'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.' [‎167v] (339/386)

76
Sultan in 1891 ; was again affirmed with the approval of Her
Majesty’s Government in 1894 ; was implicitly asserted in the
suggestion made by the Foreign Office in 1897 ; and was finally
enjoined in the ultimatum presented to the Sultan in 1899. It
was not until June 1901 that instructions were received from His
Majesty’s Government which cast a doubt upon the tenability of
the position which had been assumed by the Government of
India.
(d) Neither the French Government nor the French Consular represent
ative have ever asserted in so many words the principle that the
possession of French flag or papers by a Maskat subject entitles
him to the position of a French protdge in Maskat territory : but,
as will be seen hereafter, the French Consul has frequently acted
on this assumption.
(e) The Sultan has actually issued a notification to the effect that he will
not recognise in his territories (in the hands of his subjects)
French flags and protection papers, and will punish any of his
subjects who takes them without his written permission. He has
also desired to issue a second notification forbidding any of his
subjects to fly within his territory or territorial waters any
foreign flag except under his written authority.
The first notification has under the instructions of His Majesty’s Gov
ernment, been made to apply only to cases in which French flags
or papers may be taken after issue of the notification : that is to
say, it has no effect against the dhow A term adopted by British officials to refer to local sailing vessels in the western Indian Ocean. -owners who at present
possess French flags and papers, although the latter are only
valid for one year. Ihe issue of the second notification has been
prohibited under the instiuctions of His Majesty’s Government.
(/) The Sultan has solicited, or at least shown himself ready to solicit,
British intervention with the French Government in his behalf ;
but though he has acted consistently in accordance with tho
advice given to him by the British Consul, he has been given no
assistance in his difficulties with the French, and lias received no
assurance of support in the position which he has taken up by the
advice of the British representative.
It wfll be convenient at this point to examine how far the view that the
protection afforded to these Suri dhow A term adopted by British officials to refer to local sailing vessels in the western Indian Ocean. -owners by the possession of French fla"
and papers does not include protection by land and in Maskat territorial waters
has been acted upon m the past. The first instance on record was the case of
the seizure of the two dhows (the Salama and the Saad) by Commander Bakes
No * 15 in f 18 , 96 ; ; !n that case, as has already been
. • r r y , noted, the French Vice-Consul claimed
indfi'sVun-Kd^r the tW ? dh ? W J S ’ aIthou ? h tilf 7 wer « seized in Maskat waters,
< nd h s j nsdiction m as admitted. In 1897 two further instances occurred (vide
( e« aSdlhe Ko ‘ 1 ^ a 3 0 0 r Fagan’s letter f No. 428, dated
... , • the 2oth November 1898). In the one
theVren^Z Wb ° v^} be( ? kidna PP ed byabuggalow from Sur flying
red fo theSnlfpn rrn g a W )lledtotlie British Consulate for freedom, was refer-
-Pror, p i Ihe accused was summoned and came to Maskat; but the
French Consul interfered and claimed jurisdiction over the accused and His
Highness was consequently unable to take any action in the matter.
Obokh was^ked C hf;i a °! Masbat » " ll ° liod procured French papers at
was confined i-n tho s ^ ^ t0 pr r ?,? UCe , them ’ and » on refusing to do so,
his arrest and the q,iif an § priJ,or1, Pre “ c h Vice-Consul protested against
ms arrest, and the Sultan was compelled to release him.
ed the 11 French claim'to'judsdiefionf 3 tLe Bril)Sl1 C ° nSUl ai,pear to have dferiut '
'ihe case of Salim-bin-Saad marked a change in the policy of the British
s^wetlrv^of ^at/Nn 5 iQ°fp S ? rct ?‘ ,rttch to ^ on8U ^ In this casea collision having
2nd Febmary 1899 . ’ c " dated the occurred in the neighbourhood of Sur be
tween a sambhuk owned by Salim-bin-