Coll 6/19 'Arabia: (Saudi Arabia) Hejaz-Nejd Annual Report.' [‎31v] (63/540)

34
sheikhs would think either that we were afraid of Ibn Baud or that we were not
scrupulous in observing our undertakings, while the cession would have no serious
effect on the attitude of Ibn Baud in the matter of Palestine. Nor would it
determine his policy in a great emergency, whereas it was precisely in case of an
emergency that our prestige in the Gult would be a matter of great importance.
131. When His Majesty’s Minister was at Riyadh in November he was
asked by Fuad Bey, who again referred to the great importance of this question
in the eyes of Ibn Baud, whether he could give a reply to the suggestion for a
settlement which Fuad Bey had made in the spring. In the circumstances,
Sir R. Bullard could not give an encouraging reply.
Hejaz Railway.
132. Early in January the Saudi Government addressed identic notes to the
British and French Legations in Jedda, reminding them that nearly two years
had passed since they had communicated with the British and French Govern
ments regarding the Haifa Conference and the repair of the railway
(paragraph 70 of 1936), and urging that preliminary discussions on the subject
should take place. They suggested, as what they called a practical way of getting
round the financial difficulty, that the line should be treated as a unit tor the
purpose of management and exploitation, as in the case of the International
Sleeping-Car Company; in that way it would be easy to obtain money by means
of a loan, the issue of shares, subscriptions, or some other method to be agreed
upon.
133. In transmitting this communication to the Foreign Office His Majesty’s
Minister pointed out that a year before (paragraph 121 of 1937) he had reported
adversely on the suggestion that His Majesty’s Government might perhaps be
justified on political grounds in meeting the cost of restoring the damaged portions
of the Hejaz Railway, but that since then the situation had changed in two
respects : (1) the Saudi Government no longer proposed to have anything to do
with the management of the line or with its finances; and (2) the political situation
demanded reconsideration. During the past year, said Sir R. Bullard, we had
been unable to give any satisfaction about Palestine to Ibn Baud, who had found
himself in a position of increasing difficulty. Moreover, we had been very
discouraging on another question about which he felt very strongly, viz., the
eastern frontier. Again, in the matter of arms and aviation the help we had been
able to give or promise compared unfavourably with that given or offered by
the Italians. His Majesty’s Government might be well advised to consider
whether it would not be worth while to contribute the whole or part of the cost
of restoring the damaged part of the line as a political gesture to Ibn Baud
without reference to its reception in the Moslem world.
134. Shortly afterwards the Ministry for Foreign Affairs informed His
Majesty’s Minister that the Syrian Minister of Finance had discussed the Hejaz
Railway while on the pilgrimage and promised to urge those concerned to
authorise a contribution of £30,000 sterling from Syrian revenues towards the
reconstruction of the damaged portion, and that Ibn Baud had promised to
contribute a similar amount. Sir R. Bullard reported this information to the
Foreign Office, saying that if we could agree to reopen discussion it would make
a good impression, and that the fact that Syria and Saudi Arabia proposed
to contribute towards the cost of repair both made it more difficult for us to
refuse and at the same time reduced the financial call upon us. It may be stated
here that although there existed for some time doubts whether Syria would, in fact,
contribute £30,000 or, indeed, anything, His Majesty’s Minister was officially
informed in October that the Syrian Government had paid into a bank the
sum of £10,000 as the first third of their promised contribution.
135. In June the Minister for Foreign Affairs addressed a note to His
Majesty’s Minister reporting a unanimous decision by the Syrian Chamber to
open the promised credit for the repair of the Hejaz Railway, and asking two
questions : were the British Government prepared to pay any monetary compensa
tion as a contribution for the repair of the line, regard being had to the fact that
the destruction was effected by the Allies during the Great War and in their
military interests? and (2) did His Majesty’s Government agree to the holding