'File 35/85 III A 10 French Flag Question' [‎70r] (150/610)

i
00070
A between Oriental and European usages ; and in the case of the Siiri Arabs the
raison d'tere of a claim of exterritoriality is excluded by the facts of their
origin, race, religion, and residence.
Having thus indicated the contention of His Majesty's Government that
Capitulations with Turkey do not afford any sound foundation for any argument
^ in favour of France in the case of Muscat, it is necessary, before dealing with
that part of the Trench Case which is based on the French interpretation of the
Treaty of 1844, to dispose of certain refer-
«• Contre-Mfhnoire," p. 24. ences made to alleged inconsistency bet
ween the British contentions and British practice.
1 The position of the Khojas or Louwatias has been fully explained in the
British Counter-Case (pp. 35, 73). ' That explanation clearly shows that these
persons, so far from being all incootestably subjects of the Sultan, form a distinct
community of Indian origin, and under British protection if they choose to
claim it; and that British officials have never gone beyond denying to a Khoja
* the right to abjure British protection merely as a means of evading just debts.
2. In Persia Great Britain protects her Indian subjects settled there and
their descendents to a limited extent, biit this right of protection has never been
exercised in a way inconsistent with the law of Persia.
The British view as to Persia is best expressed in the following extract
from a despatch by Lord John Russell to Mr. Alison
<{ Considering the question apart from all questions of usage, policy, or
expediency, but exclusively and strictly with reference to the principles of
international law prevailing amongst Christian nations, I have to state to you
that a child of a Persian father born in the Queen's dominions and returning
> to Persia will not, whilst in Persia, be entitled to British protection if (as stated)
the law of Persia considers him a Persian subject by reason of his Persian
descent ; and on this principle Syad Abdullah could not, whilst he remained in
^ Persia, claim, or be claimed to be, treated there as a British subject. Although,
therefore, this would be the correct rule of international law, yet^ as it has not
hitherto been acted on in Persia, I t ank it very inexpedient that it should now
be made a rule of English procedure there unless it is also madj common
to all other European nations, and especially France and Russia."
3. Great Britain does not protect Jhinese subjects in Siam either with or
without a condition as to three years'
" Contre-Memoire," p. 24. residence there. In the year 1895 the
question of such protection was discussed between the British and Chinese Gov
ernments at a time when it was supposed that Japanese in Siam were to be
protected by France. But Japan abandoned the idea of putting her subjects
in Siam under Frence protection; and Great Britain never undertook the
protection of the Chinese, which, be it said, in the absence of any Treaty bet
ween China and Siam granting extra-territoriality, would, if undertaken, not
have ousted the jurisdiction of the Siamese Courts. This disposes of the unfounded
statement made at p. 24 of the French " Contre-Memoire "
A- - " An Siam elle admet 1'inscription a sa Legation de Chinois qui ne sont pas
nes sur un territoirebritannique ou place sous le protectorat anglais, mais qui resi
dent depuis au moins trois ans a Bangkok. Ces Chinois sont alors consideres
comme proteges britanniques, et ils ont meme obtenu que la protection qu lis
j ouissent au Siam leur soit continuee quand ils se rendent en Chine.
It will be, perhaps, more satisfactory to the Tribunal to know exactly what
persons Great Britain does protect in Siam. The matter is governed by the
# Anglo-Siamese Agreement of the 29tb November, 1899, which is in the follow
ing terms:— ^
>
/
A