'Muscat' [‎18v] (34/40)

4
Secret This practice bad been a subject of complaint by the Indian Government
Despatch, ever s i nce 1S91, when the French Government made a promise to discontinue
(htcMMth on ^y» as they subsequently (16tli October 1897) explained, so far as their
Dec. J891. Consulate at Aden was concerned. The ground of complaint was, primarily,
that it threw grave difficulties in the way of carrying out the Act of the Brussels
DeTia* I Conference in regard to the Slave Trade. Though discontinued at Aden,
No 47 '' the practice was reported in 1892 to continue at Madagascar (India Letter
dated 24th Ko. 46), at Obokh (Nos. 66 and 98), and (No. 231 of 1892) it was stated that
Nov. 1899, its discontinuance would be even more effectual than systematic cruising in
Lnc. 4. stopping the slave trade.
Pol. 803/97. it was proposed that the Sultan of Muscat should bo invited to
subscribe to Chapter IV. of the Act of the Brussels Conference; but the
proposal was not carried out, partly because it was at the time understood that
the Act was not to apply to the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. , and partly for fear of em-
Secret barrassment with the French. In 1894 the Government of India instructed
l/OSDll tell # # #
to India 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. in the Persian Gnlf to advise the Sultan to inform
No. 48, the French Vice-Consul that the assertion of French protection over Suri
dated 19th boats in Oman waters would be a contravention of the Anglo-French
Oct. 1894. Declaration of 1862. Her Majesty's Government approved these
Secret instructions. In September 1896 the question was brought prominently
Despatch, forward owing to the seizure by H.M.S. "Sphinx" of two dhows flying
No. 12, French colours, which were found to be full of slaves. They were handed
i^ril 189" over t 0 the French Consul at Muscat for adjudication; and a repre-
* ' sentation was made to the French Government, who, while stating that
Pol. 1815/97. these cases would be dealt with, denied that they had ever had any intention
No n"' of of discontinuing the grant of French papers to Suri dhows. The Government
1897. ' India thereupon revived the suggestion that the Sultan should adhere to
the Act of the Brussels Conference ; but the Foreign Oilice preferred a pro-
To India, posal that the Sultan should be advised to institute a distinctive flag for the
NoyU* of use 0 j ! yegggls belonging to his subjects.
1898 .—On the 1st January 1898 an incident occurred which seemed to
show that the Sultan was again assuming an unfriendly attitude. He declined
to hoist the British flag as usual on that day, at the instance, it was said, of
the French Vice-Consul, in order to show his independence of the Govern
ment of India. (The Resident, who was present, had, however, no diificulty
in inducing him to apologise, and the flag was hoisted with a salute on the
3rd January.) He agreed without difficulty to issuing a proclamation with
regard to the arms traffic; but he was obstructive in the matter of adjudi
cating on the arms seized in the " Baluchistan." His attitude in this matter
1747/98. also was attributed to French intrigues. Again a proposal was made to
him that he should appoint a British officer to control his customs, with
a view to remedy grievances under which British Indian traders were
suffering. Nothing, however, was done, nor were any steps taken by him
to remedy the grievances.
No. 59 of j n March the Government of India reported on the proposal to induce
the Sultan to institute a distinctive flag for his subjects to the effect that,
Pol. 460/98. <e so long as facilities for obtaining French flags and papers exist, no
" distinctive flag can successfully be introduced by the Sultan among his
" subjects at Sur." A strong representation was then made by the India
2488/98. Office to the Foreign Office with a view to Her Majesty's Government
taking up the question with the French Government (23rd May 1898). This
the Foreign Office eventually (20th December 1898) declined to do, on the
ground that Her Majesty's Government had no locus standi, as "Muscat is
not a British Protectorate," and Her Majesty's Government had " received
No. 48 of no request from the Sultan to do so." The Government of India were then
1898. instructed to revert to the proposed prescription of a distinctive flag.
Meanwhile, in October, the French gunboat " Scorpion " visited Muscat,
1022/98. bringing presents for the Sultan, who took the opportunity to make a great
1145/98. demonstration in honour of the French.
Coincidentlv with this visit an outbreak occurred at Sur, but it was not of
a serious nature and subsided before the end of the year. About the same
time, the Sultan dismissed his Wazir Minister. , Seyyid Saeed, to whom reference has
already been made. This step was, it was believed, taken at the instigation