File 87/1926 Pt 2 'Arabia: Bin Saud: Relations with H.M.G. Revision of Treaty.' [‎207r] (101/840)

intolerance exhibited by the Wahebis during hte recent
pilgrimage. His Majesty’s Government have no desire
to depart from their declared policy of non-interference
in religious matters; and they have decided not to
adopt a suggestion made by the Government of India that
the nrticle should be amplified by inserting a provision
to secure that British pilgrims should er Moy freedom
of religious observance and rites. At the same time,
they f eel that, in deference to Indian opinion, it is
important that the treaty should include some provision
on the lines of the draft article, even though it m«y
seai re little more than is secured by the ordinary
international sanctions.
R. Article r repeats the provision of Article 6
of the treaty of 191^ save that no reference is made
to the ouestion of determining the limits of the
territories mentioned. His Majesty's Government hove
given careful consideration to the question^ether
Ibn 3aud should be invited to agree to refrain from
aggression on the rulers of the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. coast.
It appeared to them doubtful whether, in practice,
such an engagement would effectively deter Ibn Baud if
he were determined to alsorb some petty neighbouring
Arab State. Moreover, His Majesty’s Government did not
wish to commit themselves to recognise the extent of
Ibn Seud’s domains or to protect territories outside
these domains, but would h*ve preferred to remain free
to take what action they considered necessary in each
particular case, having regard to the precise nature of
their relations with the principality concerned and to
other relevant circumstances. As you will observe,
however, from the enclosed copy of a despatch addressed
to