‘Prevention of the slave trade in the Persian Gulf: question of increased facilities for passing under the British flag.’ [‎2r] (3/4)

3
naturalization or protection made in the past, and which he has already
# t fi ■ t it, t? u r. 11 • j acqu esced* in. On the occasion I
i think the French Consul has raised u n Z. n i x - l xi -r» i.
this very point. liave referred to aboye, the Porte
made its (new law 'prospective only,
and stress was laid on this circumstance in defending it. We, too,
might find a difficulty in objecting to grants of flags made in the past as
evasions of the Brussels Act, if we have for any time allowed them to pass
unchallenged. The truth is we ought to have tackled this matter years ago.
D. F.-P.
Minute by Sir A. Wilson.
I am sorry to find that these papers have been overlooked by me.
The Merchant Shipping Act appears to me to prohibit the use of the
British flag in the case of any ship owned wholly or in. part by persons who
are not British subjects. I do not see, therefore, how anybody can lawfully
sanction the use of the flag by such ships.
A. Wilson.
4th August 1899.
Minute by Sir D. EitzPatrick (No. 2).
I am glad to have seen these fresh papers (the Law Officers' opinion of the
4th August we had already considered—Pol. 2345/99), but I don't think they
help us much in our present difficulty.
The main point in the memorandum from the Solicitor to the Board of
Trade, dated 12th Eebruary 1898, is, I confess, new to me, though I had for
many years of my life to grovel among the details of the Merchant Shipping
Acts; and I imagine I see certain difficulties about it, but I daresay they
could be cleared up, for Mr. M^frtm is, of course, a master of his subject. At
all events, it seems to me unnecessary to discuss the matter in this con
nection, for, assuming that Mr. Murtm is right in holding that the Merchant
Shipping Act compels every British subject owning a ship to register it as a
British ship and sail it under the British flag, and in considering, as he
evidently does, that there is no objection from the point of view of inter
national law to such an enactment, this would help us only as suggesting
that we might get the Sultan of Muscat to pass a similar law for his
subjects, and even if we might hope to succeed in getting him to do that in
his present frame of mind, I gather from the opening of M. Cambon's letter
of 22nd August 1899 that it is a thing the Foreign Office would not think it
right to attempt. As to what ought to be done I can only repeat what I
said before, viz., that if we really mean to tackle the French over this business
of giving their flag to Suri dhows, the first thing for us to do is to find out
under what French law the French officials are supposed to act in giving the
flags ; and I should fancy the best way to do that, if the Foreign Office don't
like to ask the question officially, would be to get the avocat to our
Embassy at Paris to find out. One never can be sure of getting hold of a
thing of this sort by poking about in a library. Then, having found the
French law under which the French officials profess to act, or may be
supposed to act, we would next consider whether, as the Law Officers* opinion
seems to suggest, we might object to that law from the point of view of
international law. If we found we could not, then we would see whether
the French could proceed under it in the face of Clause 1 of Article XXXII.
of the Brussels Act, but see as to this the observations at the end of the
Foreign Office letter of 20th December 1898. (Pol. 2488/98), which I confess
I do not understand.