'Muscat Dhows Arbitration. In the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague. Grant of the French Flag to Muscat Dhows. The case on behalf of the Government of His Britannic Majesty.' [‎21v] (51/208)

4
to support tlie Sultan in his opinion is to violate
his independence ? If, finding tliat 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 no locus standi
to make any objection at all as to acts affecting
his authority over his own subjects.
France suggests, and makes it a ground of
complaint, that the Sultan would not have objected
to the protection of his subjects by France bat
for the intervention of Great 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 matter of substance,
should take refuge 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 Saltan's independence, the Sultan
is equally entitled, as aa independent Sovereign,
to complain, even apart from that Declaration, of
interference by France with his jurisdiction over
his own sabiects. The contention that the "Contre-
. r. i • moire," p 6.
Declaration of 1862 is as to the Saltan res inter
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 Saltan's inde
pendence is not res inter alios acta either for the
Sultan or for the other Party to the Declaration
of 1862, 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:—
"Heureusement, Seyyid Feysal, devant I'absence dune "Contre-
note ^crite, qu'il aurait demandee aux Anglais pour se ^ e ' tao "" e ' P"
couvrir, n'aurait gn&re osd intervenir d'une manure
efficace, et se serait bornd ^ faire dresser chaque annde
la liste de nos boutriers. 1 '
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 indi-