'Muscat' [‎15v] (28/40)

Meanwhile the Freneh Government had taken exception to the Sultan's
action in this matter, of which they had received an account which differed from
Pol. that furnished to Her Majesty's Government by the British Consul. On the
2195/1900. 25th Jui:c, M. Camhon stated to Lord Salisbury that the dispute was one
between the Sultan and the French Government, who would have to insist upon
restitution of the papers, and, if necessary, an apology. He subsequently (-6th
June) requested Her Majesty s Government to instruct their A^ent toadwse
the Sultan to comply. Lord Salisbury declined to commit himself in the
absence of full information, and pressed the invalidity of the French claim
to grant their protection to the subjects of another Power. M. Cambon
stated that the practice would be discontinued for the future, and that
existing papers would be examined. Lord Salisbury promised all due
respect"for French rights and susceptibilities, and suggested the removal
of M. Ottavi, who had shown a partisan spirit and caused irritation.
On the Oth July the 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. suggested that M. Cambon should be
684 1000. informed that Her Majesty s Government would advise the Sultan to await
an examination of the French papers already issued to his subjects before
repudiating them, and to arrive at no decision regarding them pending
further reference to the Governments of France and Great Britain. The
2245 1900. Foreign Office (17th July) preferred not to again raise the quesiion with the
French Government, who would probably decline to admit our right to take
part in the examination of doubtful cases promised by M. Cambon, but they
approved generally the proposed advice to the Sultan. The Viceroy was
224(/1900. instructed accordingly (20th July). On the 17th July M. Cambon
announced that the French Governnjent were sending a ship partly to
establish their new coal depot at Muscat, and partly to enquire into tiie
question whether any dhows flying the French tlag were implicated in slave
trading.
On the 11th August the 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. , in forwarding further papers
received from India, suggested that the ^^nd Article of the Brussels Act
Pol. 780/ misjht have some "application to the probable objection of the French Govern-
1900 ' merit to our assistance at the examination of papers; and on the 24th
August and 6th September, Lord George Hamilton proposed that the
841, .58 of attention of the French Government should be drawn to certain definite
1900 ' cases of slave trading under their flag reported by Captain Cox, and to
1299/1900. admissions of irregularities under the Brussels Act by the Commander of the
" Drome/'
899/1900. Meanwhile on the 18th August, the R. F. " Drome,' arrived at Muscat,
and the French authorities at once assumed a threatening ^attitude
towards the Sultan, demanding the return to Sur by the " Drome," of the
surrendered papers, and the reception of Abdul Aziz as 1'rench intermediary.
The Sultan firmly refused. In conversation with Captain Cox the
Commander of the " Drome " stated that their demand as to return of the
pnpers was in accordance with an understanding with Lord fealisbuiy, but
Captain Cox rejoined that this was not in accordance with nis inioiination.
On the 26th August the Viceroy reported that he had instructed Captain
Cox that the Sultan's attitude seemed correct, but that His Highness should
2345/1900. not refuse to discuss doubtful or disputed cases, and in the case of disagree
ment should demand a written statement of the French case. These
instructions were approved by Her Majesty's Government on the 3rd
September. In the meantime two of the Suris who had actually surrendered
their papers to the Sultan (the receipt of which from His Highness had been
, 9 , 1( refused by M. Ottavi) arrived in Muscat and personail\ returned their papeis
1032/1900. ^ M Q ttavi} who acce pt e d them. Other Suri dhows, whose owners had
signed the solemn undertaking to the Sultan, were intercepted by the
" Drome " on their way to Busrah and induced to come to Muscat flying the
French flag. When appealed to by the Sultan to fulfil their promise, they
pleaded that they dared not do so in the presence of the <k Drome," but
would do so later.' Finally, they were furnished by the French Consul with
fresh " crew lists," and proceeded on their voyage. On the 28th August the
Sultan asked for a statement of the French claims in writing. This
1C60/1900. M. Ottavi declined to give. On the SOth the flag question was dropped, but
M. Ottavi insisted on the reception ot Abdul Aziz. 1 his, also, the Sultan
declined, not (Captain Cox reports) through any personal objection, but
through fear of displeasing the British Government.