"الملف 73/7 III (D 24) وضع الكويت، والمفاوضات الأنجلو-التركية" [و‎‎١‎٥‎٢] (٧٠٩/٣١٥)

63
Sir E. Grey would be glad to be furnished with any observations the
Board of Trade may have to offer on the subject of paragraph 6, section (g),
the inclusion of which has been proposed by Hakki Pasha.
Sir E. Grey would be grateful if he might receive the views of the Board
of Trade not later than Tuesday morning next, the 8th instant.
I am, &c.,
Louis Mallet.
(Copy sent informally to the Army Department for transmission to the
Division of the Chief of the Staff.)
(Received on the 5th May 1913 with Political Secretary's letter No. 16, dated the 18th April
1913.)
(Copy.)
SECRET.
(Immediate.)
P. 1376 . India Office;
Sir, 15th April 1913.
In reply to your letter No. 14674, of the 9th instant, regarding transport
on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, I am directed by the Secretary of State for
India to say that he agrees with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that
it will be difficult to prevent Messrs. Lynch from coming to an arrangement
with the Baghdad Railway Company as regards the existing concession; but
that, if His Majesty's Government obtain the three additional ships from the
Turkish Government and transfer them to Messrs. Lynch, stringent condi
tions can presumably be imposed, including the presence of a Government
Director on the Board with a power of veto.
2. But below this difficulty lies the fundamental difficulty that the policy
of the Baghdad Railway Company, if they get a footing on the river (whether
through Messrs. Wonckhaus or otherwise)—which it will be difficult to
prevent—will probably be to undercut Messrs. Lynch by quoting through
rates on the railway and German ships. This contingency was foreseen
w r hen the whole question was under discussion in June last, and it can
apparently only be met by similar measures on our part, i e., either by direct
subsidy, or by an interworking arrangement between Indian railway com
panies and the steamship companies concerned. The Marquess of Crewe w 7 ill
obtain the views of the Government of India on this subject, but it w r ill
necessarily require careful consideration, and an immediate answer is not to
be expected.
3. In the meantime I am to suggest th at th e question of amalgamation
should be more closely examined. The parties immediately concerned appear
to be the Turkish Government, the Turkish Nahriye Company, and His
Majesty's Government (if the view taken in your letter of 26th March is
correct), acting through Messrs. Lynch. No foreign power or firm has any
permanent rights of navigation, but it should be observed that the temporary
Societe des Transports Eluviaux (one-half of whose capital is held by the
Baghdad Railway Company, and the other half by Messrs. Lynch) has the
right of transporting general merchandise as well as railway material. But
this is a right as against Messrs. Lynch, and not as against the Turkish
Government.
The Turkish Government are now understood to favour the formation
of a single Turkish Company, combining all interests, for the navigation of
the rivers. But apparently, except for the temporary interest of the Baghdad
Railway Company in the Societe above-mentioned, the solo interests are Turkish
and British, and the question suggests itself whether the Turkish Government
could not be induced to agree to the formation of a Turkish Company, of which
half the capital and half the directing Board should be British, His Majesty's