"الملف 35/85 III A 10 مسألة الأعلام الفرنسية" [ظ‎‎٣‎٦] (٦١٠/٨٣)

10
that His Highness has, in fact, invoked the good offices of Great Britain. The
position assumed by GreatlBritain, and objected to by France, is not that of legal
guardian of the Sultan, but of a friendly Power selected and requested to lay
before the Tribunal the Sultan's experience of the effect on his authority of the
action of France with respect to his subjects. His Majesty's Government are
confident that, on perusal of these documents, the Tribunal will be satisfied of
the correctness of the attitude assumed by Great Britain, and that the statement
made on p. 4 of the French " Contre-Memoire " as to the tardiness of the
Sultan's assent is erroneous, and that his assent was given so far back as 1903.
Whether the Sultan is or is not formally a party to the arbitration, it is essential
for the Tribunal to determine the extent to which France is entitled to confer
immunity on the Sultan's subjects from the jurisdiction of their natural Sover
eign within his own territory.
It is suggested in the French Contre-Memoire " that the British Case is,
both in substance and in form, incompati-
" Contre-Memoire p. 3. ^ with ^ of 18 62.
It is difficult to see how such a contention can seriously be advanced. To
admit its accuracy would be to read the Declaration as precluding Great Britain
from ever questioning the propriety of any act done by France as to Oman. If
the Sultan happens to agree with one of the two Parties to the Declaration of
1862 that the other is attacking his independence, is it to be said that to support
the Sultan in his opinion is to violate his independence ? If, finding that his
jurisdiction over his subjects is impaired by the action of one of the two
Powers, he consults the other, is the giving of advice on such consultation a
breach of his independence ? May he only consult the country against which
he feels that he has ground for complaint ? In the same breath France objects
that the Sultan's protests were due to British influence, and that the Sultan has
locus standi to make any objection at all as to acts affecting his authority over
his own subjects,
France suggests, and makes it a grouud of complaint, that he Sultan would
not have objected to the protection of his subjects by France but for the inter
vention of iireat Britain. But if the effect of this action of France is what
Great Britain contends before the Tribunal, Great Britain had an undoubted
right to complain to France of the breach of the Declaration of 1862, and it is
difficult to see how France, after consenting to refer the matter of substance,
should take refuse in points of form calculated to have no effect except to retard
or prevent the decision of the points of substance.
Further, if Great Britain is entitled, by virtue of the Declaration of 1862,
to complain of infraction of the Sultan's independence, the Sultan is equally
entitled, as an independent Sovereign, to complain, even apart from that
Declaration, of interference by France with his jurisdiction over his own sub-
„ . „ 0 , jects. The contention that the Declara-
ontre- emoire , p, . tion of 1862 is as to the Sultan res inter
alios acta, and that he had never been asked to adhere to this Declaration, may
be met at once by pointing out that an attack on the Sultan's independence is
not res inter alios acta vtihev for the Sultan or for the other party to the
Declaration of 1862, and a significant commentary on the French Deelarations
is to be found in the letter of M. Ottavi of the 2nd January, 1895, in which he
says :—
" Heureusement, Seyyid Feysal, devant I'absence d'une note ecrite, qu'il
■ „ , ' . „ aurait demandee aux Anglais pour ser
" Centre Memoire," p. 201. . , .. N D , . r ,
couvnr, n aurait guere ose mterveni
d'une manure officace, et se serait borne a faire dresser chaque annee la liste de
nos boutriers."
And the undated and unsigned letter, printed at p. 290 of the] French
" Contre-Memoire," which is not on record in the British Consular archives,
if authentic and correctly translated, also indicates that the Saltan thought it
dangerous to remonstrate with France.