'Memorandum by Sir W. Lee-Warner on the Lease to France of a Coaling Station in Muskat Territory - Statement of our Case (Political No. 1837/99).' [‎91v] (2/4)

0
2
258/D9.
1794/99.
B.
286/99.
1804/99.
be derogatory to the independence of the Imaura, and should provide “ in some
manner for the establishment of a coaling station.” We thereon telegraphed
1o India on 24th February, and tlic Government of India replied at length on
25th February stating their objections.
6. On the 27th February the French Ambassador informed Lord Salisbury
that the French Government accepted our reading of the Treaty of 1862.
They abandoned the proposal to keep Bandar Jisseh under the formal assurances
indicated above. They wished now “ to establish a coal depot on exactly
the same terms as our own, that is to say, on sufferance.” On 28th
February the Secretary of State telegraphed to India suggesting infer alia
that “ if hereafter French Government ask for coaling facilities, the Govern-
“ ment of India should not object provided that the request be limited to a
“ shed or sheds, &c., and provided that any such proposal should be submitted
“ by the Imaum to 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. for approval.”
7. The Government of India* replied, but in the meanwhile it was neces-
• Telegram, dated let March 1890. ^ de , al "' ith ** interpellation in
1 ^ the French Chamber, and it was pro
posed that an unofficial note should be published in the Paris and London
press. It was then suggested by Lord Salisbury that the communique to
the French press should “ take the form that, in view of the engagements
“ existing between France and England with regard to Muskat, the°Frencli
“ Government have decided to limit themselves to obtaining a depot of coal
“ at Muskat under the same conditions as that of England, and that they
“ understand that no objection is raised to this by the British Government,”
8. The " Times ” now reportsf the statement made in the Chamber, which
f 7th March 1899. is incorrect:—
It assumes that England does not aim at creating for herself a
privileged situation. Lord Salisbury’s remarks at A above distinctly
show that England claims a privileged situation.
It ignores the abandonment of the Bander Jisseh concession—B
above—which shows that France was not justified in substance.
It twists into an expression of profound regret the admissions of
Lord Salisbury, marked C.
9. We have yet to inform India as to thecourseof events. To the Foreign
Office we must make it clear—i., that the sheds must be in Muscat and
nowhere else; ii., that the Sultan must refer the request of the French
Government to our Agent on the spot.
W. Lee-Warner.
7th March 1899.
I.
II.
III.
“ Times,” 7th March 1899.
Statement of M. Delcasse, 7th March 1899.
“ Three weeks ago the English Resident, who is in the service of the
Indian Government, repaired to Muskat on a man-of-war and summoned the
Sultan to withdraw a concession made to us for a coal depot in one of the
Muskat creeks. Under the threat of the English cannon the Sultan asked
us to return the act of concession, which we naturally refused to do. The
Sultan then declared that the concession was annulled. The Government of
the Republic was confronted by two questions—one of substance, and one of
form. In substance, what grievance could be preferred against us? By the
Treaty of 1862 France and England mutually undertook to respect the
independence of the Imam of Muskat. France has now no more desire than
in the past to impair that independence. She has always said so, and has no
hesitation in repeating it. She does not aim, any more than, doubtless
England does, at creating for herself, indirectly and by separate compacts, a
privileged situation, or at weakening to her own profit the force of the Con
vention of 1862. Ought the concession of a coal depot to have excited such
alarms ? England has long possessed a coal dep6t at Muskat. Could it be
said that what England has been able to do without detriment to the Con
vention of 1862 would, if done by France, be a breach of that convention ?