Page 109 - Gulf Precis (III)_Neat

93
ana had been examined, who would never betray their co-religior.hts in the
matter of a practice sanctioned by their religion, or the dhows had been exam­
ined while at anchor at Sur ; where slaves would not he landed, the Arabs
knowing well tlio means of escape by landing them before crossing Ras-al Had
or some other convoniout place where they could escape detection, as regards
the proceedings at Sur. Captain Cox explained how unfounded were the
charges of threats, etc., made by the French Ambassador. The subsidy was
nnver made use of to influence the Sultan in the flag question." On the contrary,
it was the. Sultan who sought the British Consul’s advice ouj a question which
threatened hisSuri sovereignty in a largo portion of his territory. The late Vazir
was never paid by the British Government and inasmuch as both Franco and
England had pledged the independence of Maskat, either of the Consuls had a
right to remonstrate with the other in respect of acts incompatible with its
status quo.
440. The Government of India, while ondorsing these criticisms of Cap­
Peipetch No 41 (Secret—External) d\ted 27th tain Cox, pointed out to the Secretary of
Februmrv J002 Slate that—
Jfjia. No 107.
" Tlio question of the irregularity in the grant of French flags and papers and of the share
taken by the French flag-hol lers in the slave trade are, in our opiuion, of subsidiary importance.
" The real point at issue is, toe consider, the degree to tohich the possession of French f igs
and papers by the subjects of the Sultan should render the holders exempt from the Sultan’s
authority in his own territory and territorial waters
Attention was drawn to the measures recently suggested for strengthening
t^Aadministration of the Sultan at Sur (paragraphs 4.'3-430 above). The success
of these measures depended upon the support which His Majesty’s Government
accorded to the position taken by tlio Government of India on more than one
ocoasion, namely, that the possession of French papers and flags by Maskat
subjects does not entitle them to French protection in Oman The Govern­
ment of India further expressed hopes that in future discussions with the Fien;h
Government the danger of permitting the establishment of a French colony in
Oman would be duly borne in mind.
"With this despatch the Government of India forwarded a memorandum
giving a history of the French flag question up to date.
(vi) Peremptory French demand made for exercise of their jurisdiction over Oman
flag-holders and then withdrawn: claim to police and surveillance, 1902.
411. TVhilc Captain Cox’s report (No. 1, dated 2nd January 1902) was
Secret E.. April 1902, Noi. 78-129 (Noe. 92, uuder the consideration of the Govern­
93.97,106.) ment of India, he telegraphed on 28th
January that in reply to an enquiry of the Sultan the French Consul had on
23rd, during the presence of a French Flagship peremptorily, in writing,
claimed on behalf of the French Government full jurisdiction over flag-holders
and suggested that he should he permitted to address the French Consul person­
ally protesting against the violation of the Declaration of 1SU2 The Viceroy
recommended to the Secretary of State that the authority asked for by Captain
Cox to make the proposed protest should be given peuding receipt of Captain
Cox’s report on M. Cambon’s Memorandum by the Secretary of State (telegram
dated 1st February 1*.>02). His Majesty’s Government approved of the sugges­
tion (Secretary of State’s telegram, dated 8th February 1902).
442 Captain Cox accordingly addressed M. Laronce on 11th February
1902 protesting against the exercise of French jurisdiction over Maskat subjects
holding French flags as a violation of the joint declaration by France and
England of 1862. M. Laroncc replied on the samo date to say that the French
Government sought only to maintain the status quo. Captain Cox thereupon
wrote to M. Laronce on 12th February, explaining that if by maintaining status
quo it was intended to oxercise French jurisdiction over Maskat subjects within
the Sultan’s territory and territorial waters, such an interpretation ivould he
fundamentally inconsistent with the independence of the Sultan and opposed to
the terras of tlio Declaration of 1862 and to the first principles of the law of na­
tions. The French Consul promised then to make a reference to his Government.
[C973FLJ