یا

3. I would also solicit a reference to paragraph 5 of my letter dated the 14th June last, in which I expressed the opinion that there were indications that the Jenebeh and Beni-bu-Ali would be willing to consider themselves French subjects. During the late disturbances the chief Sheikh of the Beni-bu-Ali, Sheikh Abdullah-bin-Salim, was present in Muscat with a strong contingent of his tribe in support of the Sultan, and you will remember that he was one of the Sheikhs to whom a stern warning was given regarding the looting of our subjects' property by his followers.

It was noticed that, after he had been summoned to the Agency for this purpose, he was frequently seen at the French Vice-Consulate, and it was suspected that he was endeavouring to enlist the sympathy of the French for himself and his tribe, if not directly seeking their protection.

4. It has now come to my knowledge through the Wazeer, Seyyid Muhammad-bin-Azzan, that Sheikh Abdullah-bin-Salim actually did solicit French protection and asked to be given two French flags to be used over buildings in the Beni-bu-Ali portion of Sür. Both requests were, I understand, met by M. Ottavi, the French Vice-Consul, with a direct refusal and an intimation that he would not discuss such questions with him.

The Wazeer seemed to believe the information he gave me, and I have no reason to doubt its accuracy, although it came to him through a channel which I should not ordinarily consider trustworthy.

APPENDIX No. 16.

Sir.

The Earl of Kimberley to Mr. Howard.

Foreign Office, June 28, 1895.

WITH reference to my despatch of the 9th February last, respecting the state of the Slave Trade in the Persian Gulf, I transmit herewith copy of a letter from the Government of India,* from which it will be seen that, according to a statement made by the Commander of the French war vessel "Troude," the practice of granting the French flag and papers to Süri dhows has been

discontinued.

I have to request you to express to the French Government the satisfaction with which Her Majesty's Government have received the information, which they presume is correct, of a step that should have excellent results in checking Slave Trade in the Persian Gulf.

APPENDIX No. 17.

Sir E. Monson to M. Hanotaux.

I am, &c.

M. le Ministre,

Paris, December 31, 1896.

IN accordance with instructions which I have received from the Marquess of Salisbury, and in compliance with section 10 of the identical Instructions of 1887 issued to the Commanding Officers of British and French cruisers, I have the honour to 'inclose, for your Excellency's information, copies of correspondence received by the Admiralty relating to the case of three dhows under the French flag, which were detained in the month of September 1896 by Commander Baker, of Her Majesty's ship "Sphinx," whilst cruising off the coast of Arabia, and two of which (the "Salama" and the "Saad") were subsequently sent by his orders to Muscat for adjudication by the French Consular Representative at that port.

As your Excellency will perceive from a perusal of these papers, Commander Baker was not satisfied as to the right of the dhows in question to fly the French flag, and he accordingly proceeded to the verification of their supposed nationality, in conformity with section 4 of the identical Instructions of 1887.

In the first two cases, after examination of the papers, he had reason to suspect the dhows of fraud, and under section 11 of the same Instructions, he sent them, as stated above, to Muscat, in order that their right to fly the French flag might be duly verified by the competent French authorities, while in the third case the papers were apparently in order, and the dhow was accordingly allowed to proceed on her way.

* Appendix No. 15.

The Lieutenant who boarded the dhow offered to give the master a written statement of the circumstances attending the verification, as prescribed in section 7 of the identical Instructions, but was refused the opportunity of doing so.

Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that in all these three cases Commander Baker acted in strict accordance with the identical Instructions of 1887, and with those given to the officers of Her Majesty's ships employed in the suppression of the Slave Trade, copies of which are doubtless in the possession of the French Government-an opinion which I venture to express the hope your Excellency will share after perusing the inclosed correspondence.

In transmitting to your Excellency the inclosed copies of Commander Baker's Reports, Lord Salisbury desires me to call your Excellency's attention to the fact that all the three dhows were crowded with slaves, and that in the third case, although this was obviously the fact, Commander Baker, out of respect for the international nature of the 1887 Instructions, allowed the dhow to go free; and I am to add that, whilst admitting the strict correctness of Commander Baker's conduct in this respect, Her Majesty's Government feel sure the Government of the Republic will agree with them in wishing that persons guilty of so gross an abuse of the French flag, as were the owner and master of the dhow in question, should have been brought to justice, and that the slaves who were sheltered by the French flag should have been rescued from their fate.

