'SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPAL EVENTS AND MEASURES OF THE VICEROYALTY OF HIS EXCELLENCY LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON, VICEROY AND GOVERNOR-GENERAL OF INDIA IN THE FOREIGN DEPARTMENT. I. JANUARY 1899-APRIL 1904. II. DECEMBER 1904-NOVEMBER 1905. VOLUME IV. PERSIA AND THE PERSIAN GULF.' [‎168v] (341/386)

78
the French Government, the immediate release of the three prisoners in Maskat
who claim to he French subjects. This demand was enforced with much
energy and amounted almost to an ultimatum. Lord Lansdowne promised to
consult Cabinet, but he held out no hope of acceding to request Lord Lans-
dow A term adopted by British officials to refer to local sailing vessels in the western Indian Ocean. r ne had another conversation, after the meeting of the Cabinet, in which he
explained that His Majesty’s Government could not understand the contention
that Arab subject of the Sultan, by acquiring property in French colony, could
obtain from French authorities flag and papers, by virtue of which, and with
the support of the French Government, he could claim privileges and immuni
ties within Maskat territorial waters apparently not only for himself, but for
his family and ship’s company. Gambon replied that the French flag-holders
were altogether outside of the Treaty of 1844. Protection claimed for them not
under Treaty, but because they had French papers and w r ere entitled to flying
French flag. Their rights were in many cases anterior to date of Treaty. Lord
Lansdowne said His Majesty’s Government would expect to be fully informed
of evidence on which the prisoners had been included in the list of flag-holders.
The two Governments differed widely in view of extent of privileges which
could be claimed for holders of flags or papers. He added that the French
Government maintained protection of this kind carried with it immunity from
Sultan’s jurisdiction, even in Maskat territorial waters and territory, but that
we had always maintained the contrary, and had supported the Sultan in his
contention which corresponded with ours. We desired, however, to find some
means wLereby present situation should be ended, and we accordingly proposed
Hague Tribunal should decide what privileges the possession of French flags
and papers carried, and, inter alia, whether such privileges are limited to owner
and Captain of dhow A term adopted by British officials to refer to local sailing vessels in the western Indian Ocean. , or whether they could also be claimed by families and
heirs of holders and by members of the ship’s company. If arbitration should
be accepted, His Majesty’s Government would be prepared to advise Sultan
to release the men imprisoned, who might be required to submit themselves
hereafter to Sultan or French Consul according as Hague Tribunal might
advise. It would be part of the arrangement that the Frencli Government
should give an undertaking that they will, within short notice, furnish the
Sultan with a list of all the persons who have received Frencli papers, or who
are believed by the French Government to be entitled to fly the French flag.
Cambon replied that he had little doubt that the French Government would
not disapprove of the idea of referring the question to Hague Tribunal, but it
was in his opinion sine qua non that the men should be first released by Sultan,
and banded over to the French Consul. Lord Lansdowne replied that this
point had been carefully considered by Cabinet. We were prepared to advise
Sultan to release the prisoners, but not to band them over to the French Consul.
To do this would amount to admission that the Sultan had acted illegally, and
that the justice of the French claim w^as admitted. Cambon replied that it
was impossible for Mons. Delcasse to accept this, though it might be arranged
that the men should be handed over by the Sultan to the French Consul,
and that the latter might liberate them, or even go to the length of asking
the Sultan to take charge of them on his behalf. Lord Lansdowne declined
to accept this suggestion. Cambon said he would refer Lord Lansdowne’s
suggestion to Helcasse, but that he could not advise him with respect to it.
Matters, he feared, had arrived at impasse. Lord Lmsdowne, in conclusion,
asked, as personal suggestion, whether, in view of the controversy and the
decision of the two Governments to refer the issue to arbitration, it might
not, perhaps, he arranged that the Sultan should inform both Consuls of
his intention to release the prisoners. Such a course might be regarded as
sufficient recognition of the right of the French authorities to interest them
selves in the matter. Cambon repeated that nothing would satisfy French
Government but step which would formally recognise the right of French
Consul to take charge of the men. The conversation then ended, and the
question now stands as stated above. Our object is to find solution which
French can accept and wffiich will not impair the Sultan’s authority or our
position in Maskat. The condition attached to any concession w^e may make
that French Government will submit whole question to Hague Tribunal goes far
to effect this object, and will probably result in decision against the claims of