'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.' [‎67v] (147/208)

40
que prendre acte de la promes.se qui y est faite d'omettre a Tavenir le nom da Sultan de Mascate
des documents qui seront ulterieuremeut preseutes au Tribunal Arbitral pour Faffaire des
boutres.
Mais il me charge en meme temps de formuler toutes reserves sur les arguments invoques
dans la uote en question pour justifier, en raison d'un droit " moral," lintroduction aux debats de
la personne du Sultan.
Au cours d'un des entretiens que j'ai eu avec votre Seigneurie, le 25 Mai, 1903—le jour meme
de I'accord intervenu entre nos deux Gouvernements—j'avais eu soin de declarer que nous
admettions I'arbitrage sur I'interpretation de nos Conventions avec la Grande-Bretagne ou des
Declarations communes aux deux pays, mais que nous n'entendions en aucune faijon accepter les
demandes d'arbitrage qu'il plairait au Sultan de Masoate de nous adresser.
Ces declarations amenerent le retrait par votre Seigneurie d'un projet de note qu'elle m'avait
soumis et qui envisageait precisement I'intervention eventuelle aux debats du Sultan de Mascate.
Veuillez, &c.
(Signe) PAUL CAMBON,
(No. 4.)
Ihe Marquess of Lansdowne to M. Cambon.
Your Excellency, Foreign Office, April 13, 1 ( ,)05.
I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 27th ultimo on the
question of the introduction of the name of the Sultan of Muscat in the British Case as one of
the Parties in the Muscat Dhow A term adopted by British officials to refer to local sailing vessels in the western Indian Ocean. Arbitration.
Your Excellency states that the French Government take note of the promise made by me
that, in the further documents to be presented by His Majesty's Government to the Tribunal, the
name of His Highness will not appear as one of the Parties to the Arbitration. It is not
necessary, therefore, to enter into turther argument as to the grounds on which His Majesty's
Government originally thought it right to insert His Highness' name.
But as your Excellency has referred to what passed between us on the 25th May, 1903, in
regard to the Agreement for referring the question at issue to arbitration, I think it right to
observe that the passage which, at your request, was omitted from the draft of my note on the
subject, provided for the reference to arbitration of any questions which the Sultan might desire
to raise. It is the fact, as your Excellency states, that you objected on behalf of the French
Government to accepting any demands for arbitration which the Sultan might himself put
forward.
But I did not at the time understand you to state that your Government Avished to preclude
the Tribunal from taking cognizance of the Sultan's views upon any questions affecting his
interests which the British or French Government might desire to refer to it for settlement.
His Majesty's Government will communicate your Excellency's note, with this reply, to the
Tribunal, in the same manner as the previous correspondence.
I have, &c.
(Signed) LANSDOWNE.
APPENDIX 2.
(No. 1.)
Secretary of State for India to Viceroy of India, July 29, 1903.
PLEASE instruct Captain Cox to warn the Sultan of Muscat that arbitration requires
formalities which cannot but take considerable time, and to inform him that some progress has
been made regarding arrangements for reference to The Hague Tribunal, but that negotiations
are still going on between British and French Governments, and matter is not yet settled; also
that the question of the privileges of French flag-holders will be argued before the Tribunal, on
the Sulran's behalf, by British Government, who will welcome the assistance of any one whom
the Sultan may wish to depute to furnish information and suggestions.
(No. 2.)
Translation of a Letter written hy His Highness the Sultan of Muscat to Major P. Z. Cox,
(After compliments.)
• i ^ louour asked me in the name of your Government eight months ago, whether 1
wished to send any one to represent me at The Hague Arbitration Tribunal, and 1 replied that 1
had no person experienced in such important matters, and would prefer to leave my repre-