Middle East Committee and Eastern Committee [‎9r] (17/42)

3
would open up trade in Mesopotamia during war. The experience of
the past has shown that the virtual monopoly of British trade and
shipping interests in the Persian Gult in the hands oi the British
India Company, had been unfortunate. Lord Incheape’s firm had
been unprogress ve arid had facilitated the growth of Geimuii
competition. This pointed to the desirability of competition on the
Tigris.
Sir William Clark expressed the view that if the matter were
left open and no agreement was made to encourage Lord Inchcape’s
powerful interest in Mesopotamia the Japanese would come in. In
his opinion it would be better to give Lord Inchcape a monopoly than
to holster up the British trade in the future by means of subsidies. _
Captain Lloyd stated that he thought it desirable that His
Majesty’s Government should take action at the earliest possible
moment. As far as he was concerned, he was opposed to the
proposal which would give monopoly to any one British firm, and
thought that arrangements should be cune to with other large
British groups, and anything now arranged might of oouise be made
subject to whatever minht be determined at the Peace Conference.
He agreed that the loss of British trade in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. before
the war was largely due to the fact that Br.tish direct trade with
Mesopotamia had been neglected in preference for the Indian trade.
The openings whieh the Germans had got before the war were due
very largely to the narrow and unenterprising methods of the British
India Company, together with very inflated freight rates. He thought
that the Government should reserve in iu own hands the control of
the conservancy of the River Tigris. It was undesirable to leave
such rio-hts to any company. The Tigris in Mesopotamia is like the
Nile in Egypt, that is to say, the river is the country. Mesopotamian
trade wbll be a most profitable trade, and enterprising firms would
be only too glad to enter such a trade if given the right to go
there.
Sir W. Clark feared that if Lord Inchcape went out of the
business no one else would come in, and he doubted it it would he
possible to get British capital invested on a large scale m a country
suc h as Mesopotamia without some form of Government guarantee r
such as would be given by a concession.
On the other hand, Captain LLyd thought that, provided it
was made clear that the trade was not going to be handed over to
one set of powerful hands, other firms, such as Strick and Elleiman,
would be only too glad to seek a footing.
Sir Mark Sykes thought that, if we played our cards well and
in accordance with the underlying political principles now current in
the world, we should have a good chance of remaining in contiol
of Mesopotamia after the war, but should we be charged with
encouraoing profiteering or establishing monopolies we should run
orave risk of seeing Mesopotamia pass out of our control at the
Peace Conference. The proposal put before the Committee was
equivalent to handing over the future Mesopotamia and its
inhabitants to Lord Inchcape. Such proposal would be howled
down in the House of Commons.
The Committee decided—
That no steps should he taken to come to an arrangement with
Lord Inchcape or any other firm until the views ot
Sir Percy Cox had been obtained regarding the various-
points raised in the discussion.
1 (Initialled) C, «>f k
2, Whitehall Gardens, S.W .,
February -1, 1U1S.