"التحكيم في قضية مراكب الداو الشراعية في مسقط. محكمة التحكيم الدائمة في لاهاي. السماح برفع الأعلام الفرنسية على مراكب الداو الشراعية في مسقط. القضية بالنيابة عن الحكومة البريطانية". [ظ‎‎٣‎٤] (٢٠٨/٧٧)

30
Moslem, with very few Europeans or Christiajas,
and only a few small communities professing
some non-Moslem Eastern religion; and the
persons whom France seeks to protect (unlike
the Banians and Louwatias) are Arabs marked
off from the rest of the Arab population of Oman
only by the fact of the claim to French protec
tion. The chief reason for the existence of
exterritoriality is the difference between Oriental
and European usages ; and in the case of the
Siiri Arabs the raison d'etre of a claim of exterri
toriality is excluded by the facts of their origin,
race, religion," and residence.
Having thus indicated the contention of His
Majesty's Government that Capitulations with
Turkey do not afford any sound foundation for
any argument in favour of France in the case of
Muscat, it is necessary, before dealing with that
part of the French Case which is based on the
French interpretation of the Treaty of 1844, to
dispose of certain references made to alleged «Q ontre .
inconsistency between the British contentions M^moire,"
and British practice.
1. The position of the Khojas or Louwatias has
been fully explained in the British Counter-Case
(pp. 35, 73.) That explanation clearly shows
that these persons, so far from being all incon-
testably subjects of the Sultan, form a distinct
community of Indian origin, and under British
protection if they choose to claim it; and that
British officials have never gone beyond denying
to a Khoja the right to abjure British protection
merely as a means of evading his just debts.
2. In Persia Great Britain protects her Indian
subjects settled there and their descendants to a
limited extent, but this right of protection has
never been exercised in a way inconsistent with
the law of Persia.
The British view as to Persia is best expressed
in the following extract from a despatch by Lord
John Russell to Mr. Alison :—
" Considering the question apart from all questions of
usage, policy, or expediency, but exclusively and strictly
with reference to the principles of international law pre
vailing amongst Christian nations, I have to state to you
that a child of a Persian father born in the Queen's
dominions and returning to Persia will not, whilst in
Persia, be entitled to British protection if (as stated) the
law of Persia considers him a Persian subject by reason of
his Persian descent; and on this principle Syad Abdullah
could not, whilst he remained in Persia, claim, or be