'Files 61/12 and 61/16 (D 80) Treaty between Bin Saud and H. M. Govt' [‎122r] (250/408)

e felt it necessary to reject this provision. The question of the interpretation of
Shar'ia law is one over which, since the advent of Wahabi rule in the Hejaz, the
minds of the Moslem world have been considerably exercised. The Wahabi
interpretation, which is the only one that Ibn Sa'ud is disposed or, indeed, able to
apply, has by no means been generally accepted, even in the orthodox sections of
Islam; while in some quarters, notably in certain parts of India and of Iraq, it is
hotly denounced. It seemed to us that the acceptance by Uis Majesty's Government
oi the proposed qualification, which at first sight may appear a proper and harmless
one, might he represented as an attempt to uphold Wahabi as against non-Wahabi
tenets. 1 he objections are manifest, and we explained them to Ibn Sa'ud in the
clearest terms, JI is third and last draft of the treaty did, it is true, contain that
qualification; but he gave us to understand later on in our conversations that he
would be prepared to omit it it agreement on the outstanding points were to be
reached.
A second modification, which seemed to us acceptable, was proposed by Ibn Sa'ud,
to the effect that the facilities and protection offered to British pilgrims would be
"to the same extent as would be offered to all other pilgrims. His object in
inserting this modification was, while retaining most-favoured-nation principles, to
remove all implication of preferential treatment.
9. A rticle 4.— r I here was no difference of opinion on the principle of this article,
ol which the purport is to consecrate the existing practice relating to the belongings
of pilgrims who die in the Hejaz. Ibn Sa nd declared that he was in agreement
with that principle, but that he preferred to modify the wording of our text in
such a way as to make it conform still more explicitly with current procedure.
Moreover, he added a qualification to the effect that the provisions of this article
would apply only in the case of those pilgrims who have no legal trustee in the Hejaz
at the time of their death. We were satisfied that this stipulation is rendered
necessary by the requirements of Moslem religious procedure, and we saw no reason
for opposing it.
10. Article 5.—The contents of this article proved one of the main obstacles
to the conclusion of a treaty. We are of opinion that the difficulty lay mainly in
the fact that the conception of " national status '' was one with which neither Ibn
Sa'ud nor his advisers had had any previous acquaintance. Difficulties of that nature
are not easily surmountable. We endeavoured to the best of our ability to explain
to them the true connotation of the term, and to persuade them that the reciprocal
recognition contained in this article was a matter of established usage which the
recent change of regime in the Hejaz rendered necessary, and, in the interests of the
Hejaz itselt', particularly desirable. Ibn Sa'ud's objections were based on the fear
that this article might be interpreted as a veiled reassertion of the validity of the
Capitulations. Of this fear we were not successful in disabusing him. He declared
that he could not consent to the inclusion of this article in the treaty unless a clause
were added, stipulating that the subjects of either State would, while residing in the
territories of the other State, be subject to local laws and tribunals. Alternatively,
he proposed, if we could not see our way to accepting his stipulation, that the article
be entirely deleted.
It was clearly beyond our powers to assent to the former alternative which
seemed to us equivalent to the surrender of the juridical privileges contained in the
Capitulations. Although we feel that the abolition of British capitulatory rights
in Ibn Sa'ud's dominions is a matter which we wish to commend to the consideration
of His Majesty's Government, yet our only course was to resist any attempt on Ibn
Sa'ud's part in that direction. With regard to his second alternative, we refrained
from expressing a final opinion so long as several other questions remained unsettled
11. Article 6.—From the outset, Ibn Sa'ud declared his readiness to include
in the treaty an undertaking in the sense of this article, but he asked for a modifica
tion of the wording proposed by us. He was reluctant to accept the phrase "to
refrain from all aggression or interference on the general grounds that it was not
compatible with his dignity as an independent ruler, and, more particularly, because
the term " interference " seemed to him to be capable of too wide an interpretation.
He suggested the alternative wording which figures in article 6 of his second
draft (Annex 3),* and in which he undertakes "to maintain relations of friend
ship and concord " with the Chiefs in question. To this text we brought a
Not printed.
[15690] B 2