In connection with this subject, and with reference to the report mentioned in the note which the Marquess of Dufferin had the honour to address to your Excellency on the 4th July, 1896, to the effect that the practice of granting to Süri dhows the French flag and French papers had been abandoned, I am desired by Lord Salisbury to inquire, in conclusion, whether this salutary instruction is still in force.

Foreign Office, March 16, 1897.

THE French Ambassador called to-day and referred to the communication addressed to M. Hanotaux on the 31st December last with regard to certain dhows sailing under the French flag, which were arrested by the Commander of Her Majesty's ship Sphinx" and handed over to the French Vice-Consul at Muscat for adjudication as having slaves on board.

His Excellency said that the matter would be the subject of an investigation, but with regard to the inquiry made whether the instructions for discontinuing the grant of the French flag and papers to Süri dhows were still in force, he was instructed to state that there had been a misapprehension on the point, and that there had never been any intention of discontinuing. the practice.

Your Excellency will remember that the original statement on this point was reported by Her Majesty's Political Agent at Muscat to have been made to him by the Commander of the French man-of-war "Troude." The letter from the India Office reporting the statement was inclosed in the Earl of Kimberley's despatch of the 28th June, 1895, to the Marquess of Dufferin, and a communication was made to the French Government expressing satisfaction at this decision. The French Ambassador said that no reply had been made at the time to this communication, but that the Minister of Marine, on being made aware of it, had stated that there must be a misunderstanding, as the Commander of the Tronde" denied that he had said anything of the kind. It will be noticed, on reference to Captain Sadler's Report, that the statement in any case went no further than the discontinuance of the practice of issuing these papers at Obokh, though it was interpreted as indicating an intention of altogether abandoning the practice.

APPENDIX No. 19.

I am, &c. (Signed)

SALISBURY.

Sir,

British Consul at Muscat to the British Consul-General, Bushire.

Muscat, May 3, 1897.

I HAVE the honour to report, with reference to the extract from my diary of this day's date, which I attach for easy reference, that Sayid Saeed, the Sultan's Wazir, came to see me to-day to inform me, on behalf of his master, that news had been received to the effect that all Süri boats which have this year gone to Zanzibar have taken French papers, presumably at that port, and that, so far as the information received went, such papers were granted merely upon payment of a tee of 5 dollars.

[1413]

L

6

A reference to the authorities at Zanzibar will probably show whether this information is

correct or not.

His Highness, in affording me the above information, was desirous of obtaining advice as to the course he should take, as he naturally views with apprehension the fact that so many of his subjects at Sür should claim the protection of the French flag.

In reply, I have advised His Highness of the instructions and advice contained in paragraph 4 of Government of India letter, dated the 11th August, 1891.*

Upon my doing so, however, a question was raised as to the status given to subjects of Oman who have taken out papers of naturalization in India, and who, on returning to Oman, have received support from the Consulate here; for I was informed that the claim would be put forward that persons under French protection would on this ground be considered as without the Sultan's jurisdiction, and that action, as suggested in the letter from the Government of India I have quoted, would, therefore, be impossible.

A case was cited to me in support of this contention, viz., that of Ali-bin-Juma, regarding whom there has been some correspondence. I quote this case, as the question has already been before the Government of India; but this is only one case in many of a like nature.

It appears, therefore, that, though the Sultan is desirous of following the advice given him in 1891, he fears that the fact of the British Government having allowed his subjects, when naturalized and returning to Oman, to be assisted as British protégés, will cause any action he may desire to take in regard to the transfer by his subjects of their vessels to the French flag to be nullified.

His Highness has, I am given to understand, the intention of making a formal protest to the French Consular authority here. I have suggested to His Highness, however, that, in view of his contentions, it will be advisable if he will defer doing so until I have received orders from the Government of India as to the status of Omani subjects holding papers of naturalization from a British authority. ·

I have the honour to request, therefore, that early instructions may be given to me on the question now raised.

Extract from Diary of the Political Agent, Muscat.

May 3, 1897. IT is reported that all Süri dhows which have this year visited Zanzibar and the African coast have obtained French papers, and that the only formality necessary is a payment of 5 dollars. This requires confirmation.

APPENDIX No. 20.

(Extract.)

Commander Hoskyns to Rear-Admiral Rawson.

