File 4931/1916 'Arabia [Nejd]: Bin Saud's subsidy. Payment of subsidy authorised on 1 Jan. 1917. Question of incidence. Payments made without Treasury authority' [‎85v] (179/418)

On the 15th November, 19 L 6 , Lord Bertie telegraphed that the French Govern'
ment had instructed Colonel Bremond not to address the Sherif as “ His Majesty.” 38
On the 27th November, 1916, the French Government suggested to His Majesty’s
Government, through their Ambassador in London, that Sherif Husein’s title should
be “Malik al Haramein ” (King of the two Holy Cities) and ids style SiyadiyL .
(“ Seigneurie,” or “ Lordship ”). 39
On the 4th December, 1916, Sir B. Wingate telegraphed (No. 53) that, in the reply
from His Majesty’s Government to the Sherif, which by this time had been despatched, ^
he had styled him “ Sahib al Siyada.” But he criticised the proposed title of “ Malik
al Haramein ” on account of its possible religious connotation . 40 It was also objected to
on the same grounds by Sir H. McMahon and by the India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. , 41 and both proposed
independently the title “ King of the Hejaz,” which had been Sir H. McMahon’s
original suggestion.
A telegram was accordingly sent to Sir R. Wingate instructing him to address the
Sherif as “His Lordship ” (Siyada) “the King (Malik) of Hejaz,” and this style and title
have been adhered to since . 42 At the same time Colonel Wilson was instructed, at the
suggestion of the India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. , to explain to the Sherif that the limitation of the title
did not affect the Agreement between His Majesty’s Government and him . 43
The Sherif did not question His Majesty’s Government’s decision (.presumably
because he knew himself to have been in the wrong in acting without their knowledge),
but it is evident that he considers that the wider title is properly his.
For example, in January, 1917, he seems to have composed a second message to the
people of Irak in which he signed himself “ King of the Arab country and Sherif and
Amir of Mecca.” 44 Again, when he was asked by Commander Hogarth in January,
1918, 45 to compose a message for the Arabs of Jerusalem, he proposed to sign it as “ King
of the Arabs ” or “ of the Arab nation ” ; and even when he abandoned this signature,
he drafted the message in terms which implied this title so patently that he
had to be prevailed upon to draft it again.
“ It is obvious,” Commander Hogarth wrote, in his report to Sir R. Wingate
on this mission, “that the King regards Arab unity as synonornous with his
own kingship, and as a vain phrase unless so regarded. . . C . 7 : b '
“ While the King accepted without demur His Majesty’s Government’s
declaration on this matter, as conveyed in Foreign Office telegram No. 6 of the
6 th November, 1916, to yourself, he left me in little doubt that he secretly regards
this as a point to be reconsidered after the Peace, in spite of my assurance that it
was to be a definitive arrangement. He compared ourselves and himself (in his
habitual homely way) to two persons about to inhabit one house but not
agreed -which should take which floor or rooms. Often in the course of our
conversations he spoke with a smile of accounts which he would settle after
the war, pending which settlement he would press nothing. I doubt if he has any
fixed plan or foresees his way ; but I have no doubt that in his own mind
he abates none of his original demands on behalf of the Arabs, or in the fulness of
time, of himself.”
llelation of Commitments under (vi.) to British Desiderata.
His^ Majesty’s Government avoided according Sherif Husein a title incompatible
with their commitments to other independent Arab rulers, while the title which they
have recognised does not conflict with the wider claims of the Sherif to which they
consented in the previous negotiations.
But though His Majesty’s Government’s position on this question may be satis
factory An East India Company trading post. jan paper, it is far from being so in fact. the harm done by the Sherifs
coup d Etat of the 29th October, 1916, has never been repaired. The other independent
Arab mlers have not been inwardly reassured by our restriction of the Sherif s title to
the Hejaz; while he, on his part, has only accepted this restriction as provisional.
The problem has been postponed, not solved.
38 230285/16. 39 240161/16.
40 214179/16. Ihere does not appear to be any copy in the Foreign Office of the final text of this note
as drafted at Khartoum on the instructions of the Foreign Office (see 238323/16).
41 24684(>/16. 43 251737/16 (memorandum, dated December 11, 1916, by Sir R. Graham).
^ 250438/16 and 253937/16. n 33292/17. 45 25577/18.