ملف رقم ٢١٨٢ لسنة ١٩١٣ الجزء ١٠ "الحدود الشمالية الغربية: البعثة الروسية المقترحة المختصة بعلم الحيوان" [ظ‎‎٢‎٥‎٦] (٦٦٤/١٠٤)

12
what its effect would be. A copy of the text signed on this occasion, and subsequently
ratified is printed at the end of the present memorandum, and the passages that differ
from the original draft (printed on pp. 9-10 above) are there done into italics.
Copies of this text, and of Sir P. Cox’s comments, were transmitted by letter
the India Office on the 21st January, 1916, and on the 8th February 1916, the Yicerof
telegraphed to the India Office (26095/16) that the Government of India proposed to
ratify the treaty in this form if the India Office saw no objection.
This proposal was approved by the India Office, with the concurrence of the
Foreio-n Office, in a telegram to the Viceroy, dated the 6 th March, 1916 (40708/15 and
67554/15). On the 10 th March, 1916, the Government of India wrote accordingly to
Sir P. Cox (71652/16), returning him the two original copies of the treaty signed by
himself and Bin Saud, and attaching parchment copies of* the English translation, with
instructions that the Arabic version should be written in on the margin of these, and
that they should then likewise be signed by Sir P. Cox and Bin baud.
These instructions appear to have been carried out, and the parchment copies
returned in due course to India. The treaty was eventually ratified by the Government
of India on the 18th July, 1916 (174647/16). n , , A
Shortly after this, Sherif Husein, with whom His Majesty s Government had
entered into relations in the latter part of 1915, wrote to Bin Saud asking for “ alliance '
and “ assistance ; ” and Bin Saud reported this to Sir P. Cox, recalling former aggressions
by the Sherif on his (Bin Sand’s) territories and tribes, and expressing mistrust of the
Sherd’s intentions. (See Memorandum on British Commitments to King Husein,
In view of this, Sir P. Cox submitted on the 8 th September, 1916, that Bm Saud
“ should be informed definitely that no present or future understandings between us
and the Sherif would prejudice our adherence to the terms of Articles 1 and 2 of our
treaty with him of the 26th December, 1915.” And he also suggested that the terms
of this treaty might be communicated to the Sherif (180581/16).
In regard to the first of these proposals, the India Office, with the concurrence of
the Foreign Office (183325/16), telegraphed to the Viceroy on the 19th September, 1916
(191509/16), informing him that “as the policy of encouraging an Arab^ State or
Confederation of States was not dead, anything repudiating it should be avoided, and
instructing him that “reference to the treaty should be confined to Article 1 , as we
could not admit that Article 2 was binding on us as against other Arabs.”
These instructions appear to have been carried out by Sir P. Cox m the form of
a verbal assurance to Bin Saud on the occasion of a duibai held at Koweit on the
21 st November, 1916, at which Bin Saud was decorated by him with the K.C.I.E. in
the presence of the Sheikhs of Koweit and Mohammerah (235981/16 and 236884/16).
The terms of the treaty of the 26th December, 1915, were also communicated to
King Husein in due course (see Memorandum on British Commitments to King Husein,
Section (vii)), in accordance with Sir P. Cox’s suggestion.
Relation of Commitments to Bin Saud to British Desiderata.
In considering the bearing of this treaty with Bin Saud upon British desiderata, it
has to be remembered that it was intentionally confined to immediate essentials ; that
important questions like the regulation of the arms traffic and the status of British
nationals in Bin Sand’s territory (brought up by Bin Saud himself), or, again,_ the
binding over of Bin Saud to keep the peace at sea in the Gulf (brought up by Sir P.
Cox) were postponed for later consideration by the consensus of the Government of
India and the India Office ; that article 7 provides for the conclusion of a detailed
treaty hereafter ; and that Bin Saud rather than His Majesty’s Government has pressed
that this should be carried out at an early date.
In examining the present treaty, therefore, little account need be taken of
omissions. Yet it may be pointed out that, even as the treaty stands, it contains all
the elements of a true trucial treaty. These elements are (a) the right and obligation
of His Majesty’s Government to arbitrate in case of disputes between the other party
to the treaty and his neighbours, who are bound by similar treaties to His Majesty’s
Government; (b) t ie renunciation by the other party of any relations with foreign
Powers except through His Majesty’s Government; and (c) a promise on the part of
the other party not to alienate territory to a foreign Power except with His Majesty’s
Government’s consent. .
Of these essential elements, (b) and (c) are explicitly embodied m articles 3 and 4
respectively ; while (a), though nowhere set out in terms, would appear to be covered
satisfactorily by article 2 and the last clause m article 4.