Page 136 - Gulf Precis (III)_Neat

120
securetho withdrawal of M. Goguyor from Maskat (despatch to the Secretary of
Slate, ho. 104, dated 23rd July 1903).
562. It was roported in October that M. Goguyor had liquidated Abdulla-
biu-Ali’s claim on 25th September 1903.
8*. ret K., Doccmbcr 1003, Nos. 18-22.
It was therefore agreed that no further
action should bo taken in the matter (Foreign Department lettor No. 2566-E.A.
dated 27th September 1903).
563. Tho facts connected with his proposed expulsion aro as follows :—
In April 1902 tho Secretary of Stato informed the Government of India, that
Tcieg'rtin, doted 8th April )002—aeo No. el in ^ had been ascertained through the French
Secret k, May 1902, Nos. 5G-G3. Ambassador that Mons. Goguyor boro a bad
1302—^co^nof*°iW ^Secret e., August 1902, character and suggested that tlio Sultan of
nm. 183.186. Maskat bo advised, with the concurrence of
the French Consul, tooxpel him. Tho latter refused to co-operate and the India
Office was then asked to decide what further steps should bo taken, with a
proposal that the Sultan should address the French Consul strongly protesting
against the behaviour of Mons. Goguyer, adding threat of expulsion if ho again
transgressed.
In October 1902 early instructions wero asked for, but tho Secretary of
State’s reply received almost immediately
Despatch No. i80-Sccrot, doted 2nd October after despatch of tho last communication,
1902—ice No. 66 in Secret E., October 1S02, Noe. agreed, in place of threat, that tllC Sultan
M’66* should request that the French Government
Deepotch No. 40-Secrct, dotod 19th Soptonbor fake measures to put a Stop to the SCUl 1’iloUS
Nui. 269-272. attacks made upon him by a 1 reach citizen.
In July 1903 the matter connected
with Mons. Goguyer was thrice referred to in communications addressed to the
Secretary of State, viz.:—
(1) In despatch No. 97 (Secret), dated tho 16th July 1903, relative to the
No. 373 in Secrot e., September 1903, Nos. malicious and perverted ac-
2i0’383* counts of ovents at Maakat
published by Mons. Goguyer.
(2) In despatch No. 104-(Secret), dated 23rd July 1904, wherein it was
See No. 29 ia Secret e., October 1903, requested that the withdrawal
Nob. 20-23. of ^0us. Goguyer be secured,
as his presence in Oman had contributed in a large measure towards
tho differences which had occurred between the British and French
Governments, and would be prejudicial to the preservation of
harmonious relations in the future.
(3) In despatch No, 112, dated 3Gth July 3903, regarding the arms trade
sco No. 20 in Secret e., September 1903, at Maskat, paragraph 4, attention
Noi. 18-20. was drawn to the despatch of the
23rd July 1903, No. 104.
The Secretary of State replied, No. 25 (Secrot), dated ISth September 1903,
see No. is io Secret e., December 1903, that the French Ambassador would be
Nob. 18-22.
sounded as to whether bis Government
would be willing to agree to Mons. Goguyer’s removal, though His Majesty’s
Government were not prepared actively to press the caso.
In November 1903 the Secretary of State telegraphed that Lord Lansdowne
Dated %d h’oT.mber looa-.ee No. oi in made the informal reference, but
8«ret e., April 1904, No«. 89-93. desired that penning receipt or irenen
Trie gram, dated 2Gtb May 1904. No. 1731- vieWS UO action should be taken in COIl-
B. A—Me No. 233 in Secret E„ Scptembor 1904, nCCtiOQ with tllO suggested removal of
restrictions on British subjeots with respect
to the arms traffic. To strengthen the demand mado by the Sultan, Maskat, tho
India Office was again asked to press for removal,
664. In December 1904, Major Grey again raised the question about tho
expulsion of Mr. Goguyer, in view of his
Btcrat B., February 1905, Noi. 264-258.
scurrilous writings and the arms traffic.
The Government of India had already written to the Secretary of Stato in