'File 35/86 I A 32 Muscat Commercial Treaty, 1891: revision of 1905' [‎142r] (287/480)

'sif'y
(Bj AGAIUST
(T) "His Ulghneao" aa'id not "His 1 ajeety* is
used in the existing Inglioh and French TTeatioo#
(ii). "til® iiighnaoo** Ib used in tho Anglo-1 rench
deolamtion of 1668#
(iii). Hojection of the 8ultan 1 o requaot for tme
of etihancod title my adversely affect hi s attitude
in regard to tiie alterations doeired b r y ub in the
new Treaty.
4* I'ron tiie wider ^— point of view of international
law or comity, I an not in a position to offer an opinion
of any weight, but X venture to make the following oboer-
vationo for what they are worth.
'Veboter'o dictionary defines:
^SUMAti^ao ''a ruler or bovo reign of a uhamisadan State*and
,, rAJii/STY tt as "the dignity and authority of aovarelgn power?
.usually applied to the rank and dignity of Bovoreigne
Sir Saiyld Faisal has been accorded by us and othere the
title of tt Sultan", E^nd by the Declaration of 186S and
elsewhere we recognize him as a sovereign, and ae such
he is in direct and reciprocal Treaty relations with
other Powers# Froia his point of view therefore he seems
theoretically entitled to accept as of right from his own
subject^ the address "Kajooty" and to bo logically warrant
ed in asking for that predicate from other novemmonts.
On the other hand, it seems open to Foreign States to accord
or withhold the title, according to their individual
appreciation of the particular Ruler's justification
for expecting it.
5. Supposing that rir Saiyld i-'aisal were to persevere
In his request it would seem that the reasons ere should
give him for rejecting it (having regard to the consi-
: I > :
derations sot forth in paragraph 5 (1) and (ii) mipra)
ifi
must be based minly on the ground that the intomation-
al dignity of himself or hlo Ctate did not in our opinion
call for it. rrom this point of view trie Sultan would
appear