'File 35/86 I A 32 Muscat Commercial Treaty, 1891: revision of 1905' [‎137r] (277/480)

>
■
, A
V
/I
oai I
(
ill
n
/
/"
Please see my official letter of todajs's at
u.^t 0 , is : o 6o0 > oit the subject of the SultaTi of Muscat *3 desire
tonbe referred to as w His Majesty « in the new commercial Treatj
I should like to explain to you my reasons for not referring
therein to Foreign department Letter Ho 1506 E«A . dated 17th Aug
-ust 1911 $ and to the view expressed in para 4 of thatletter f
under the head of Article 8 .
You will note that my letter of 25th June 1911 , to which the
above was a reply , was a demi-official one , and that the letter
from Knox to ne , to which it gave cover , was also demi-official :
ana that in forwarding it with its enclosure , X made it plain
that X had not yet ;iad time to scrutinise the latter , and that
i meanwhile considered prima facie , that the matter was not at '—j
a stage at which Government could satisfactorily deal with it .
Consequently X did not suppose or expect that the papers would te
be taken and coramantednon officially without some further exchan
-ge of comnunications .
A close examination of Knox's notes , which disclosed a rood
many flaws , confirmed me in this view as you will see from my
demi-official telegram of S th July 1911 ,
When at Calcutta last November , in the course of discussingnsome
iifghan question with Clarke , the case of the Sultan occurred to mei!
me and X asked Clarke incidentally whether it had escapednhis nctic
notice , when drafting this letter { No 1506 E.A.) that the Sul-
-tan had been referred to as " His Majesty " in our Order in C-nm
-clX and in the United States Xreaty with Muscat . "e was surpri-
-sed tonlearn it and said thatbthe fact had been overlooked and
that thquestion would have to be gone into again •