'File 9/5 Vol. 1 Naval & Shipping: A. British Navy: (5) Khor Kuwai' [‎7v] (19/384)

4
Cmd. 2736.
P.Gr. 13,
p. 46, §16.
a practice which gave rise to very considerable difficulty owing to the fact | 22 Be
vessels so protected engaged freely in the slave trade and the arms traffic andtx*]med ■
they were immune from search by British vessels. In 1898 the Sultan, in connect,e Peace
with the arms traffic, gave wide rights of search to the British Government ovejjmtneroi
vessels belonging to his State and no protest was made by the French, msiderat
situation, however, became increasingly serious with an increase in the numbe Muscat
vessels flying the French flag. In 1899 the Sultan notified the French Consul re nch fla
he could not recognise French jurisdiction over Muscat subjects flying the Freffijects, £
flag. In 1902 H.M. Government formally protested through the Political At fly the
against the exercise of French jurisdiction over flag holders as a breach of it, aband
Declaration of 1862. joyed b 1
Decision of llaque Tribunal in the Muscat Dhows Arbitration, 1905. j-^ntly t
18. The questions of the scope of the Anglo-French Declaration of 1862,,.^^
relation to the issue of papers by France to subjects of the Sultan authorising tl ^
to fly the French flag, and the effect of the holding of such papers by Mus
subjects on the Sultan’s jurisdiction were ultimately referred to the Hague Cc
in 1905 by agreement between the French and British Governments. The Ha; ‘"T ^ H
Tribunal on 8th August 1905 ruled that while prior to the ratification or ? ^ rs V
Brussels Act of 1890 by France on the 2nd January 1892 the French Governni el to ° v
had been at liberty to authorise Muscat vessels to fly the French flag, they f at \ re< ? 1
ceased so to be entitled as from that date, save when the owner or fitter out of 311 , , }
ship could establish that he had been considered and treated by France a e , reat
protege prior to 1863 (a date chosen as one at which, in virtue of legislation by '^ omi . n<
Ottoman Court and of the Franco-Moroccan Treaty of that year, the creation of m
proteges was regulated and limited) ; that in these circumstances the right sh(]
not be given in any future cases, although owners of vessels which, prior to h r '' lc -T’ V*
had been authorised to fly the French flag should retain this authorisation so li ( she , 1:
as it was renewed by France to the grantee, but that the authorisation could not ote( ‘ te(
transferred to another vessel or owner, and that the flying of the French flag ud -4- It
such authorisation conferred no rights on Muscat subjects as against the Sultan^ ste . nce
;casional
1905-1934. id H.M.
19. Between 1904 and 1912 the most important matter affecting Freirious p(
interests in Muscat (where France continued to endeavour to maintain her sper contr
position) arose out of the arms traffic in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. . The arms traffic riven int
up to his death in 1907, conducted by a French citizen, M. Goguyer, who liie hintei
in Muscat. Substantial French manufacturing firms were closely interested moreover,
and, it being essential from the point of view of H.M. Government ihatader th(
effective check should be placed upon the trade, a question of great poliayment,
difficulty arose. The French declined various proposals made to them uieen mad
which, in return for important territorial concessions elsewhere by H.M. Govi annual
ment, France would abrogate her rights under her Commercial Treaty of ben und
with Muscat and the Anglo-French Declaration of 1862, thereby leaTOvermm
H.M. Government liberty of action in the Sultanate. The question was time arms
settled in 1912 independently of the French authorities by the issue c 25. T1
proclamation by the Sultan prohibiting the arms traffic. H.M Govermne%der co
return gave certain compensation and guarantees to His Highness, includiumtinued
guarantee of the support necessary to dispose of objections that might be rafth the i
by France or other Powers. " 3 descril
20. Great difficulty arose with France consequent on this settlement of> rec lly r(
arms traffic question, and it was only after long and difficult negotiations tliaPP^rs t(
the early part of 1914 the French Government agreed to recognise the regulatt a regie
which had been put in force at Muscat and the right of the Sultan to amend tNsauce
regulations with the concurrence of H.M. Government. H.M. Government in rei-her area
paid £64,495 as compensation to the interested F rench firms.
21. In 1913, on the accession of Sultan'laimur, the French Government, 1
had suggested that the two Governments should simultaneously recognise the i
ruler, were informed that while H.M. Government, as they had already indica T]
adhered to the Declaration of 1862, they had, in accordance with their usual prac^" ca ^ e ^
already taken steps to recognise the de facto ruler—more especially as they
"tood that the French Consul at Muscat only awaited the receipt of instruction^ <
British colleague to accord official recognition on behalf of France. No prc°^ c £
} received from the French authorities. re ^ escr
3227
The Ar
his
was