'Précis of Maskat affairs, 1892-1905; In two parts: Part I 1892-1898; Part II 1899-1905 By J A Saldanha, BA, LL B' [‎102] (120/176)

p-l
Telegram, dated 10th April 1S04.
102
483. Lieutenant-Colonel A. Kemball, C.I.E., Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. , expressed the
following opinion (telegram, dated 5th April)
From local point of view, it is difficult to say how draft articles can be amended eo as to
be accept;ible as it seems to give away Sultan's case, in which we have encouraged him to
expect our support. If, however, reasons of State render it necessary to accept some such
article, following points ommr to me—
Clause 2. —The phrase " without any previous understanding with him" seems too
vague, unless the qualiBoations are more precisely determined. Contention is that Maskat
subjects are given French flags too easily—see enclosure 1, Cox's letter, dated 2nd January
1902. Some property limits and period qualifying for residence might be imposed.
Claase 3 —Provision should be made that such French proteges should be subject to the
Sultan's municipal laws on Maskat soil. Contention is that possesion of French flags enables
holders to evade Sultan's authority in many ways. Some limitation of the extension of
protection is also desirable. Might not this be limited to children and grand-children of
proteges? Clause 5 SHeras too vague. 1 think that it should be clearly understood that title
is defective when it does not conform to qualifications judged to be essential under clause 2.
It is not clear to me what is the precise meaning of non re»ewal of papers. It is to be under
stood that French protection will be immediately withdrawn, or will papers not be renewed on
expiration of the year—see Article 3S, Brussels Act—or is French protection to hold good for
lifetime of holder, whose title is shown to be defective ?
484. Captain Grey was of opinion that Clauses I and II would do,
but that words " without previous under
standing with him " would probably lead
to trouble. Could they be omitted ? As to Clause III, he could not recon
cile the proposal for French protection with Clause I. The suggestion of
protection of proprietor, whilst on Oman territory, 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. His Excellency the Viceroy telegraphed to the Secretary of State on
13th April, in reply to the Secretary of State's telegram of 30th March
Owing to the absence of the 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. from Maskat, it has been impossible to reply
to it. He has not yet returned and we have no indication of his view or those of the Sultan.
We are of opinion that it is also important to consult 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 can hardly be cancelled without the consent
of the Sultan who would almost certainly object to proposed solution and would
consider we had again given him away.
(S) We have no record of reciprocal engagement of the 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 seem to be most unfortunate to renew the declaration of
1862 which would indefinitely postpone any solution such as we desire.
(3) Arrangement seems altogether one-sided. The French offer a list of fla^-holders
in two months' time, although Ambassador told Lord Lansdowne it was alreadv
prepared on 18th May 1908. They also repeat the promise to issue no more
nags without an understanding with Sultan which was reported by you on the
2bth 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 carrving French
nag but the Sultan s subjects residing or owning pr perty in French colonies
such protection to be extended to families. This would seem to involve full
concession of French claims which Lord Lansdowne on 19th May 1903 said
n\s Majesty s Government were quite unable to understand. Further, we do
not grasp the proposal not to renew papers if the title is defective. Would thev
be cancelled at the end of the year or would permission last for the lifetime of the
Hag-homers r \\ e do not see what protection is required for the French flasr-
holders beyond that conferred by Article XXX ei seq. of the Brussels Act It
would seem from every point of view preferable to persist in reference to the
Hague Iribunal rather than make an arrangement which is sure to be regarded
locally as British surrender and which will give infinite trouble in future.
Aprlf - Ma] ' 0r C0X 0n arrival at K:arachi telegraphed demi-officially on 18th
Grey just shown me your telegram of 31st March and his reply. / resvectfullv urae
Govemmnt of India to press for adherence to Hague arrangement. At Z events dehv
discussion of new proposal pending the Viceroy 1 s arrival London.
4 tthe i e ^ 0t ^f C i 1 19(Ht ! ie Political A ? e nt at Maskat reported
.hat tbe French Consul had pressed the Sultan to forward to the Sheikh of
'