'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.' [‎169r] (342/386)

the French, which would he a considerable advantage to us. Following solu
tions have been suggested to me
First .—That the Sultan should simply release the men on his own authority
at having been now sufficiently punished. The discussion will thus lose its
practical character, but the general question of the French claims will not be
brought to a definite issue, as we should lose the means of inducing the French
Government to go to arbitration.
Second .—That Sultan should be advised by us to surrender the prisoners
to the French Consul on an undertaking by the French Government that
Consul will hand them back to Sultan for custody pending award of Hague
Tribunal.
Please let me have, with as little delay as possible, your views on the whole
subject. In view of small size and force of French ships in Maskat, am advised
by Admiralty no grounds for recalling “ Intrepid ” and “Hermione’*.
34
Telegram, dated the 22nd May 1903.
p rom —His Majesty’s Secretary of State for India, London,
To—The Foreign Secretary, Simla.
Please see my telegram of to-day about Maskat. Lord Lansdowne pointed
out to the French Ambassador, in a further conversation yesterday that in
the French Consul’s letter of the 11th April to the Sultan, and m subsequent
personal interviews between the Consul and Commodore, no demand had been
made bevond the release of the prisoners, and that no mention had heen mac e
of their surrender to the French Consul. In the end the Ambassador thought
that it would be sufficient if the Sultan addressed a written communication to
the French Consul informing him of their release. His Excel ten cy undertook
to submit this proposal to the French Minister for Foreign Affairs. In reply
to Lord Lansdowne’s observation that, if this procedure were followed, the
Sultan should make an identical communication to the British Consul, the
French Ambassador said that it was a matter of indifference to Ihe French
Government whether a similar communication was made to the British Consul
or not.
We consider that the procedure suggested would afford a satisfactory
solution, and that we might accept it and recommend it to the Sultan without
loss of credit to him or to ourselves. He will, by imprisoning the offemei.,
have successfully asserted his authority within his own dominions. He will
have resisted, not less successfully, partly the threats of the ^ reneh \ me-
Consul and, subsequently, those of the brench Commodore. He "ill, f hi
own free will, release the prisoners after they have suffered a term of imprison
ment which may he fairly regarded as commensurate with their offence , and
he will consent to this act of clemency only because he will have received an
assurance that the French Government, which has for so long ewled » se e-
ment of this troublesome question, has agreed to dispose of it condusnely by
arbitration.
It is clearlv most desirable that some means should he discovered for
terminating a controversy which has reference to a comparatively tnual
matter; bid which has reached a stage which might at any moment become
acute.
We shall endeavour to obtain from the French Government a written
engagement to refer the question to arbitiation, )u ^ ) ia ve
received, the Sultan will retain the prisoners As SOOI1 ’. t !"'' 6 t ,
obtained this engagement, the Sultan would, in our 0 I 1 ,! .’ ,, French and
the men at once and to send them hack to Sur, mfo mij ^e French and
British Consuls that he has done so. This will put it out of the pou oi