Coll 15/3(1) 'Egypt. Abolition of Capitulations in Montreux Conference and Convention 1937' [‎295r] (594/1220)

1<Y
HIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT
EGYPT AND SUDAN-
CONFIDENTIAL.
[J 2750/13/16]
Captain Wallace to Mr. Eden.
June 11, 1937.
Section 1.
Copy No.
(^Confidential.) London, June 11, 1937.
U I HAVE the honour to report herein on the proceedings of the conference
which has taken place at Montreux for the abolition of the Capitulations in
^2^ The agreements reached at the conference are embodied in—
(1) The convention; . . ...... ^ n ,
(2) The new “ Reglement d’Organisation judiciaire for the Mixed Courts
annexed to the convention; .
(3) A protocol interpreting one article in the convention and one article in
the Final Act; .
(4) An Egyptian declaration in the Final Act covering a number of dmerent
mibiects*
(5) Exchanges of letters relating to foreign educational, medical, chaiitable
and religious institutions in Egypt; and
(6) The Drafting Committee’s report, which comments on all the aoove-
mentioned instruments and contains an unusual number of importan
explanations and interpretations.
1 .—The Preparatory Work : “ Document
3. Before discussing the proceedings of this conference ^ ^
mention the preparatory work done by His Majesty s Govein a n£ Tlo-
Egyptian Government. In the first place, there is artic e Hiscus-
Egyptian Treaty of the 26th August, 1936, and its annex, sccon y,
sions held with the Egyptian Treaty delegation in London m August las , ^
finally, the discussions between officials of the two Governmen cJ ^ ^
January of this year, which resulted in the agreement geneia 1595/13/16
<£ Document A ” and printed in the Foreign Office under the number J o9o/15/io
of the 8th February, 1937. . T . rpa ii se d from the first
4 . Document A merits a chapter to itself. It wa. f ^ an
in the Foreign Office that it would be futile to come to a c w n} 10U t a very
intricate subject as the abolition of the Capitulations m g)P ^.^big that
thorough preparation of the ground; and that it would e ® . ^ vance a t any
as many as possible of the major questions should be se Ma - ty > g Government
rate as between Egypt and the United Kingdom. H - 3 • , Treaty of
could hardly fulfil the obligation assumed under artic e „ ^ 0 a pitula-
Alliance of supporting the Egyptian demand for the SU PPJ ^ reasonable
tions until they well certain that Egypt was prepared £ offer aj
minimum of guarantees in return. The complexity o o , number of
the variety of the material and moral interests a . s i ’ t n( u n cr S misrepre-
countries concerned would inevitably have led to mis referring points to
sentation and bad feeling; much time would have been , j t0 CO nsult His
His Majesty’s Government, who in turn 1 ?™ d f | p interests concerned as well.
Majesty’s Embassy in Cairo, and very like!} the tun ity to play the
Meanwhile, the Egyptians would have seized t PP . us r - g ^ that the
capitulatory Powers off against each other, wit rr; g M a i e sty’s Govern-
conference would have broken up in disorder. In is i ^ to bear the brunt
ment, owing to their special position in Egypt, wou c • rs i n Egypt even
of the resultant unpopularity which would have C0I ^_ rP or)onsible for the break-
though they themselves might not have been m an> ) B
9336 [154481