'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.' [‎22v] (53/208)

6
Bat it is also essentially material as being*
apart from any qnestion of subsequently developed
usage, the conventional measure of French, rights
and privileges in Oman, which is a fact»
recognized by France in the contentions based on
its terms ( u Contre-Memoire," p. 39); and it
is difficult to understand the suggestion made
at page 7 of the " Contre-Memoire," that the mere
fact of referring to this Treaty or discus
sing its terms gives an^ impression that His
Majesty's Government claim to exercise a virtual
protectorate, and constitutes a fresh attack
on the Declaration of 1862. In approaching a
juridical or quasi-juridical question, it is usual to
lay before the Tribunal the material which may
assist towards its solution. And in dealing with
the position of Great Britain and France in Muscat,
it is surely not irrelevant to point out the extent
to which, at the time of the Declaration of 1862,
France had extra-territorial jurisdiction in Oman,
and that by the new Treaty of 1891, replacing
the older Treaty of 1839, Great Britaiu acquires
no extra-territorial rights which do not equally
and automatically accrue in favour of France.
Comment is made as to the propriety of the
inclusion in the British Case (p. 73) of a state
ment unofficially communicated by M. Cambon to
Lord Lansdowne on the 14th August, 1901. This
statement seems to have been a summary of M^moire",'' pp 82,
information received from French officials; and 83.
His Majesty's Government, with a view to eluci
date the questions raised therein, obtained from
British officials, and communicated to the French
Government, the information and observations
contained in the documents printed at pp. 75-78
of the British Case.
It is expressly stated that M. Cambon's com- British Case,
munications with Lord Lansdowne were not 18 ' 7J '
official. His Majesty's Government made their
inquiries and communicated their result in the
hope of settling at once the questions which
have led to this arbitration. They consider the
inclusion of M. Cambon's statement as essential
to the proper understanding of the British docu
ments and reports which follow it, but do not of
course claim that it in any way restricts the
freedom of France in the arbitration to rest
her case upon a different basis.
The British Memorandum was referred to the " Contre-
Memoire."
French Consul at Muscat for his observations, 252-255.
and they are included in the French " Contre-
Memoire."