"مسقط" [و‎‎١‎٨] (٤٠/٣٣)

1896 .—In 1890 on the occasion of the Dhofar rebellion, when it was
proposed to send a ship-of-war to assist the Sultan, Her Majesty's H.C. 273/96.
Government found it necessary to give to the French Government an
assurance " that the action which it is proposed to take implies no intention
" on the part of Her Majesty's Government of establishing any Protectorate
" over Muscat" (27th March 1896).
The ellect upon the Sultan of French activity began soon to be felt, xlt India Letter,
the commencement of the troubles in Dhofar, in Ins anxiety to restore his 123, and
authority, he was ready to accept our advice and assistance. Suddenly. > s
however, he changed his mind ; and Major Hayes Sadler reported that the Letter
Sultan's replies to the British Consul's communications were drafted by dated 30th
Abdul Aziz, through whom, there was good reason to believe, the correspon- June 189G -
dence had been shown to M. Ottavi. At the same time intrigues, in which h.C. 060/96.
the Sultan was said to be concerned, were reported to be taking place between
M. Ottavi and certain of the Trucial Chiefs of the Pirate Coast. The question 590/96.
of a British Protectorate was, in consequence, again raised by the India
Office in a letter to the Foreign Office of the 1st July, but the reply (dated
9th July) still was to the effect that " present conditions are very far from
favourable to the prospect of " an " arrangement with France by which an
exclusive British Protectorate should be established over Oman."
Notwithstanding the unfriendly attitude assumed in the early part of the
year by the Sultan, when, in December 1896, he showed signs of a desire to
take action against the Dhofar rebels, the Government of India again offered g ecret
their assistance and advice, Her Majesty's Government having previously Despatch,
instructed them to endeavour to maintain influence over, and amicable No. 38,
relations with, the Sultan. An offer of further financial assistance was also
made to him, provided he would manifest confidence in British goodwill. ' ep '
1897.—In the middle of January the Sultan became more favourably Pol. 200/97.
disposed, and he asked for the assistance of a British ship of war for the
reduction of the Dhofar rebellion. This request was complied with, subject 1728/97.
to conditions, imposed by the Foreign Office in order to meet French
susceptibilities, that she should help only with her guns and not land any
force, and that nothing should be done which would imply encroachment on 8+8/97.
the independence of the Sultan ; moreover, a further sum of Bs. 60,000 was
subsequently lent by] the Government of India towards extricating Saiyid
Faisul from his embarrassments. It may be mentioned that immediately
after this arrangement had been made a French gunboat arrived at Muscat,
and her services were understood to have been offered to the Sultan and
declined by him. Finally the mere presence of H.M.S. " Cossack " at Dhofar 398/97.
proved sufficient to secure a bloodless victory for the Sultan, who was cordial
in his acknowledgments. This temporary (as it proved) change in Saiyid 583/97.
Faisul's attitude was probably due to the influence of the Wazir, Seyyid
Saeed, whose sympathies were in favour of the British Government. In May
1897 he had (at the instance of the British Consul) induced the Sultan to
protest against the French claim to jurisdiction over Suri dhows flying the
French flag.
It may be convenient here to state briefly the modus operandi of the Enclosure 2
French authorities in this matter, as described by Captain Cox. The
captain of a dhow, whether he be owner or not, presents himself at a French ^ ( ^ 2
Consulate or to the authorities in a French possession, e.g., Obokh, Jibuti, dated
Madagascar, Zanzibar or the Comoro Islands, even in some instances 2Gth July
at Muscat. He applies for a French flag, and is told that he must qualify
either by acquiring a house or land in a French possession, or else by
producing security in the person either of a French protected resident or of
an Arab in possession of a French flag. The latter is the alternative
usually adopted. When the flag and titre de navigation have been granted,
the dhow enjoys immunity from being overhauled by British cruisers* ; and
in the case of anything happening to her, the French authorities claim to
protect the captain, if he produces his titre de navigation, whether he is the
owner or not.
* On the other hand, the Law Officers of the Crown are of opinion that in territorial waters
tlie vessels rnay he sesirched and proceeded against for slave trading; and that, if the French
Gcve.-iiment fail to stop the abuse of their protection, the vessels may be treated even on the high
ters as not entitled to (he protection of the French flag. (248S/&8.)