تقرير البعثة الخاصة إلى مصر بقيادة اللورد ميلنر، وأوراق ذات صلة [ظ‎‎١‎٩‎٠] (٤٧٣/٣٨٣)

32
other to watch the administration of the laws as affecting foreigners. The functions
of these officials are only described in general terms in the memorandum, and the
scope of their authority will have to be very carefully defined in drafting the Treaty.
Here again we had to content ourselves with agreement in principle and to leave
details to be settled in future negotiations.
The same applies to the clause (IV, § 5) which gives the British representative in
Egypt the right, in certain cases, to prevent the application of Egyptian laws to
foreigners. This proposal was much discussed. The delegates were very anxious
to avoid this right being converted into a general veto on Egyptian legislation. We,
on our side, did not desire this. But the exact limits of the right were difficult to
agree upon, and for this reason alternative solutions are suggested in the memorandum,
The subject, indeed, is extremely complicated. But, stripped of technicalities, what
it all comes to is this. The Egyptian Government is hampered at every turn by its
inability to make laws applicable to the subjects of foreign Powers which have
capitulatory rights in Egypt without the consent of those Powers, though that
consent may in some cases be given on their behalf by the General Assembly of the
Mixed Tribunals. As already explained, it has alwavs been the aim of British
policy, and it is part of the scheme contemplated in tKie memorandum, greatly to
diminish the restrictions thus imposed on the legislative authority of the Egyptian
Government. But it would be practically impossible, and it is not proposed, to
remove these restrictions altogether. In so far as they are maintained, somebody
must have the right to exercise them. In the scheme embodied in the memorandum
it is contemplated that that right, intended as it is to safeguard the legitimate
interests of all foreigners, should be conferred by Egypt on a single Power—Great
Britain.
D .—The Sudan.
The scheme embodied in the memorandum deals only with Egypt. It has no
application to the Sudan, a country entirely distinct from Egypt in its character
and constitution, the status of which is not, like that of Egypt, still indeterminate,
but has been clearly defined by the Anglo-Egyptian Convention of the 19th January,
1899* For that reason the subject of the Sudan was deliberately excluded from all our
discussions with the delegates. This was all along clearly understood by them, but,
in order to prevent any misunderstanding in Egypt of the scope of our discussions,
Lord Milner, when transmitting the memorandum to Adli Pasha, also handed him
the following letter :—
“ My dear Pasha, August 18, 1920.
“ Referring to our conversation of yesterday, I should like once more to repeat
that no part of the memorandum which I am now sending you is intended to have
any application to the Sudan. This is, I think, evident on the face of the document, . i
but, to avoid any possibility of future misunderstanding, it seems desirable to place
on record the view of the Mission that the subject of the Sudan, which has never been
discussed between us and Zaghlul Pasha and his friends, lies quite outside the scope
of the proposed agreement with regard to Egypt. There is a wide difference of ±
conditions between the two countries, and in our opinion they must be dealt with on
different lines.
“ The Sudan has made great progress under its existing administration, which
is based on the provisions of the Convention of 1899, and no change in the political
status of Egypt should be allowed to disturb the further development of the Sudan
on a system which has been productive of such good results.
“"On the other hand, we fully realise the vital interest of Egypt in the supply of
water reaching her through the Sudan, and we intend to make proposals calculated
*This Convention, which was signed by the Egyptian Minister for Foreign Affairs and Lord
Cromer, laid it down that Great Britain was “ by right of conquest ’’ entitled “ to share in the settle
ment and future working and development ” of the Sudan. By the acceptance of this principle any
claim of Turkey to suzerainty over the Sudan was disallowed, and that country was definitely excluded
from the area subject to the regime of the Capitulations. It was accordingly provided in the Convention
that the jurisdiction of the Mixed Tribunals should “ not extend to or be recognised in any part of
the Sudan,” and that no foreign consuls should reside in the country without the consent of the
British Government. The supreme military and civil power was to be vested in the person of a
“ Governor-General,” who would be appointed on the recommendation of the British Government by
a decree of the Khedive of Egypt, and whose proclamations would have the force of law.