Papers of the Interdepartmental Conference on Middle Eastern Affairs [‎133r] (265/290)

11
Mr. Montagu assented, and s dd that he would prefer to work on
the analogy of the Anglo-Persian Agreement. Replying . to a
question b r ihe Chairman, he said-he supposed any changes in the
constitution would have to come before the League of Nations in
the yearly report which was provided for in the covenant.
(At this point Mr. Montagu left the Conference.)
Sir Arthur Hirtzel said that he had had something to do with
the drawing up of the original mandate. Lord Robert Cecil was the
originator of the idea of an identical mandate tor Syria and ^Mesopo
tamia, and it was on his draft that Colonel House s proposals were
bused, though this was not generally known. It had been thought
that our liberality in Mesopotamia would force the hands of the
French in Syria. The whole question had been carefully discussed
with Commander Hogarth, Colonel Lawrence, Miss Bell, and all <>i
the available experts, and Colonel M' ilson had concurred in the
original draft. Ihe point of view of those vn ho were responsible
for Mesopotamia had heen that it w 7 ould be a mistake to allow 7
Syrian considerations to affect the terms of the Mesopotamian
mandate. The position of the tw r o countries w r as bv no means
identical, and a measure of independence that might safely he
accorded to Syria w 7 ould be impossible in Mesopotamia, in view of
the backward state of the country.
The Chairman said that the French draft of the mandate with
the alternative British proposal would be circulated to the
Conference with a view to an early meeting to discuss the subject.
Meanwhile some reply must be sent to the series of Bagdad
telegrams. Another point to be borne in mind w 7 as the fact that
Sir TPercy Cox was to be responsible for Mesopotamia under the
mandate. In reply to the telegram which had been despatched to
him as a result of the 30th meeting of the Conference, in which he
had been told that Mesopotamia appeared to be developing along
stiff* Anglo-Indian lines, he had replied that so far as he knew this
was not the case, and appeared to be of opinion that no great change
was necessary in the administrative measures introduced there.
Sir John Tilley remarked that even Colonel Wilson had
receded a certain amount from his original position, but he did
not think it likely that Sir Percy Cox would have moved any further
than Colonel Wilson.
Mr. Garbett pointed out that Sir Percy Cox had emphasised the
necessity for visiting Mesopotamia and considering the question on
the spot.
The Chairman said that Sir Percy Cox would not be free
to take up his post in Mesopotamia for some time. Meanwhile he
took it that Colonel Wilson must be prevented from publishing his
draft constitution. He should be told that the form of the Mesopo
tamian mandate and the future relations between the mandatory
and the people of the country w 7 ere now being considered: that
the mandate must be laid before the League of Nations tor their
approval: and that no constitution could be framed until this
had been done. This brought up the'question of the announcement
which had been telegraphed to Bagdad on the 4th May. He
asked whether the India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. proposed that this should now be
dropped.
Sir Arthur Hirtzel replied tnet a good deal of the ground had
been covered by the local comm iinque, and that Colonel Wilson
strongly objected to the idea of anv tuither consultation with the
people of the country. He considered that the announcement in its
present form should be dropped.
Mr. Shuckburgh suggested that the illiberality of the proposals
of Colonel Wilson and the Bagdad Committee had been somewhat