'File 9/5 Vol. 1 Naval & Shipping: A. British Navy: (5) Khor Kuwai' [‎8r] (20/384)

5
the fact t 22. Between 1913 and the present day French interest in Muscat has steadily
affic andtjclined, and since the War it has been of negligible importance. In the course of
inconnecje Peace negotiations of 1919 the question of securing the abrogation of the
ment ove^mmercial Treaty of 1844 and a free hand for Great Britain in Muscat was under
rench. .nsideration, but does not appear to have been pursued. The French coal depot
he numbe Muscat was relinquished in 1920; the number of Muscat dhows flying , the
i Consulrench flag had in that year fallen to seven, of which five only belonged to Muscat
y the Fr^bjects, and it is improbable that any Muscatis are at the present time entitled
litical fly the French flag. The Consulate has now been closed for many years, though
Teach of)t abandoned, and active French interest in the State is confined to the rights
joyed by France under her Commercial Treaty of 1844 (which made it necessary
11 )0o cently to secure French concurrence in certain modifications proposed in the
gscat tariff) and to a visit to Muscat and its waters by a French sloop, which
i of 1862,, a ]|y takes place annually,
lorismg tl
s by Mus British Connection with Muscat, 1770 to 1934.
The R i 23. The British connection with Muscat dates from the early seventeenth century,
'ation of le ^ rst ^ orma ^ treat y between H.M. Government and Muscat, under which Muscat
Gover 1 ^dcrtook to co-operate with Great Britain against the French, was signed in 1798.
1 , un iat treaty has, since the beginning of the nineteenth century, been supple-
' ^ .Rented by a large number of engagements. Of these the most important are
F r ° ll > 01 e Treaty of Commerce of 1839, which has since been replaced by the Treaty
lathui^b a ^ onimerce 1891, and the Exclusive Agreement of 1891, to which reference
e ition f rtia ^ e paragraph 3 above. In addition, Muscat has contracted engagements with
. 'j I' ( j pi. Government in regard to the suppression of the slave trade, the arms traffic,
ng i sl w raC y^ t | ie g ran t 0 f concessions for oil and coal, the making of air regulations;
ation s r s ^ e ^ ias collce( ^ e< ^ exclusive jurisdiction over British subjects (including British
ion so if tected persons) and the subjects of Indian States to H.M. (Government,
could not F r ■ i i i , pi* • t , -i
ch fla^ un 24. It is not unfair to say that through much of this period the continued
be Sultan^ stence M usc ‘ lt has been possible only because of the moral, financial and,
icasionally, the military or naval assistance lent her by the Government of India
id H.M. Government. But for these she might have succumbed to the Wahabis at
iting Freirious periods between 1800 and 1870 ; she would have found difficulty in retaining
n her sper control in Dhofar in 1896-97 ; and the ruling house might well have been
s traffic riven into the sea by the tribal rebellion of 1895 or by the fanatical Imam of
er, who be hinterland and his Ibadhi followers between 1914 and 1922. Since 1873,
crested moreover, when Zanzibar ceased to make the annual payment due to Muscat
uent ihatader the Canning Award to which reference is made in paragraph 8 above, the
reat poliayment, now known as the Zanzibar Subsidy, and amounting to Rs. 86,400, has
them uisen made annually by the Government of India. From 1913 to the present day
H.M. Govd annual subsidy of 1 lakh One lakh is equal to one hundred thousand rupees of rupees Indian silver coin also widely used in the Persian Gulf. (the discontinuance of which has recently
eaty of ben under consideration) has in addition been paid to successive Sultans by the
■eby leaTOvernment of India in recognition of their co-operation in the putting down of
n was lime arms traffic.
) issue c 25. The interest of H.M. Government in Muscat has thus throughout the period
overnmenhder consideration been substantial and of vital practical importance to the
inclucontinued existence of Muscat as an independent State. It is in marked contrast
^ht be raith the interest taken in Muscat by the French Government, which may not unfairly
3 described as having been actuated largely by political motives which were not
3ment ofi rec ^ly related to the special interests of Muscat; and which in more recent times
tions thafpears to have been based on the desire of the French Government to assert itself
le regulat 1 a region in which British interests have long been predominant, or to use the
amend tfffisauce value of the Anglo-French Declaration of 1862 to secure concessions in
lent in reiser areas of the international field from H.M. Government.
The Anglo-French Declaration of 1862 : its importance in Muscat Policy, and the
Interpretations which have been placed on it.
26. The leading case on the interpretation of the Declaration of 1862 is the
,)-called Bunder Gisseh incident of 1899. But before dealing in greater detail
irnment, 1
nise the i
idy indica
s they iui ith discussions to which that incident gave rise, it may be placed on record
structioiD at ex i s tence of the Declaration has for many years bulked largely in British
r( plicy in this area. The circumstances in which the Declaration was concluded
1 re described in paragraphs 8-9 above ; it will be seen that it was made without
3227 B