"مسقط" [ظ‎‎١‎٤] (٤٠/٢٦)

6
Pol. 923/00.
331/90.
.'564/90.
660/09.
714/99.
732, 80o,
998 of 1609.
489/1000.
1096, 2081,
2392 of 1890.
2331/99.
2466/99.
No. 47 of
1899.
Pol. 2398/99,
effective support, if necessary, provided he should continue to follow our
advice, but not to hoist the British flag for that purpose.
[The revocation, under pressure from the British Government, of the Bunder
Gisseh concession by the Sultan led to a lon^ diplomatic negotiation with
th« French Government, which was not finally settled until August 1000,
when an airan^ement was arrived at, under which the coal depot at Makalla
Cove, which had since 1875 been used by the British Government, was
divided into two approximately equal parts, one of which was aecepted by
the French.]
On the 1st March the Viceroy reported that the attitude of the Sultan was
again becoming unfriendly, and that he continued to receive clandestine visits
from Abdul Aziz, who was endeavouring to cause trouble with the Sharki-
yeh tribes. The question or our position at Muscat, under the
Declaration of 1862 and the Sultan's engagement of 1891, was therefore
submitted for the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown. Their
opinion was to the effect that (U the Declaration of 1862 does not
require the British Government to abstain from exercising a preponderating
influence, so long as that influence is not exerted in any way infconsistent
with the independence of Muscat; (2) that the British Government would
not be precluded from punishing or even deposing any individual Sultan
for breaches of engagements, provided the independence of his successor
were recognised ; (3) that whilst the question whether the Sultan could
be required to dismiss a particular adviser must depend on the special
circumstances of ihe case, it would hardly be compatible with the
independence of Muscat to compel the Sultan to accept ministers and
advisers who are acceptable to the British Government. It was, however,
decided merely to continue to withhold the subsidy. Towards the middle of
the month the Sultan became more amenable, but the Government of India
preferred to make no further formal demands upon him for the time,
although the Customs question and that of the payment of interest on the
indemnity remained unsettled, and the maintenance in the office of Wazir of
Saivid Muhammad bin Azzar, who was a creature of the French Consul,
caused embarrassment. Before, however, instructions to this effect (dated
25th May) reached him. Colonel Meade had already pressed the Sultan to
apply for the loan of a British official to manage his Customs (23rd April)
and had received from the Sultan a refusal (9th May). His Highness also
continued to evade every attempt made by Major Fagan to induce him to
undertake to pay due regard to the advice of the British representative.
Trouble began to arise in May with the tribes, owing to the Sultan's
inability to pay them the usual cash presents; and a project w r as formed by
them to dethrone Saiyid Faisul. This, however, came to nothing. Mean
while the Sultan declined to take any practical steps for enforcing the
adoption by his subjects of a distinctive flag. He appeared to dislike the
idea, though he objected strongly to the French claims to jurisdiction over
his subjects, and he professed to think that the French Government were
likely to remedy the existing state of things.
In June the French Government complained that the Political Agent at
Muscat had endeavoured to persuade the Sultan to order the discontinuance
by his subjects of the use of the French flag, and had offered a British ship
of war to enforce compliance. This was denied by the rolitical Agent, and
the matter eventually dropped.
In August the French Government, in reply to a note by the Charge
d'Affaires at Paris, repeated their declaration (made 16th October 1897) that
their undertaking in 1891 to discontinue the issue of their flag to Arab
vessels, referred only to their Consulate at Aden; but they admitted that in
some cases the flag had been granted without sufficient examination, and stated
that thev proposed to revise the regulations governing the practice. In
November the Secretary of State, with Lord Salisbury's concurrence,
forwarded the correspondence to the Government of India, and suggested
for consideration three possible courses which that Government might adopt,
viz., to induce the Sultan (I) to insist upon all vessels belonging to his subjects
being registered and flying his distinctive flag; or (2) to declare that, alter
a specified date, he would not recognise in his territory any protection or
naturalisation thereafter conferred on his subjects otherwise than with his