§ LORD REAYMy Lords, when I put my notice on the Paper to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he is able to give any information with regard to the difficulties which have arisen from recent acts of the Seyid of Oman, I was not, of course, aware that a statement was to be made yesterday in another place. I beg, therefore, to ask the noble Earl whether he can give the House any additional information to that which was given yesterday.
*THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of ONSLOW)My Lords, I have very little to add to the statement which was made by the Secretary of State in the House of Commons yesterday, because we have received very little additional information since then, but I have no reason to suppose that the telegrams which appear in the papers this morning are otherwise than correct. The noble Lord is probably aware that the Sultan of Muscat has been under obligations to the Indian Government for a considerable number of years. The Government of India undertook to pay the Sultan the subsidy of 40,000 crowns a year, which had been paid to his predecessor, on condition that he was faithful to the treaty engagements he had entered into, and manifested his friendship towards the British Government. The French and British Governments engaged reciprocally in 1862 to respect the independence of the Sultan of Muscat, and Her Majesty's Government have never departed from that agreement. They obtained, in 1891, an engagement from the Sultan, which placed him under a special obligation as to the assignment and alienation of his territory; and, notwithstanding his obligation, the Sultan lately admitted that he proposed to cede to the French Government a port called Bunder Jisseh, which is five miles southeast of Muscat, a harbour capable of being made a strong naval port, but where at present there are no coolies, or facilities for storing or moving coal. On hearing of this by accident, for the transaction had been concealed from him, the British Agent was directed to protest against the execution of an agreement which would have been contrary to treaty. At the same time the Sultan's attention was drawn to other claims which the Government of India had upon him, and his Highness, after some delay, has complied with all demands, which included one that the Sultan should cease from levying duties upon British subjects at a different rate to those imposed on his own subjects. This was felt to be a matter of some importance by the Government of India, inasmuch as nearly all the trade of Muscat is carried on by subjects of the Queen from India. It was felt to be of the greatest importance that the duties imposed on imported goods into Muscat should not be higher for the subjects of the Queen than they 429 are for the subjects of the Sultan of Muscat. It has been said that the British Government has already got a coaling station at Muscat, but that is not in accordance with facts. What has happened is this. More than 20 years ago the Sultan of Muscat gave permission within his own capital, the town of Muscat, that certain coal-sheds should be made use of for the purpose of coaling Her Majesty's ships and mercantile vessels, but it is not correct to say that we have any coaling station, in the proper sense of the term, on the Oman coast, either at Muscat or anywhere else. That is the only explanation I can give the noble Lord of the transactions which have taken place there, but I am not in a position to say that what has appeared in the public newspapers is otherwise than substantially accurate.