Papers of the War Cabinet's Eastern Committee [‎213r] (425/544)

21
MR. MONTAGU: You say you cannot encourage King Hussein to call him
self the King of th)e Arab countries because of the difficulty of Mesopotamia.
Would it not be equally true to say you cannot encourage him to do it because of
the existence of these other chiefs in Arabia itself?
LORD CURZON: Yes, I think so. I said I would revert to the question of his
title, but I do not think the title matters very much, to tell the truth. As he has
been called the “King of the Arab countries” for two or three years, I should
let him go on calling himself by that title, and I would leave him to establish his
sovereignty if he could.
LORD ROBERT CECIL: The French have rather rushed us in one way, they
have made him a regular King and have given Feisal the title of Royal Highness.
That was done by the French, and we could not be behind them while they did it.
I should have thought, unless he pushes us very hard, it would be better to leave it.
It is nothing to do with the Peace Conference, at any rate. It is only a question
of what we choose to say about it. As to subsidies, I should like to know whether,
if Feisal gets to Damascus, he cannot subsidise his father?
LORD CURZON: I was treating Hussein apart from his sons. I was assum
ing that Feisal, if he goes to Damascus, will look after himself. To a large extent
he is independent of his father, and will be the head of a separate State.
LORD ROBERT CECIL: As Sir Louis Mallet points out to me, it is under
stood that the King is to get something out of it—a subsidy from Damascus.
LORD CURZON: Where is that to be found?
LORD ROBERT CECIL: On page 8 of this Paper.
SIR LOUIS MALLET: It is a conversation of Colonel Lawrence’s with King
Hussein.
LORD CURZON: It is King Hussein’s expectations, that is all.
MR. SHUCKBURGH: It was stipulated in regard to Mesopotamia.
LORD CURZON: Yes, by Hussein; but we never committed ourselves about it.
LORD ROBERT CECIL: He always had a subsidy from the Turks. The
Hejaz is not a self-supporting place. Somebody has to subsidise him.
LORD CURZON: Have you any observations to make on the general state
ment of the case, Lord Robert?
LORD ROBERT CECIL: No.
LORD CURZON: Did I state what is, on the whole, the Foreign Office view?
LORD ROBERT CECIL: Of course, there is the question about the title, as
to which, as you say, there is a difference of opinion as to what we ought to do.
There is the question of his foreign relations, too. I agree myself that the less
we control his foreign relations the better. On the other hand, it is plain we must
take security that nobody else dbes control him or have anything to do with that
except for the purpose of pilgrims.
LORD CURZON: That is 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. point of view, is it not?
MR^ MONTAGU: Yes. We are anxious to avoid controlling his foreign
relations.
SIR LOUIS MALLET: There was no strong view expressed at the Committee
about that. It was left open.
LORD CURZON- Will you give me the views of the two Offices on another
point? Do you contemplate a treaty to be concluded with Hussein after the war?
LORD ROBERT CECIL: Some kind of treaty, if we can get rid of the sub
sidy, of course. I think we shall have to have a treaty or some kind of agreement
with him that he is not going to let anybody else run him.
LORD CURZON: Do you mean a treaty only with him, which is shown to the
other Powers, or an agreement come to in consultation with them?
[365—39] H
2t\