In transmitting this correspondence to you Iain at the same time
requested to invite the United States Government to inform Her Majesty’s
Government whether the Turkish proposals should, in their opinion, be
agreed to, and, if not, as to what lights their trade requires, and what
dues they are prepared to pay for them.
[Inclosure.]
Circular instructions relative to Bed Sea
lights.
Foreign Office, February 29, 1888.
In the year 1881 the Porte granted to Messrs. Collas and Michel a
concession for the erection and maintenance of thirty lights in the
Red Sea, on the southeastern coast of Arabia and in the Persian
Gulf.
Copy of this document is inclosed for your information. Her Majesty’s
Government have objected to the terms of the concession, and in
August last a meeting to discuss it took place at this office
between Sir James Fergusson, Mr. Henry G. Cal-craft, Mr. Kennedy,
and Rear-Admiral Sir G. Nares, on the part of Her Majesty’s
Government, and Morel Bey and M. Collas, as representing the Porte
and the concessionaires; but the Porte, in the note from Rustem
Pasha of the 15th of that month, while agreeing to certain
modifications, declined to admit all the objections of Her Majesty’s
Government.
I inclose copy of his excellency’s note, together with copy of a
memorandum prepared by the board of trade, which enters fully into
the details of the scheme, and the objections which Her Majesty’s
Government consider exist to it.
It will be seen from this memorandum that, as regards the portion of
the concession which relates to the lighting of the Red Sea, in the
opinion of Her Majesty’s Government, eight out of the twelve
proposed fairway lights are not required for the protection of ships
passing through that sea, and that six of them would not, in
ordinary circumstances, even be sighted; that two more are not
absolutely necessary for the safety of shipping carefully navigated;
and that the establishment of these two can well be deferred for the
present. Also that the dues authorized under the concession are
inordinately high.
It is shown that by omitting the erection of the lights which are
considered unnecessary, it would be possible to provide for the
erection of all the lights in the neighborhood which are needed, at
a smaller expense to the shipping trade than is proposed under the
concession.
The dues leviable under the concession for the twelve Red Sea fairway
lights alone, would, as shown in the memorandum, amount to about £38
for each voyage on a vessel of 3,200 net tonnage, in addition to the
charges for supporting the Egyptian lights already established, and
which amount to about £38 for a vessel of the same tonnage. The
dues, moreover, for the lights authorized by the concession, if once
agreed to by the maritime powers, are to be continued for forty
years. No provision is made for their revision in the event of trade
increasing, or in that of the cost of erection being previously paid
off.
On the other hand, the cost of maintaining the existing Red Sea
lights, establishing the additional ones that are absolutely
necessary within the Egyptian, Turkish, and Guardafui districts, and
providing a sinking fund for the repayment of the cost of their
erection, can, it is expected, be met as soon as a reduction can be
made in the Egyptian light-house dues, by a tariff of about the
amount now levied for the Egyptian Red Sea lights alone.
It will be seen from Rustem Pasha’s note referred to, that,
notwithstanding the objections raised by Her Majesty’s Government to
the concession, the Porte holds in the main to its terms, and says
that the separation of the Abu Ail and Mocha shoal lights from the
general concession is impossible.
It is indeed stated that the scheme is open to modification, but,
looking to the above-mentioned expression of opinion and to the fact
that a high fixed tariff is proposed, Her Majesty’s Government
conclude that the modification can only refer to the number of
lights being slightly reduced or the sites somewhat altered.
But, besides the objections held by Her Majesty’s Government to the
proposed fairway lights and the scale of dues, they consider that
the following points are of great importance and should be firmly
maintained in dealing with the concession.
- (1)
- That the Red Sea fair-way lights erected for the benefit of
and supported by dues levied on the passing foreign trade should
be in no way coupled financially with any other lights or with
Government funds applicable to other purposes.
- (2)
- That whatever country provides lights should levy dues only in
strict proportion to the actual cost of the service, and that
the expenses should be kept as low as possible with due regard
to efficiency.
- (3)
- That provision should be made for the periodical revision of
the tariff, and that yearly accounts should be published for the
information of the countries whose trade is taxed, as is already
done by Egypt in connection with the lights in the northern part
of the Red Sea, and by Great Britain in connection with lights
in the Indian Ocean and on the south coast of Ceylon.
The accompanying extract of a letter from the board of trade, dated
the 22d February, 1886, points out the undesirability of
acknowledging or admitting the fresh establishment in practice of a
right on the part of any power to benefit financially
[Page 792]
through taxes levied on a
foreign passing trade in connection with lights on its coast or on
off-lying dangers, a line of policy for the abolition of which the
several maritime powers have made great effort, and for the
abandonment of which, when prescribed by long usage, a large sum was
paid by them to Denmark in 1857, when the sound duties were done
away with.
At the present time, although many countries exercise their undoubted
right to levy local light dues on ships entering their ports, no
country, except Turkey (who taxes the Black Sea trade on passing the
Dardanelles), so far as Her Majesty’s Government are aware, in any
way levies light dues on the foreign trade passing their general
coast lights, unless it enters one of their ports, much less does
any other foreign government benefit financially through levying
such dues.
If the Collas concession were agreed to, a further precedent would be
created in opposition to the principle on which action was taken
regarding the sound duties, for the Turkish treasury, which would
receive 10 per cent, of the dues levied, would, by thus taxing a
foreign passing trade, immediately benefit to the extent of some
£7,000 a year over and above the cost of the light-house
service.
With reference to the statements made in Rustem Pasha’s letter of
August 15, I have to observe that the proposed Turkish Red Sea-light
dues and the Egyptian Red Sea light dues are in no way comparable,
the accounts of the latter being published for general information,
and the tariff being subject to revision. The statement that Turkey
will light an area of 325 miles with twenty-three lights for the
same amount of dues as is now charged by Egypt for lighting 100
miles by means of seven lights is incorrect, for the eleven Turkish
coast and harbor lights included in the above number have special
dues levied for them.
In consideration of these circumstances, and as the concurrence of
the maritime powers in the tariff is necessary before the concession
can come into force, Her Majesty’s Government propose to inform the
Porte that they can not agree that the trade of this country which
passes through the Red Sea without touching at a Turkish port should
be taxed except to such an extent as may be found necessary to pay
the actual cost of erecting and maintaining such lights as are
absolutely necessary for that trade. But before doing so they would
be glad to know the views of other powers interested in the
matter.
I have, therefore, to request you to invite the Government to which
you are accredited to inform Her Majesty’s Government as to whether
the Turkish proposals should, in their opinion, be agreed to, and,
if not, as to what lights their trade requires, and what dues they
are prepared to pay for them; and you will communicate to the
foreign minister a copy of this dispatch, and of its inclosures, for
his excellency’s information.
I am, with great truth, etc.,
——— ———
(For the Marquis of
Salisbury.)
