"وضع باسعيدو" [و‎‎٧] (٩٢/١٣)

should not have been difficult to produce; in so far
as those claims are based on right of conquest, (i.e.
presumably on the forcible occupation by Muscat in 1794
of Bunder Abbas and its dependencies) they appear
to be vitiated by the fact that the Imams of
Muscat used their victory merely to secure a
revenue lease and not a grant in sovereignty of
the areas affected. Finally in estimating the
importance of Dr. Jukes 1 s report, the comments
on it of Mr. Lorimer, who in matters such as this
speaks with authority, are relevant. He says
"As his (Dr. Jukes*5) investigations were
conducted chiefly under the auspices of Oman
officials, whose statements he would be inclined
to accept., his report dated 14th August 1821 can
hardly be regarded otherwise than as an ^ parte
document, but as such it is of interest^.
10. The general effect of the correspondence
which is set out m extonso in the accompanying
memorandum is to suggest that there was in 1819
some degree of genuine doubt as to where the
true title to Kishm lay, but that such doubts were
based on statements made by the Imam of Muscat
unsupported by any written document such as the
text of the firman granting the revenue lease.
On the facts available it is, I suggest, difficult
to feel that the Muscat claim has been established,
or that it has any solid foundation either in
history or in law.
Period 1B23 to 19S8.
11. It may be convenient briefly to refer to th
more important points bearing on the question of
title/