate the Tigris and the Euphrates for the purposes of internal trade upon payment of
equal dues with the "barquet" of Ottoman subjects and to British vessels generally, to pay
no more than the customary dues and anchorage duo upon entering or leaving any port of entry
in the river Basrah, lie 6aid, being intended, and not Baghdad, the latter, in his opinion, not
being a port of cutry.
I am not prepared to deny some force to this argument. There can be no doubt that terms
of Sir Strafford Canning's despatch are a very looso rendering of the terms of tho Vizierial
letter, and that the latter, not the former, is our title-deed. I am also quito propared to
admit, as already stated, that the Firmans of 1834 and 1842, assuming the latter to exist, are
not to be extended so as to cover the present question, though, conversely, I would claim that
the letter of 1846 is not to be limited by reference to the Firmans.
But after allowing all this, the fact remains that British vessels have since 1846, and
even beforo that date, been allowed to navigate the Tigris, and that this arrangement has
proved of great benefit to all parlies. There is, in fact, a usage and I should be inclined to
bate our ease on that usage rather than on the dubious terms of letter 1346, and the still more
dubious geography of the letter of ISO l, or on the free translation of the letter of 1646 by
Sir Stratford Canning. I should also liko to know what ie a barque. Arc not Lynch's vessels
which, I am told, could not go to see barques and therefore according to tho Turkish Ambas­
sador's own contention, within the terras of tho letter of 1846 ?
I would, in conclusion, urge tho importance of tho political aspects of this question, and
ask Lord Granville's special attention to tho views of Mr. Plowdcn at pago 21 of Memoran­
dum, Confidential No. 4838. There is reason besides to Euspcct that there may bo Hussion
In the Firman of 1812 tho uitno Lyucb must h-ivo bvon moulionoJ as that of the Commandant of tbo
East India Company's steamer.