'Muscat Dhows Arbitration. In the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague. Grant of the French Flag to Muscat Dhows. The case on behalf of the Government of His Britannic Majesty.' [‎22r] (52/208)

5
cates tliat tlie Sultan tiiouglit it dangerous to
remonstrate with France.
Of course,, without the support of one of the
Parties to the Declaration, the Sultan was not in
a position to resist infractions of his independence
by the other. The same observations apply as to
the rights of France in case of any appearance of
attack by Great-Britain on the Sultan's indepen
dence.
His Majesty's Government must demur to
the accuracy of the statement (at p. 4 of the
" Contre-Memoire "), that Great Britain has con
cerned herself more with the relations which
exist, or should exist, between the French
Republic and the Snltan of Muscat than with the
question submitted to the Tribunal.
His Majesty's Government are confident that, on
perusal of the British Case and Counter-Case, the
Tribunal will be satisfied that Great Britain has
confined herself to the statement of the facts with
relation to French protection of Omani vessels,
and its effect on the jurisdiction and inde
pendence of the Sultan, whereas the French Case
and Counter-Case are concerned largely, if not
mainly, with imputations on the policy and
motives of Great Britain, and with matters
foreign to the only material question in con
troversy.
His Majesty's Government, therefore, while not
contending that the Sultan should be separately
represented before the Tribunal, submit with
confidence that for the due determination of the
Case it is necessary to hear and consider what
has passed between the Sultan and France with
respect to French claims of protection.
In the French ' 4 Contre-Memoire " (p. 7) the
reasons for the reference by Great Britain to the
Franco-Muscat Treaty of 1844 are misunderstood.
By reason of the most-favonred-nation clause in
the Treaty of 1844 and the Anglo-Muscat Treaty
of 1891, it is necessary for the European Parties
to each Treaty to refer to the other Treaty in
order to ascertain the full extent of the privileges
conferred by it, since both Great Britain and
France are entitled to the xnost-favoured-nation
treatment. Consequently the Treaty of 1844,
though technically res inter alios acta, is, by the
effect of the clause in question, made material and
relevant for the elucidation of the present
controversy, and shows that the two Parties to the
Declaration of 1862 stand on an equal footing
as to exterritoriality in Oman.