Coll 30/111 'British Naval Stations in: Establishments at Khor Quwai and Bahrain. Evacuation of Henjam and Basidu.' [‎548v] (1103/1154)

6
S. of S. to
G. of I.
Desp. 48,
19.10.94.
S of S. to
Gr. of 1. tel.
28.3.96.
F.O. to
Paris,
27.5.96.
B/122/99.
10.2.97.
S. of S. to
G. of I. tel.
18.2.98.
.• thp Government of India and that it had regard primarily
prior consultation ^ Zanzibar . . m d it seems not unfair to suggest that
no a special consideration was given to the embarrassing consequences to which it
might give rise m rop:>sa l for the establishment of a protectorate over
t>7. In 189 n ° p a '‘ Voreigm Office partly because of the existence of the
Muscat was r : J ^ French protest, based on the Declaration, was received
Declaration ; u ‘ ; actlv j t i 0S . ] n 1894 the Sultan was advised to plead the
against all ®^ } laration should France claim to grant protection to French flag-
Serslvho were Muscat subjects ; in 1895 the proposal for the establishment of a
nrntectorate was revived by the Government of India who thought that it might be
pro tec lord Frpnc h consent in connection with the arrangements then ci intern-
Ed b fXXto Sa^scar, but H.M. Government considered that there was no
urosnect of this In 1890 the French were officially informed of assistance proposed
m be given to the Sultan to maintain himself in Dhofar, and were assured that
tlm action proposed in support of His Highness implied no intention of establishing
anv nrotectoiate over Muscat. The assistance in question was, however, followed
in May 1696 by a protest by the French Ambassador against unilateral action of
this nature in reply to which the Foreign Secretary assured him that there was no
intention “of establishing any protectorate over Muscat or any departure fmm the
engagements undertaken in the Declaration of 10th March J86i In 1891 the
ff rant of armed assistance to the Sultan in Dhofar was again approved by
HM Government, but with a specific warning by the Secretary of State for India
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 hearing in mind the Decdaration of
1362 In 1898 a proposal for assisting the Snltan by taking control of his Customs
was"rejected by H.M. Government on the ground that actual and direct control of
the Muscat Customs by the Government of India would be in conflict with the
independence of the Sultan secured by the Declaration of 1862. In the Bunder
Gisseh incident of 1899 H.M. Government took their stand on the Declaration as
against the French Government (see paragraphs 33-35 below).
rse d" P 1
ofl
Law Officers' Opinion of February 1899.
28. In February 1899, the Law Officers of the Crown advised as follows:
“(l) The Declaration of 1862 does not in our opinion require the British
Government to abstain from exercising a preponderating influence in
Muscat, so long as that influence is not exerted in any way inconsistent
w'ith the independence of Muscat. For instance, the [Zanzibar] Subsidy
and the terms on which it was made payable involved no breach of the
Declaration. _
“(2) We think that the British Government would be justified m punishing
or even deposing a particular Sultan who broke his engagements with
the British Government. The undertaking contained in the Declaration
is an engagement to respect the independence of the Sovereigns of
Muscat as representing the country, and does not carry with it an
inability to punish any particular Sovereign for breaches of treaty or of
international law. For this the consent of FTance is not necessary.
But it would be a breach of the Declaration if after deposing a
particular Sultan a successor were set up who was not independent.
“ We should add that whilst the question whether the Sultan could
consistently with the Declaration be required to dismiss a particular
adviser must depend on the special circumstances of the ease,^ it is
hardly compatible with the independence of Muscat that the Sultan
should be compelled to accept Ministers and advisers who are acceptable
to the British Government.”
29. In the discussions over the flying of the F rench flag by Muscat dhows which
culminated in the reference of 1905 to the Hague Court (paragraph 18 above),
H.M. Government again took their stand on the Declaration and contended that the
trench claim to jurisdiction over Muscat dhows or subjects flyii
_ subjects flying the French flag was
inconsistent with its terms—a view in substance accepted by the Hague Gciu •
requent reference was also made to the existence of the Declaration in the hs
cussions which took place between 1904 and 1912 about the suppression of the arms
T ia 1Q c ’ a 3ut ^ 16 e hurts of H.M. Government to secure its abrogation were unsuccess u •
11 ’ w hen the air route to India along the Arab Coast of the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. uas
jfierd'P
in lioi sted ’
; and
30 . The his
jlc part of 1
jagraph 16 a
ISultau of
1® as follows
fee for coal
jltliem, out
Ldependei
driiinent or
wh
t, ma
Ganedkt
JLOn th(
frtyrtheS
al depot to
agraph 11
nsigQ oi
IGovermi]
con
I ll)th Febi
i*d by H
lament of
pment, as
aid any d
^ them ret
Sultan c
Saturn, co
leto the
11 G,
overnn
^it clear
filiation
, : ^nthe
I^Amba
,l hmbon
Action,
0l1 tl
' that tl
p 1 acq
rtions t
i; 0 avoid
^ ^ e ach