"Blonde," at Zanzibar, May 4, 1897. EVERYTHING has remained perfectly quiet in Zanzibar, and, as far as I can gather, in Pemba also, very few slave-owners having made any claim for compensation up to the present. 2. Since your telegram of the 13th March to continue the ordinary duties of the station, boats have been continually cruising on the west coast of Zanzibar and south and west coast of Pemba, and on the coast between Mombasa and Mogadishu, boarding a large number of dhows of various nationalities, except French, not effecting any captures. The officers, however, have reported that they have frequently observed dhows with the French flag flying crowded with natives, which they had strong reason to believe were slaves, but which, under existing regulations, they were unable to detain for search.

3. I have since ascertained through Dahomey, 1st class interpreter, that thirty-eight dhows have changed from Muscat to French nationality at the French Consulate in Zanzibar, and obtained permission to carry so-called passengers, and I have reason to believe, although I have no absolute proof, that the entire Slave Trade has been carried on by the dhows.

4. It seems to be a well-known fact all along the coast that the French flag carries practical immunity from search, and therefore it is a simple matter for any Arab wishing to carry slaves to do so without risk by registering his vessel at the French Consulate.

* Appendix No. 11.

APPENDIX No. 21.

No. 1.

Purport of letter from Sultan of Muscat to M. Ottari, dated the 25th Dhil Hijjah (28th May, 1897.)

(After compliments.)

WE have to inform you that some of our subjects living at Sür and in the Batineh, and in the habit of visiting the coasts of Africa and Aden, request the officers of the great French Government for flags, affecting (to become French subjects) by (purchasing) some little immovable property in those places and living there. You are aware that this is against the rule observed in all countries, and that it is against custom, for every one returns to his original jurisdiction. Living (in a place), even for a long period, does not remove one from (the jurisdiction of) his first place, nor does the possession of immovable property. This affair has become extensive and general, so that injury and loss have resulted (from it). We therefore complain to the Government and to you about this occurrence, and we expect that everything will return to its original nationality, and that the Government will bestow favour on us by preventing all the officers from following in their countries a course contrary to the rule. We hope that the agreement existing between us will always continue to increase, and we shall thank the Government and yourself for justice and kindness.

May you always be above what you

desire.

No. 2.

Purport of Letter, dated the 15th July, 1897 (14th Safar, 1315), from M. Oitavi, to His Highness the Sultan, Muscat.

(After compliments.)

WE have been honoured by the arrival of your letter, dated the 25th Dhil Hijjah (1315), which you sent to us at a time when (we were) not in Muscat, and about which we gave a reply to you orally on the day of my visit to you on my return from Sür. What you say in it is, that some of the people of Sür and the Batineh have obtained protection and flags against the custom observed in all countries, by living and acquiring a little immovable property in our Calonies, and that you expect that our officers may be ordered not to grant protection and flags to the Arabs of these parts because it injures your Highness' interests. I have already explained to your Highness at my interview, and I regret since it is not possible to comply with your desire. Perchance your Highness has been misinformed (misied), since you have been told that (right to) protection cannot be acquired by living in a country ever so long nor by the acquisition of immovable property, nor by any other means. The truth is that such out of the strangers as ask protection can get it from a country on their complying with certain known conditions, which are of different kinds in every country.

Many of the people of dhows out of the Arabs of Oman and others have been in the habit of visiting our Colonies since the last forty years, and have elected to live there, and have obtained from the officers there protection and flags in a right manner in accordance with the rules of those Colonies and the orders issued by the Minister of Marine Affairs, and no one has a right to dispute it (to rise in the matter).

Your Highness has acknowledged (confirmed) this mode both publicly and privately since the time of your assuming the Sovereign powers, more especially since these last three years, that is to say, since the time that I have been living in this town, for during these last three years the owners of our dhows have been under the jurisdiction of this Consulate, the road of truth and law. Moreover, we decided, according to the French law, the case of the two dhows accused of importing slaves, and the final decision is in Bourbon. Secondly, according to your official request made to us, we prohibited the people of our dhows from entering Dhofar when you ordered it to be blockaded. Thirdly, by the orders of my Government, I went to Sür for two consecutive years for the purpose of watching the French dhows. Under these circumstances, this affair is an established one in the state in which it is, and in its right of being a lawful one.

