File 488/1920 Pt 2 ‘Arabia:- Bin Saud & H.M. Govt. H.M. Govt’s policy towards Bin Saud. Bin Saud’s Subsidy. Negotiations with Bin Saud’s envoy 1923.’ [‎235r] (303/400)

2-3.V"
Minute Paper. Department.
MINUTE .
1) As rep:^rds sanction for the payment of
Ibn Saui’s subsidy before ani after Treasury letter
of 20th April 13220/20 (F.3122) and proposals of
our letter P.3122 of 29th April, we still await
Treasury reply. But their letter S.1751 of
August 7th (P.6021) sanctions a fri ft of £5,000
without prejudice to their -iecision as to the
subsidy as conveyed in their letter of April 20th.
2) There is the further question of incidence
of cost, vide P.3334 of 12th July letter to Foreign
i
Office and to Treasury sending copy of letter
to Foreign Office - a ’fuller* explanation of
Secretary of State's views as regards accepting the
charge against Mesopotamian revenues.
It is submitted that the clearing up of these
two points is essential before Treasurycan be
persuaded to consider Sir P. Cox's present proposal
of a subsi'fy of £100,000 annually. It seems to have
been contemplated that these subsidies might suitably
cease when the Peace Treaty was’signed*(or 'ratified'
?) or at least that the whole matter would be
reviewed by the Middle East Committee, vide p.3122
of 29th April to Foreign Office, last paragraph.
» ,
We should in any case send a reminder to
Treasury of our P.3334 of July 12th (in which by
the way we refer to their letters of 20th April
under the number of our letter P.3334 and insert
no date after "dated** in last paragraph).
Meanwhile we may ask Sir P.Cox about
incidence of cost?
The