'P. 3 733/1904. Muscat :- Commercial Treaties.' [‎329v] (244/286)

This is the foundation on which, in “ Persia and the Persian Question ”,
Volume II, page 413, the presumptuous publicist, who is now entitled “ His
* English in the original. Excellency the Right Honourable Lord
Curzon of Kedleston based his theory
of the dependency of Oman. “ Oman may, indeed, be justifiably regarded as
t Italics in original. a British dependency. We subsidised its
ruler we dictate its policy, we shall
tolerate no alien interference. I have little doubt myself that the time will
some day come when, as these petty Native States crumble before the advance
of a friendly civilisation, a more definite possession will he required, and the
British flag will fly from the castles of IVIaskat ^ But we will not go further.
Two years after 1868, occurred the eclipse of the Prench power, which
lasted the third of a generation. Another 10 years, and on the 1st July 1890,
England carried out a division of the Zanzibar territory with Germany.
Such were the introductory events before the Treaty concluded on the
19th May {sic) 1891, between Saiyid Eeysal, Sultan of Maskat, and the agent
of one of the successors of the Viceroy of India, who was the author of the
award of 2nd April 1861,
It only needed 30 years for this <f high and righteous tribunal ” to appro
priate not only the object of the litigation, but also the greater part of the
belongings of the litigants. Pleased with this acquisition, it prepared to
: English in original. acquire all that remained, basing its
claims on inimitable “ bluff ”} {sic)
expressed in the phrase quoted above—“We subsidise its rulers”!
But the result, however, has not shown itself entirely such as was expected.
As a matter of fact, with a boldness which is explained by their recent
successes, the Indian Government originated a new Treaty, Articles of which
release the Sultan of Maskat from his former obligations: in the 1st Article we
read “ The Treaty concluded * * * 3i s t May 1839 is hereby annulled,
and is no further in force, and the present Treaty, after ratification, shall take
its place ’ \
But the Anglo-Oman Treaty of 1839, as also the Eranco-Oman Treaty of
1844, which still remains in full force, was concluded for an indefinite time.
The new Treaty was concluded for a period of 12 years only, which expires
next year. 1
The successor of Lord Canning, and predecessor of Lord Curzon, must have
thought that he purchased at a cheap price the important privileges which
this new Convention gave to the British Empire— viz., the admission of British
goods in transit—an unusual concession on the part of the Sultan of Maskat,
than whom no State in the world is more jealous with regard to his customs
duties—and for the reason that these customs dues are the sole source of revenue
apart from the Zanzibar subsidy, become a British “ subsidy ” by a stroke of
the pen of an individual w T ho afterwards became Viceroy of India, and the
master of this same subsidy, and always very prone to stop the payment, as was
done in Eebruary 1899.
In Article 23 of the new Treaty it says:—On the expiration of twelve years
from the date of this Treaty’s coming into force, and on twelve months’ previous
notice being given by one of the contracting parties, this Treaty shall be revised
by representatives of both sides, with a view to such modifications as from
experience may appear desirable. This point is still more clearly laid down
in the Protocol of the exchange of ratifications, dated 20th Eebruary 1892.
It is here stipulated that, in accordance with Article 23 of the Treaty referred
to, each of the high contracting parties has the right, on the expiration of the
twelve years, to terminate at any time the operation of this Treaty, on givin°*
twelve months’ previous notice.
It follows from this that, after the 21st Eebruary 1903 {sic), the Sultan of
Maskat may, any day he likes, give notice of his wish to terminate the Anglo-
Oman Ireaty, which in that case finally loses its effect 12 months after
such notice.