Page 118 - Gulf Precis (III)_Neat

102

483. Licutonant-Colonol A. Kemball, O.I.E., Porsian Gulf, expressed the
following opinion (telegram, dated 5th April):—
From local point of view, it is difficult lo say bow draft articles can bo amended bo as to
be acceptable as it scorns to give away Sultan's case, in which wo bavo encouraged him to
oxpoct our support. If, however, reasons of Stato render it necessary to accept some such
artiolo, following points occur to mo—
Clause 5.—The phrase "without any previous understanding with him" sooma too
vague, unless tho qualifications are moro prooieoly dotormined. Contention is that Maskat
subjoots nro givon Fronoh Hags too easily—soo enclosure 1, Cox’s lettor, dated 2nd January
1002. Some proporty limits and period qualifying for residence might be imposed.
Clame 3—Provision should ho mndo that such French proteges should bo subject to the
Sultan's municipal laws on Maskat soil. Contention is tlmt possesion of French (lags enables
holdors to evade Sultan's authority in many ways. Sorao limitation of tho extension of
protection is also desirable. Might uot this bo limited to children and grand-children of
proteges? Clame 5 seems too vague. 1 think that it should ho clearly understood that titlo
is defective when it does not conform to qualifications judged to bccBsontial under clause 2.
It is not clear to mo what is tho preoiao moaning of non renewal of papers. It is to bo under­
stood that French protection will he immediately withdrawn, or will papers not be renewed on
expiration of the year—see Article 33, Brussels Act—or is Fronoh protection to hold good for
lifetime of holder, whoso titlo 19 shown to bo defective ?
484. Captain Groy was of opinion that Clauses I and II would do,
but that words “ without previous under­
Telegram, dated 101b April 1504.
standing with him ” would probably lead
to trouble. Could they he omitted ? As to Clause III, he could not recon­
cile tho proposal for French protection with Clause I. The suggestion of
protection of proprietor, whilst on Oman torritory, was a further step to
undermine Sultan’s independence, to which he could not consent. Otherwise
Captain Grey thought Article would be acceptable to the Sultan of Maskat.
485. flis-Excellency the Viceroy telegraphed to the Secretary of State on
13th April, in reply to tho Secretary of Slate’s telegram of 30th March :—
Owing to the absence of the Political Agent from Maskat, it has been impossible to reply
to it. Ho has not yot returned and we have no indication of his view or thoso of the Sultan.
We are of opinion that it is also important to cousult Major Cox, who is on the sea, returning
to India. For the following reasons, however, we strongly deprecate any such arrangement
as that proposed :—
(1) Reference to the Hague Arbitration oan hardly bo cancelled without tho consent
of the Sultan who would almost certainly objeot to proposed solution and would
consider we had again given him away.
(2) We have no record of reciprocal engagement of tho 5th August 1890, and do not
know what it was. At the very time when we have been trying to escape from
dual control it would eeera to be most unfoitunate to renew tho declaration of
1882 which would indefinitely postpone any solution such as we desire.
(3) Arrangement soems altogether one-sided. The Frenoh offer a list of flag-holders
in two months' time, although Ambassador told Lord Lansdowno it was already
prepared on 18th May 1903. They also repeat the promise to issue no more
flags without an understanding with Sultan which was reported by you on the
2Uth May last. In return for this we are to recognise French right to protect
both on land and in territorial waters not only owners of dhows carrying Frenoh
flag but the Sultan’s subjects residing or owning property in French colonies,
such protection to be extended to families. This would 6eom to involve full
concession of French claims which Lord Lansdowne on 19th May 1903 said
His Majesty's Government were quite unable to understand. Further, we do
not grasp the proposal not to renew papers if the title is defcotive. Would they
be cancelled at the end of the year or would permission last for tho lifetime of the
flag-holders? We do not see what protection is required for the French flag-
holders beyond that conferred by Article XXX el seq. of the Brussels Act. It
would seem from every point of view preferable to persist in reference to the
Hague Tribunal rather than make an arrangement which is sure to be regarded
locally as British surronder and which will give infinite troublo in future.
486. Major Cox on arrival at Karachi telegraphed demi-offioially on 18fch
April:—
Grey just shown me your telegram of 3Ut March and hit reply. 1 respectfully urge
Government of India to press for adherence to Hague arrangement. At all events delay
discussion of new proposal pending the Viceroy't arrival London.
487. At the end of March 1904 the Political Agent at Maskat reported
that the French Consul had pressed tho Sultan to forward to the Sheikh of