Papers of the War Cabinet's Eastern Committee [‎235r] (469/544)

LOUD CURZON : As there seems to be a good deal of doubt about it, perhaps
we should leave out the reference to commercial concessions, and leave it as follows :
“ Nor to seek political influence for themselves or their subjects.*’
L( )RD ROBERT CECIL: I think myself that that is as far as we can go.
LORD CURZON : Does Mr. Balfour agree ?
MR. BALFOUR: Yes.
LORD CURZON: (5) It would follow, and should be stipulated, that any
agents kept by the Powers in the Hejaz, shouM have no diplomatic status or functions,
but should be confined to purposes connected with the pilgrimage or trade. Great
Britain should rely on her general predominapce in Arabia and her existing relations
with King Hussein to maintain her influence.”
MR. BALFOUR : If I may say so, it is rather odd that, “ it would follow.” No. 5
begins “ It would follow,” and then says, “ but should be confined to purposes connected
with the pilgrimage or trade.”
LORD ROBERT CECIL: We could take all that-out.
MR. BALFOUR : You should have consistency.
LORD CURZON: The inconsistency arose because I put in the words “ or
trade.” In the Foreign Office draft it was confined to the pilgrimage. The incon
sistency there was mine and not theirs. I think we need not put in the last sentence
about Great Britain relying upon her general predominance in Arabia and her existing
relations with King Hussein to maintain her influence.
LORD ROBERT CECIL : It is rather like saying it is all humbug.
LORD CURZON : It was not intended in that sense. “(6) It is not worth
while to dispute about the title ‘ King of the Arabs ’ which has already been assumed
by King Hussein, but we should refuse to recognise any inferences which he may
draw from it as to his status, and the question of his suzerainty should be left to him
to settle with the other Arab chiefs. The attitude of Mesopotamia, and of the principal
chieftains of the interior and coast, appears to render it certain that his extreme claims
will not be accepted by them.” That really is a proposal to drop the controversy in
w’hich we were involve ! earlier in the day, as to finding a title harmless to us and
acceptable to him. When Colonel Lawrence came here, he told us that the particular
title which the King did assume, and which was used at his coronation, was not actually
“ King of the Arabs,” to which we had objected, but “ King of the Arab countries.”
There is a certain distinction between the two, but it really does not matter much to
us what countries the King chooses to regard as Arab, or that he should call himself
King over them. On the other hand, if we call him “ King of the Arabs,” it seems to
give him sovereignty over all the Arabs in all parts of the East.
LORD ROBERT CECIL : Ought we not to put it in, then ?
LORD CURZON : Do you know what the word is, Sir Hamilton Grant ? I am
not an Arabic scholar.
SIR HAMILTON GRANT: I am afraid I do not.
LORD CURZON : I know Colonel Lawrence told us it was “The King of the
Arab countries.” I propose that we do nothing whatever about it. II he chooses to
use that title, let him do so.
LORD ROBERT CECIL : We write to him as “ The King of the Hejaz,” and
the Post Office alters it to “ The King of the Arabs.”
LORD CURZON : There is another question : we have always called him * l His
Lordship.” I think the word is “ Siyador.” We have been driven by the example
of the French to call his son “ Royal Highness.”
LORD ROBERT CECIL : And to refer to the King as “ His Majesty.”
LORD CURZON : He does become “His Majesty.”
LORD ROBERT CECIL : That is part of what the French did.
LORD CURZON : Does our Government call him “ His Majesty ” ?
1365—43]
F