'SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPAL EVENTS AND MEASURES OF THE VICEROYALTY OF HIS EXCELLENCY LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON, VICEROY AND GOVERNOR-GENERAL OF INDIA IN THE FOREIGN DEPARTMENT. I. JANUARY 1899-APRIL 1904. II. DECEMBER 1904-NOVEMBER 1905. VOLUME IV. PERSIA AND THE PERSIAN GULF.' [‎158v] (321/386)

53
in the prohibition by the Sultan of the import and export of arms and ammuni
tion to and from his territories. Such a probibition, weare aware, is contrary
to the provisions of the Treaties between His Highness and the Governments
of France and of the United States: and wo do not overlook the fact that,
on a former occasion, when His Highness desired to increase the duty upon arms
imported into Maskat, the French Government declined to acquiesce in the
proposal on the ground that it would constitute an infraction of the Treaty of
1844. But we are not without hope that, if it were explained to the Govern
ments concerned that, owing to the free importation of arms into Maskat, the
turbulent tribes in Arabia and Persia and on the Indian frontier may obtain
an unlimited supply of the munitions of war, their assent might be procured
to a proposal which alone offers a satisfatory solution of the existing difficulties.
The considerations which led to the inclusion in the General Act of the Brussels
Conference of the Article (VIII) relating to the control of the arms traffic
with Africa may not unreasonably be urged in support of the adoption of a
similar policy in Arabia, and we accordingly suggest, for the consideration of
His Majesty’s Government, that representations should be made to the Govern
ments of France and of the United States with a view to some modification in
respect of fire-arms of those clauses in their Treaties with the Sultan of Maskat,
which prohibit the Sultan from imposing any restriction upon the import or
export of any kind of merchandise. Holland, which enjoys most favoured nation
treatment under the Treaty with Maskat of 1877, would, we presume, conform
to any agreement which might be arrived at between the other Governments
concerned.
5. In the event of this proposal meeting with a favourable reception from
the Powers concerned, it might be necessary, in order to induce the Sultan of
Maskat to comply with our wishes in this matter, to grant him some compen
sation for the loss of the customs revenue that he would thereby incur; but the
prevention of the traffic in arms is an object which would be worth some
pecuniary sacrifice, and we should be prepared to accept as a charge upon the
Indian revenues any reasonable burden which the arrangement might involve.
Secret.
No. 15.
26
India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. ,
London, 11th April 1902.
To His
My Loed,
Excellency the Right Honourable the
of India in Council.
Governor-General
I have received your letters Nos 5 and 46 (Foreign—Secret), dated 9th
Traffic in arms in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. . January and 6th March last, on the subject
of tbe traffic iu arms in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. .
1. I he points dealt with m the former letter were referred by me to the
Foreign Office with Sir Horace Walpole’s letter of the 19th February last.
The observations of the Foreign Office are contained in their letters of the 24th
March. Of this correspondence copies are herewith enclosed for the informa
tion of the Government of India.
. 3. Your Excellency will see that the Foreign Office have instructed His
Majesty’s Minister at Tehran to inform the Persian Government, in the event
of any question arising as to the exact signification of the words “ in the Persian
Guif ’’in the Sadr Azam's note to Mr. C. Hardinge of the 18th December 1897,
that His Majesty’s Government hold that the Sultan of Maskat is undoubtedly
entitled under his agreement to any arms that may be seized by His Majesty’s
ships in Maskat waters or in a Maskat vessel outside the territorial waters of
any other Power.
4. M ith reference to the question of the transhipment at Indian ports of
small parcels ot arms for Persia, the Persian Minister at this Court has been