ملف ١٩٢٦/٣٩٣٩ الجزء ٥ "تنقيح معاهدات أيتشيسون: بلاد فارس، وسيستان، وكرمان وبلوشستان الفارسية" [و‎‎٢‎٧‎٣] (٥٥٨/٥٣٩)

to learn the views of Sir A. Chamberlain on this point. But
in the meantime, and seeing that the agreement has been kept
secret hitherto, it does not seem necessary to supply Ibn
Baud with a copy, and it is suggested that instead he should
be informed that in 1907 His hajesty's Government gave the
Sheikh an assurance as stated in Clause 9 of the agreement.
He should also be informed of the undertaking given by His
Majesty's Government as described in the first sentence of
paragraph 4 of your letter. Lastly, certain special
assurances were ^iven to the Sheikh on the 3rd November,
1914 (Foreign Office reference 64214/14, No. 12), of the
third of which it seems desirable that Ibn Baud should be
informed, namely that "Koweit shall be recognised as an
independent principality under British protection .
The Treaty concluded with the Sheikh of Katr in
1916 is still in force, and a copy of it should, in Loro.
Birkenhead's opinion, he communicated to Ibn Saud. It
appears hardly necessary, however - and possibly
undesirable, in view of the comparison that Ibn Saad might
draw between the attitude adopted towards slavery in Katr
and Sir Gilbert Clayton's attitude in the recent
negotiations - to communicate to Ibn Saud the letter oi
the 3rd November, 1916, to the Sheika of Kc.^r.
‘ It is suggested that Ibn Saud should also be
supplied with copies of all existing agreements with the
Sultan of ’'uscat, which might include, m addition -o
published in Aitchison's Treaties, the latest agreement
the renewal of the Kuscat Commercial Treaty.
His Lordship agrees that, in the circumstances
stated in paragraph 9 of your letter, there is no^
communicate to Ibn Saud a copy of the agreement of
February 19th, 1915, with the Sheikh of havia.
With regard to the two treaties of 1915 and
with the Idrisi, Lord Birkenhead feels that, as the
Government of India no longer share the control of