'P. 3 733/1904. Muscat :- Commercial Treaties.' [‎334r] (253/286)

If it goes without snying, as according to my interpretation it does, that
sucli persons are in all matters subject to the jurisdiction of the
British Consul just the same as British subjects not in His High
ness’s employ then there is no need to include any provision in
that direction in the new Treaty : and I may add that the ques
tion has not been raised in any way during my term of service
here, so that the insertion of any such provision now might seem
to the present Sultan to be somewhat gratuitous.
On the other hand, if it is not a well understood thing that we do not
give reciprocity in this matter, and if from a legal point of vh-w,
the absence of any special provision would enable the Sultan to
claim reciprocity or to improperly protect any British subject in
his employ against whom this Consulate had any Civil or Criminal
claim, then it would be better to make the point clear by Treaty.
(II) Beferring to the declaration of 1891, by which Seyyid Feisal
engaged for himself and his heirs and successors not to alienate
any portion of his territory except to the British Government, it
will be observed in the correspondence preceding it that the late
Marquis of Salisbury did not consider that such a course would
he open to protest on the part of France as being a violation of
the Declaration of 1862. It will be remembered, however, that at
the time of the Bunder Jisseh incident, the French Consul did as
a matter of fact impugn the validity of this declaration and was
apparently supported by his Government.
I am not aware what is the status of the said declaration at the present
time, as between the French Government and ourselves, but it
they'have had due notice of it and have not been able to establish
any argument as to its invalidity, it might be considered desir
able to° include the declaration as an article in the new Com
mercial Treaty.
(Ill) Alienation of the Muscat Customs.— It might also he possible to
insert a declaration analogous to the foregoing by which the
Sultan would undertake not to lease or mortgage his ( ustoms
Bevenue to any one hut ourselves and not to employ in the direct
or indirect administration thereof the subjects of any power save
his own and those of the British Government.
(IY) The question of the obligatory use of manifests for vessels exporting
goods from Muskat has been mooted before {ride this office letter
Nos 255 and 290 of 1887 to your address) and proved to he a
failure, but it would he a pity that we should let the present
occasion pass without devising some means by which our position
in relation to the arras trade would he improved. If that is pos
sible short of the abrogation of the French Treaty, I suggest some
such’provision as the following : “ It shall be obligatory for all
munitions of war in course of re-export by sea from Muscat or any
Oman port at which Customs duties are or may in the future be
collected by the Sultan or his Walis, to pass through^ the Cus
toms House, and to he covered by a pass setting forth in English
and Arabic full details as to the brands, quantities and details ot
the arms shipped. The Sultan further agrees to cause to be kept
up regular records and statistics of warlike stores so exported, and
undertakes to place the information so obtained at the disposal of
the Consular officials of Foreign powers accredited to him.
I am doubtful whether the last condition would he feasible but it does not
seem that the French could reasonably object to the rest.
4 I took a recent opportunity of referring incidentally to the Treaty
course of conversation with the Sultan, and H,s Highness said there would
one or two alterations which he would like made when the time came for
\