What would be opposed to custom would be to order our officers to change the rules for protection and the granting of flags specially for those who came originally from Sür and the Batineh, for they are rules applicable to all (general), and they cannot but be general ones. Also what would be opposed (to customs) would be to prohibit persons under our protection from visiting any particular port on account of their origin, and also to prohibit them from possessing many dhows. According to what we saw this year, our old protected subjects have taken flags for their new dhows, and the case is not, as you think, that they have increased (in number). And also, what would be against custom, is that there should be obstacles in their journeys (voyages) and their mercantile transactions.

As to the injury which you mention, if it were (real) injury, how is it that others than yourself have not complained of it, and how is it that you yourself did not mention it during all this long period until now?

As you hope for the friendship of our Government to you, it will, God willing, remain permanent, and many salaams to you.

[1413]

L 2

No. 3.

Purport of Letter from the Sultan to the Consul of France, duted the 27th Rabeea II

WE have to inform you regarding those that have taken flags from the (French) Government and their deeds in respect of passengers and such as take a passage with them, that the (British) Consul has sent to us out of some of them a slave belonging to our cousin (the brother) Khalidbin-Bargash, named Ismail, who states that he ran away from our cousin Khalid* in the dhow belonging to Muhammad-biu-Salim at Samamee, an inhabitant of al-Aikeh. After his arrival, he accommodated him in his house, and then sent him to the Batineh, where he was sold. He has now run away from the Batinel, and arrived in Muscat. The slave is with us now, and we have sent for the above-mentioned Muhammad-bin-Salim, so that we may take his statement and understand his reply.

On his arrival, we shall inform you, by way of giving you information, so that you may become aware of what happens, and salaams.

No. 4.

Purport of Letter from M. Ottavi to the Sultan of Muscat, dated the 11th October, 1897.

(After compliments.)

I HAVE been honoured by the receipt of your letter, dated the 26th September, containing in its first part a general charge (accusation) which you have brought against those who have taken the flags, but it cannot at all be admitted. You never accused them during all this long period of time that has passed, but only after our refusal to comply with your demand for removing the flags and protection. One like your Highness should be aloof from saying this thing, for the Consul of the Republic of France is himself watching them.

As to the question regarding Ismail, we want him to be produced before us, so that we may hear his statement, and take the necessary measures in that matter. May you remain protected, and salaams.

No. 5.

Purport of Letter from the Sultan of Muscat to M. Ottavi, Consul of France, dated the 27th Jemadi I (25th October, 1897).

(After compliments.)

WE have to inform you that we have received your letter, dated the 11th October, containing a reply to a letter sent by us on the subject of the Samamee, who is an inhabitant of our town of Sür, and who and whose forefathers were born in it. In the letter which we sent you before it, bearing date the 25th Dhil Hijjah, 1314 (A.H.), we have shown all the necessary rules current among the States in mutual friendly relations. We hope you will send it to the great French Government, which in our estimation is too great to interfere with the local subjects (bodies), and which we hold to be aloof from it, owing to previous agreement (concord) between it and our forefathers. There is no doubt that every one must return to his original nationality, as is plainly stated in that letter, and no regard is due to silence for some years or to the purchase of some immovable property or to a want of an immediate demand. Every one that goes out of a limit, when he returns to that limit returns to the jurisdiction under which he was before.

The Indian Government removed Ali-bin-Juma from their protection on our claiming him after his having been for more than thirty years under it. When they were satisfied as to his birth-place and his original nationality, they caused him to return to his original nationality.

With regard to our notification about the war at Dhofar, we did not intend by it the Süris or such as are included in this doubtful class only, but referred to adhering to the rule for fear of a stranger meeting with an injury by his going to a party against whom there is a war, according to what is contained in your letter dated 15th July. As to your exercising your jurisdiction over the two dhows accused of importing slaves, it was like the jurisdiction exercised by the Indian Government over Ali-bin-Juma before our demand, for the apparent jurisdiction (had the effect) of screening them behind the flags before your inquiry and our inquiry took place. For all this past period jurisdiction was exercised over Ali-bin-Juma in the same manner as over all the other persons under the protection, and they (the two cases) are alike. We expect from the State (Government) a course of conduct towards us such as would be like that current among all. We hope you will do full justice as we expect it of you. You must do kindness to us, and we hope for a reply from you, and salaams.

*N.B. This man is a French-protected subject.