"الملف 35/85 III A 10 مسألة الأعلام الفرنسية" [و‎‎٦‎٣] (٦١٠/١٣٦)

11
Of Course, without the support of one of the Parties to the Declaration, the
Sultan was not in a position to resist infractions of his independence by the other
J he same observations apply as to the rights of Prance in case of any appearance
of attack by Great Britain on the Sultan's independence.
His Majesty's Government must demur to the accuracy of the statement
(at p 4 of the Contre-Meqloire , '), that Great Britain has concerned herself
" Contre-Memoi^," p. 4. more with the relations which exist, or
should exist, between the French Hepublic
and the Sultan of Muscat than with the question submitted to the Tribunal.
His Majesty's Government are confident that, on perusal of the British Case
and Counter-Case, the Tribunal will be satisfied that Great Britain has confined
herself to the statement of the facts with relation to Erench protection of Omani
vessels, and its effect on the jurisdiction and independence of the Sultan,
whereas the French Case and Counter-Case are concerned largely, if not
mainly, with imputations on the policy and motives of Great Britain, and with
matters foreign to the only material question in controversy.
His Majesty's Government, therefore, while not contending that the Sultan
should be separately represented before the Tribunal, submit with confidence
that for the due determination of the Case it is necessary to hear and consider
what has passed between the Sultan and France with respect to French claims
of protection.
In the French t< Contre-Memoire " (p 7) the reasons for the reference by
Great Britain to the Franco-Muscat Treaty of 1844 are misunderstood. By
reason of the most favoured-nation clause in the Treaty of 1844 and the Anglo-
Muscat Treaty of 1891, it is necessary for the European Parties to each Treaty
to refer to the other Treaty in order to ascertain the full extent of the privileges
conferred by it, since both Great Britain and France are entitled to the most
favoured-nation treatment. Consequently the Treaty of 1844/though techni
cally res inter alios acta, is, by the effect of the clause in question, made
material and relevant for the elucidation of the present controversy, and shpws
that the two Parties to the Declaration of 1802 stand on an equal footing as to
exterritoriality in Oman.
But it is also essentially material as being, apart from any question of sub
sequently developed usnge, the conventional measure of French rights and privi
leges in Oman, which is a fact, recognized by France in the contentions based on
its terms (" Contre-Memoire," p. '69) ; g,nd it is difficult to understand the sug
gestion made at page 7 of the "Contre-Memoire," that the mere fact of referring
to this Treaty or discussing its terms gives an impression that His Majesty's
Government claim to exercise a virtual protectorate, and constitutes a fresh
attack on the Declaration of 1882. In approaching a juridical or quasi-juridical
question, it is usual to lay before the Tribunal the material which may assist
towards its solution. And in dealing with the position of Great Britain and
France in Muscat, it is surely not irrelevant to point out the extent
to which, at the time of trie Declaration of 1862, France had extra-territorial
jurisdiction in Oman, and that by the new Treaty of 1891, replacing the older
Treaty of ] 839, Great Britain acquires no extra, territorial rights which do not
equally and automatically accrue in favour of France.
Comment is made as to the propriety of the inclusion in the British Case
(p. 73) of a statement unofficially communicated by M. Camhon to LordLans-
downe on the 14th August, 1901. This statement seems to have been a summary
t( „ t _ . „ 00 00 of information received from French officials
" Contre-M^moire." pp 82-83. i tt- n/i • * '
* and His Majesty s Government, with a
view to elucidate the questions raised therein, obtained from British officials,
and communicated to the French Government, the information and observations
contained in the documents printed at pp. 75—78 of the British Case.
Cambon's communications with Lord Eans-r
downe were not official. His Majesty's
Government made their inquiries and com-
of settling at once the questions which have
It is expressly stated that M.
British Case, pp. 18, 79.
municatfed their result in the hope