'Muscat. Question whether a naval station could be established for use by His Majesty's ships at Khor Quwai or elsewhere in Muscat territory compatibly with the existing international agreements of His Majesty's Government'. [‎3v] (6/12)

G
prior consultation with the Government of India and that it had regard primarily
to a possible French challenge to Zanzibar ; and it seems not unfair to suggest that
no special consideration was given to the embarrassing consequences to which it
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 protectorate over
Muscat was rejected by the Foreign Office partly because of the existence of the
Declaration ; in 1891 a French protest, based on the Declaration, was received
S. of S. to against alleged British activities. In 1894 the Sultan was advised to plead the
G. of I. terms of the Declaration should France claim to grant protection to French flag-
holders who were Muscat subjects ; in 1895 the proposal for the establishment of a
protectorate was revived by the Government of India, who thought that it might be
possible to obtain French consent in connection with the arrangements then contem-
S of S. to plated in regard to Madagascar, but H.M. Government considered that there was no
G_. of 1. tel. prospect of this. In 189(3 the French were officially informed of assistance proposed
28.3.96. gj[ ven Sultan to maintain himself in Dhofar, and were assured that
the action proposed in support of His Highness implied no intention of establishing
any protectorate over Muscat. The assistance in question was, however, followed
in May 1896 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 from the
K.O. to engagements undertaken in the Declaration of 10th March 186^." Fn 1897 the
Pans, grant of armed assistance to the Sultan in Dhofar was again approved by
27.5.96. H.M, Government, but with a specific warning by the Secretary of State for India
10.2.97. 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 of
S. of S. to 1862. In 1898 a proposal for assisting the Sultan by taking control of his Customs
of^I- tel. was re jected 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 18()2. 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).
Law Officers' 1 Opinion of February 1899.
28. In February 1899, the Law Officers of the Crown advised as follows :—
" (I) 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
B/122/99. with 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 in 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 France 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 case, 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 Hying of the French 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
French claim to jurisdiction over Muscat dhows or subjects flying the French flag was
inconsistent with its terms—a view in substance accepted by the Hague Court.
Frequent reference was also made to the existence of the Declaration in the dis
cussions which took place between 1904 and 1912 about the suppression of the arms
traffic, but the ellorts of H.M. Government to secure its abrogation were unsuccessful.
In 1929, when 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. was