'File 9/5 Vol. 1 Naval & Shipping: A. British Navy: (5) Khor Kuwai' [‎8v] (21/384)

6
10.2.97.
S. of S. to
G. of I. tel.
18.2.98.
prior consultation with the Government of India and that it had regard ])rim a .
to a possible French challenge to Zanzibar ; and it seems not unfair to suggestt^h tli^ 1
no special consideration was given to the embarrassing consequences to whict <-'n C h u
might give rise in Muscat. ^
27. In 1890 an India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. proposal for the establishment of a protectoratef'ou id U
Muscat was rejected by the Foreign Office partly because of the existence of WU erslii
Declaration ; in 1891 a French protest, based on the Declaration, was receifter con
against alleged British activities. In 1894 the Sultan was advised to plead u-obablv
terms of the Declaration should France claim to grant protection to French %e expo
holders who were Muscat subjects ; in 1895 the proposal for the establishment or a reg
protectorate was revived by the Government of India, who thought that it migbeino- ho
possible to obtain French consent in connection with the arrangements then conteie Muse;
plated in regard to Madagascar, but H.M. Government considered that there was
prospect of this. In 189b the French were officially informed of assistance propo$
to be given to the Sultan to maintain himself in Dhofar, and were assured t!
the action proposed in support of His Highness implied no intention of establish
any protectorate over Muscat. The assistance in question was, however, follow
30. T
in May 1896 by a protest by the French Ambassador against unilateral action* 1 ..' X
this nature, in reply to which the Foreign Secretary assured him that there was
intention “of establishing any protectorate over Muscat or any departure from .
engagements undertaken in the Declaration of 10th March J862.” In 1897
grant of armed assistance to the Sultan in Dhofar was again approved et ] e ^ r
H.M. Government, but with a specific warning by the Secretary of State for 1m P f
to the Political Resident A senior ranking political representative (equivalent to a Consul General) from the diplomatic corps of the Government of India or one of its subordinate provincial governments, in charge of a Political Residency. of the importance of bearing in mind the Declaration 11 !,. jV
1862. In 1898 a proposal for assisting the Sultan by taking control of his Cust^o^ei-inr
was rejected by H.M. Government on the ground that actual and direct comroCH!!!!!
j! ''I f i / A . 1 .1 ~ L V>v 3 III t/
the Muscat Customs by the Government of India would be in conflict with
secured by the Declaration of 1862. In the Bimc ' L1H
independence of the Sultan
Gisseh incident of 1899 H.M. Government took their stand on the Declaration
against the French Government (see paragraphs 33-35 below).
B/122/99.
Cay
31. C
Law Officers' Opinion of February 1899. ^alaTcle
28. Fn February 189.), the Law Officers of the Crown advised as follow’s ; — iaragra]
(1) Ihe Declaration of 1862 does not in our opinion require the Brit 8 a
Government to abstain from exercising a preponderating influence ^ 01
Muscat, so long as that influence is not exerted in any way inconsistcj^^ ^ ^
with the independence of Muscat. For instance, the [Zanzibar] Subsi )n 10th
and the terms on which it was made payable involved no breach oft ,resse ^
Declaration. igreeme
“(2) We think that the British Government would be justified in punishi|g reem€
or even deposing a particular Sultan who broke his engagements ^
the British Government. The undertaking contained in the Dei;larati ave ^ ie
is an engagement to respect the independence of the Sovereigns^, ^nll
Muscat as representing the country, and does not carry with it
inability to punish any particular Sovereign for breaches of treaty oP 10 ^®
international law. 4 or this the consent of France is not necessat P ^ P
But it would be a breach of the Declaration if after deposing 11 ^ 01 m . a ^
particular Sultan a successor were set up who was not independent. ia( ^ e ^
We should add that whilst the question whether the Sultan C ou olltrave
consistently with the Declaration be required to dismiss a particuF ,lir ® Pa ^
adviser must depend on the special circumstances of the case, it ),l ^ an a]
lardly compatible with the independence of Muscat that the Suit
s lould be compelled to accept Ministers and advisers who are accepW
to the British Government.” ~~ T
29. In the discussions over the flying of the French flag by Muscat dhows wl.^ h
rmnntarl ir^ f K^ ^T i A/\, . i r » ^ ^ vJcHX]
culminated in the reference of 1905 to the Hague Court (paragraph 18 ato VI
H.M. Government again took their stand on the Declaration and contended thatf nstruc
renen claim to jurisdiction over Muscat dhows or subjects flying the French flag v ^3. <
inconsistent with its terms—a view in substance accepted bv the Hague Coo >aris
frequent reference was also made to the existence of the Declaration in the (Tpposo
cussions which took place between 1904 and 1912 about the suppression of the arinstruct;
uailic but the efforts of H.M. Government to secure its abrogation were unsuccessff ce t0 ;
n W ien the air route t0 Iu( iia along the Arab Coast of the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. v lie Fre