Page 107 - Gulf Precis (III)_Neat

91
432. This suggestion wa9 forwarded* to His Majesty’s Government with
• Secret despatch to SocrcUry of State, No. C9 the remark that, in tho opinion of the
(External), dated tho tith liny 1001. Government of India, the Sultan would
bo within his rights in issuing tho notification. But they required the authority
of His Majesty’s Government before advising tho Sultan to issue it.
433. Although, iu the opinion of Ilia Majesty’s Government, the grant
Secret K., April 1002, No.. 78-120 (No. 78, En- of French protection to OWnfflYS of the Sliri
c,0,,«ro3>- dhows was an abuse, yot Lord Lansc'jowne
did not consider that tho “ doctrino advanced by Captain Cox that such protection
and the use of tho French flag aro limited to the high seas and ports outside the
territory of tho Sultan of Maskat is ono which could bo successfully main­
tained ” (Foreign Office to tho India Office, dated 27th May 1901).
434-455. This view was telegraphed to the Government of India on 7tl\ Juno
1901. In view, however, of the previous declaration made by His Majesty’s
Government on the subject an explanation was asked for in the Viceroy’s
telegram of 30th Juno, in which a reference was mado to Sir II. M.
Durand’s letter of lltli August 1893,* and a hope was expressed that tho Gov­
ernment of India might be permitted to give the Sultan an assurance to the
effect that the assertion by the French Government of a claim to jurisdiction
over, and the protection of, His Highness’ subjects in Maskat territory and
territorial waters would be regarded as incompatible with the Sultan’s inde­
pendence and that the British Government would support him in resisting any
such claim. This hope was reiterated in our Secret despatch No. 128 (External),
dated 1st August 1901, which is quoted below:—
No. 128, dated Simla, tho 1st August 1901.
From—The Governor Goneral of India in Counoil,
To—Hid Majesty'8 Secrotary of State for India.
In continuation of tho Viceroy’s telegram, dated the 30fch Juno 1901, we have the honour
to forward' copies of the correspondence noted in
S.crot E., October 1901, Nos. 124-155.
the enclosed list, regarding the use of tho French
flag by the subjects of His Highness tho Sultan of Maskat, and connected matters.
2. We understand tho position of Ilis Majesty’s Government to ho that which is indi­
cated in Your Lordship’s telegram, dated the 20th July 1900, namely, that any edict or notifi­
cation issued by tho Sultan, in which he may decline to recognise French protection in his own
territory or territorial waters, must he regarded as applicable only to cases in which French
protection papers have been, or may be, granted, subsequent to the communication to the
French Consul of the edict which was issued by His Highness on the 15th June 1900. That
is to say, His Majesty’s Government arc unwilling that TIis Highness should punish his
subjects for continuing to fly in his territorial waters flags which have been given to them
before the issue of the ediot and its communication to tho Freuch Consul.
3. The instructions contained in Your Lordship’s telegram, dated tho 7th Juno 1901,
are, however, susceptible of a different and more far-reaching intoipretation. The tclcgiam
might be read as indicating the view of His Majesty’s Government, that any subject of the
Sultan, who received a French flag and papers before the issue of the edict above roferrrd to,
must be regarded as a French-protected person even in Maskat territory and territorial waters,
and that the French Consul is entitled to question the jurisdiction which tho Sultan claims to
exercise over his subjects even within those limits.
4. This view, as Captain Cox points out in his loiter No. 234, dated the 15th June 1901,
is inconsistent with the previous utterances of tho
Enclo.uro No. 4.
Government of India, utterances to which, we
would observe, no exception was taken by Her late Majesty’s Government at the time, and
which we considor it most important to maintain. It will be within Your Lordship's recollec­
tion that, in tho ultimatum which was delivered to the Sultan in 1399, His Highness was
advised to order all his subjects to use a distinctive flag, and to explain to them that 44 after
the issue of such an order, the grant by tho officer of a foreign Power of a foreign flag and the
assertion by such officer of the right to protect in tho dominions of Your Highness any of
Your Highnoss’s own subjects is au instigation of sucb subject to disobey the lawful order of
his own Sovereign, and, if such instigation is made by a Freuch official, it is an infringement
of the declaration which was entered into in the year 1362 by the Governments of England
and France to respoct the Sultan’s independence.” To recede from this position would, we
conceive, vot only weaken the influence which Captain Cox as our Agent has obtained over the
Sultan, but night also impair the authority of the Sultan over his own subjects to a very
. undesirable extent. We would invito Your Lord-
^ ' J ship’s particular attention in this conueotion to tho
remarks in paragraphs 14-17 of Captain Cox's report upon his recent visit to Sur.
5. Wo recognise that, in deciding that the Sultan’s ediot of the 15th June 191)0
should not bo applied with retrospective effect, His Majesty’s Government were probably
influenced by political considerations, the full cogency of which we aro not in a. position to
• 9lX. nnlf