Skip to item: of 610
Information about this record Back to top
Open in Universal viewer
Open in Mirador IIIF viewer

'File 35/85 III A 10 French Flag Question' [‎36r] (82/610)

This item is part of

The record is made up of 1 volume (290 folios). It was created in 15 Aug 1905-2 Apr 1906. It was written in English, Arabic and French. The original is part of the British Library: India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. Records and Private Papers Documents collected in a private capacity. .

Transcription

This transcription is created automatically. It may contain errors.

Apply page layout

I #
00036
I
ignifjr
34 of ^
f 4
—f
;
Y
It is to be observed at the outset that Prance, by adopting the role of
defendant in a case in which she is claiming immunity and exceptional treat
ment for Arabs in the dominions of their natural Sovereign, has reserved for
the ,c Contre- Memoire " a great part of her own affirmative case, and that the
" Contre-Memoire,' 1 like the " Memoire," is very largely taken up by state
ments with reference to Great Britain which have nothing to do with the points
in dispute, and serve only to distract the attention of the Arbitrators from the
points really at issue.
It appears to His Majesty's Government that the relevant matters of fact
involved in the Case fall within a very small compass, and that for the solution
of question mainly, if not solely, of a juridical character, it is unnecessary and
improper to enter into speculations or to make allegations as to the diplomatic
action or political situation of either of the two Governments concerned. His
Majesty's Government submit that Prance does not assist her case by the
manner in which motives are imputed to Great Britain or to the British
authorities in India (" Contre-Memoirep. 51). His Majesty's Government
do not propose to recriminate by any inquiry into the policy of Prance with
respect to the coast of Arabia, and are content to examine the acts and claims
of Prance with respect to the Treaty of 1844, the Declaration of 1862, and the
Brussels Act of 1890, by reference to the conventional rights and duties rising
from these documents and to the rules of international law. They will confine
themselves to the task of laying before the Tribunal what would appear, according
to international law and the terms of those documents, to be the due apprecia
tion of the correctness and effect of these claims.
It is slated in the Preface to the Prench " Contre-Memoire " (p. 1) that
the Prench " Memoire"—
" a demontre enfin que la Prance n'a jamais cesse dans ses rapports avec
I'lmanat d'observer 1'esprit, comme la lattre, de la Declaration du 10 Mars,
1862. Cette derni^re question est en realite la seule qui devait etre soumise au
present arbitrage."
It has already been pointed out in the British Counter-Case (p. 2) that
the " Compromis " submits to, the Tribunal no such general question as
above stated. On perusal of the terms of
British Case, p. 2. the Compromis " and of M. Cambon's
letter printed at p. 80 of the Prench " Contre-Memoire," it will be clearly
seen that no general inquiry is intended as to whether Great Britain or Prance
have respected the mutual Declaration of 1862, but a particular inquiry as to
whether the grant by Prance of her Aug to subjects of the Sultan is consistent with
the Declaration, and a necessary incident of such inquiry, to ascertain what
immunities Prance claims to attich, within the Sultanate of Muscat, to the
possession of the Prench flag by the Sultan's subjects.
In view of the too frequent digressions from the true issue in the Prench
" Memoire " and " Contre-Memoire," His Majesty's Government cannot refrain
from pressing urgently on the Tribunal the true nature of the issues submitted
and the desirability of confining the arguments and conclusions to these issues.
PBELIMINAUY OBSERVATIONS.
Before passing to the facts and arguments, it is unfortunately again neces
sary to dispose of certain preliminary allegations which appear to impugn the
good faith of Great Britain.
The i" Contre-Memoire " (pp. 3 to 7) deals with the question of the
appearance of the name of His Highness the Sultan as a party to the British
Case. In the Briti sh Counter-Case (p. 1) Great Britain has in deference to
Prench wishes, deleted the Sultan's name as a party. But it has been pointed out
in the Counter-Case (p. 1) and in the correspondence (printed at pp. 39, 40
and 41 of the Counter-Case) that the Prench objection is purely technical, and
9

About this item

Content

Correspondence relating to the Hague Arbitration Tribunal which decided on questions referred to it by Great Britain and France concerning the flying of French flags by dhows in Sur. Before the 2nd January 1892 when the Brussels Conference General Act was ratified France was entitled to authorize vessels belonging to subjects of the Sultan of Muscat to fly the French flag only and be bound by French legislative rules. Includes a list of dhows and dhow A term adopted by British officials to refer to local sailing vessels in the western Indian Ocean. owners flying the French flag as well as printed copies of the material submitted to the tribunal and the 'Award of the Arbitration Tribunal appointed to decide on the question of the grant of the French flag to Muscat dhows'. Letters discuss the desire of the British to increase the authority of the Sultan of Muscat in Sur.

Correspondents include Major William George Grey, Political Agent A mid-ranking political representative (equivalent to a Consul) from the diplomatic corps of the Government of India or one of its subordinate provincial governments, in charge of a Political Agency. , Muscat; Percy Zachariah Cox, Political Resident A senior ranking political representative (equivalent to a Consul General) from the diplomatic corps of the Government of India or one of its subordinate provincial governments, in charge of a Political Residency. Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. ; Secretary to the Government of India in the Foreign Department; Foreign Office, London; Saiyid Faisal bin Turki [Fayṣal bin Turkī], Sultan of Muscat; Monsieur Laronce, French Consul, Muscat.

Extent and format
1 volume (290 folios)
Arrangement

The papers are arranged chronologically from the front to the rear of the file. An index to the file is given.

Physical characteristics

Foliation: the foliation sequence commences at the front cover and terminates at the back cover; these numbers are typed, with additions, clarifications and corrections written in pencil. This sequence can be found in the top right hand corner of the recto The front of a sheet of paper or leaf, often abbreviated to 'r'. side of each folio.

Written in
English, Arabic and French in Latin and Arabic script
View the complete information for this record

Use and share this item

Share this item
Cite this item in your research

'File 35/85 III A 10 French Flag Question' [‎36r] (82/610), British Library: India Office Records and Private Papers, IOR/R/15/1/405, in Qatar Digital Library <https://www.qdl.qa/archive/81055/vdc_100023528762.0x000053> [accessed 28 March 2024]

Link to this item
Embed this item

Copy and paste the code below into your web page where you would like to embed the image.

<meta charset="utf-8"><a href="https://www.qdl.qa/en/archive/81055/vdc_100023528762.0x000053">'File 35/85 III A 10 French Flag Question' [&lrm;36r] (82/610)</a>
<a href="https://www.qdl.qa/en/archive/81055/vdc_100023528762.0x000053">
	<img src="https://iiif.qdl.qa/iiif/images/81055/vdc_100000000193.0x00017a/IOR_R_15_1_405_0085.jp2/full/!280,240/0/default.jpg" alt="" />
</a>
IIIF details

This record has a IIIF manifest available as follows. If you have a compatible viewer you can drag the icon to load it.https://www.qdl.qa/en/iiif/81055/vdc_100000000193.0x00017a/manifestOpen in Universal viewerOpen in Mirador viewerMore options for embedding images

Use and reuse
Download this image