'File 35/85 III A 10 French Flag Question' [‎62v] (135/610)

10
that His Highness has, iu fact, invoked the good offices of Great Britain. The
position assumed by GreatjBritain, and objected to by France, is not that of legal
guardian of the Sultan, but of a friendly Power selected and requested to lay
before the Tribunal the Sultan's experience of the effect on his authority of the
action of France with respect to his subjects. His Majesty's Government are
confident that, on perusal of these documents, the Tribunal will be satisfied of
the correctness of the attitude assumed by Great Britain, and that the statement
made on p. 4 of the French " Contre-Memoire " as to the tardiness of the
Sultan's assent is erroneous, and that his assent was given so far back as 1903-
Whether the Saltan is or is not formally a party to the arbitration, it is essential
for the Triburfal to determine the extent to which France is entitled to confer
immunity on the Sultan's subjects frpm the jurisdiction of their natural Sover
eign within his own territory.
It is suggested in the French " Contre-Memoire " that the British Case is,
both in substance and in form, incompati-:
• Contre-Memoire , p. 3. ]ji e w ith the Declaration of 1862.
It is difficult to see how such a contention can seriously be advanced. To
admit its accuracy would be to read the Declaration as precluding Great Britain
from ever questioning the propriety of any act done by France as to Oman. If
the Sultan happens to agree with one of the two Parties to the Declaration of
1862 that the other is attacking his independence, is it to be said that to support
the Sultan in his opinion is to violate his independence ? If, finding that his
jurisdiction over his subjects is impaired by the action of one of the two
Powers, he consults the other, is the giving of advice on such consultation a
breach of his independence ? May he only consult the country against which
he feels that he has ground for complaint ? In the same breath France objects
that the Sultan's protests were due to British influence, and that the Sultan has
locus standi to m ike any objection at all as to acts affecting his authority over
his own subjects.
France suggests, and makes it a ground of complaint, that he Sultan would
not have objected to the protection of his subjects by France but for the inter
vention of iireat Britain. But if the effect of this action of France is what
Great Britain contends before the Tribunal, Great Britain had an undoubted
right to complain to France of the breach of the Declaration of 1862, and it is
difficult to see how France, after consenting to refer the mattfer of substance,
should take refuse in points of form calculated to have no effect except to retard
or prevent the decision of the points of substance.
Further, if Great Britain is entitled, by virtue of the Declaration of 1862,
to complain of infraction of the Sultan's independence, the Sultan is equally
entitled, as an independent Sovereign, to complain, even apart from that
Declaration, of interference by France with his jurisdiction over his own sub-
e _ . . iects. The contention that the Declara-
" Confrc*Memcirfl p.6. tion of 1862 is as to the Saltan
alios acta, and that he had never been asked to adhere to this Declaration, may
be met at once by pointing out that an attack on the Sultan's independence is
iioires inter alios acta Q\i\\ev for the Sultan or for the other party to the
Declaration of 18^2, and a significant commentary on the French Declarations
is to be found in the letter of M. Ottavi of the 2nd January, 1895, in which he
says :—
" Hqureusement, Seyyid Feysal, devant I'absence d'une note ecrite, qu'il
*' CoEtre M.mMre," p. 201. d«BUWd<* aUX Angkig pOOT 861
couvnr, n aura it guere ose interveni
d'une mani^re officace, et se serait borne a faire dresser chaque annee la liste de
nos bputriers."
And the undated and unsigned letter, printed at p. 290 of the French
" Contre-Memoire," which is not on record in the British Consular archives,
if authentic and correctly translated, also indicates that the Sultan thought ii,
dangerous to remonstrate with France.