"ملف 82/27 (VI (F 87 نفط قطر" [و‎‎١‎١‎٥] (٤٥٤/٢٤٤)

11
{
,
3. ^
Article 1B » Sub-paragraph 2.' This was discussed
in detail. Mr. Mylles stated that he had informed the Sheikh
that the matter was one for H/;:.;. G. , into which the Company
could not enter; that the Sheikh had taken the line that it
had better go in the agreement .and that if objected
they could then take it up with him (the Sheikh). The
Company were strongly opposed to the acceptance of any such "
provision and were given to understand that it v/as obj ectionabk ;
also from the point of view of H.M.G. who certainly could not
agree to it. It was agreed that Mr. Mylles should inform
the sheikh that the matter had been referred to Government,
but that so far as the concession was concerned the Company
could not accept a provision on these lines. The India
Office representatives intimated that the question of cession
of Jurisdiction by the Sheikh and a consequent Order in Council
would be taken up, the main alternative courses of procedure
being;
(a) that the issue should be faced with the Sheikh as a
condition of the grant of approval by H .M .G.;
(b) that it should be taken up at once prior to
signature of the concession, the Sheikh being informed
that H .M .G. could not approve the insertion of such
a condition in any concession. Mr. Mylles remarked
that the Shara Law andtho penalties under it were
strictly enforced in Qatar and that the point was
therefore one of importance.
3. The Company stated that if they failed to reach
agreement with the Sheikh within the time of the present
option they proposed to withdraw Mr. Mylles a-nd make no
application for a further option. They thought on the whole
that the Sheikh and his son (who was playing an increasingly
important part) were not predisposed to the Company and that
they thought that they could expect greater support from
H .M .G. with a British concessionnaire. But the Sheiich's
financial demands were extravagant. They had no information
as/