Coll 15/3(1) 'Egypt. Abolition of Capitulations in Montreux Conference and Convention 1937' [‎307r] (618/1220)

25
iurisdiction reserved in article 4 of the convention supplementary to the Treaty
of Alliance, i.e., over civilian officials attached to the British forces in Egypt, anil
the Navy and Army and Air Force Institutes, and the wives and infant children
of these persons or of members of the British forces in Egypt, and that this
ricdit was one of those safeguarded by this exchange of letters.
(c) The Length of the Transitional Regime. The Replacement of Foreign Judges
in the Mixed Tribunals of First Instance. Position of Sujets and Proteges
of the Capitulatory Powers before the Mixed Courts. French Demands for
Permanent Assurances and FjStablishment Clauses.
115. These four separate points were so closely linked in the negotiations
that it is necessary to treat them together. In Document A a period of twelve
years is accepted for the transitional regime, and the period is not subdivided,
Egyptian replacements in the courts of first instance being accepted as from the
beginning of the period.
116. As regards the sujets and proteges, Document A contains an Egyptian
proposal that these classes of nationals should not be able to claim the jurisdiction
of the Mixed Courts. The question is confusing because of the differences of
terminology employed by different countries, but the idea was that only those
nationals of the capitulatory Powers who possessed in the metropolitan territory
full rights of citizenship should be justiciable by the Mixed Courts. The French
have two classes of such subordinate nationals, under the terms ‘‘sujets’'
and “protegds,” the Italians have colonial “sujets,” and His Majesty’s
Government have “ British protected persons,” namely, the nationals of
protectorates, protected States and mandated territories. The Egyptians had, in
fact, begun by framing their proposal so as to exclude all nationals coming from
colonies, even though they possessed the full right of citizenship in the metro
politan territory. Discussion in January convinced them that this was quite
impossible, but they retained the modified proposal indicated above. This
proposal was not, as the footnote shows, accepted on behalf of His Majesty s
Government during the discussions in Cairo. Later, however, after i n ^ T *
departmental discussion in London, the Egyptian Government were informed that
His Majesty’s Government would agree to it on condition that the other
capitulatory Powers concerned also did so; but that if the proposal was resisted
upon political grounds, His Majesty’s Government would not suppoit the
Egyptian delegation in insisting on it.
' 117. His Majesty’s Government were naturally only prepared to accept any
proposal on these lines which affected the “subordinate nationals oil ranee
and Italy in the same manner as it affected British-protected persons. J-h e 0I 1 ^
other distinction which His Majesty’s Government would accept \vould consist
in the exclusion of one class of British-protected persons, namely, Pales mians,
who (like Syrians) do not, on the basis of the decisions of the Mixed Lourts
themselves, enjoy the jurisdiction of the Mixed Courts at present, on the groun s
that these territories were formerly part of the Ottoman Empire.
118. The Egyptians opened' the discussion regarding the duration ot me
transitional period by demanding twelve years and stating rather aggressi y
that that figure was final so far as they were concerned Ihe French delegation
countered by suggesting eighteen years with a division thereof into ree p >
of which the last would be one of virtual Egyptianisation within the frames or
°f the Mixed Courts system. They made no serious attempt to S 1 ' e r fj' ,
the choice of eighteen years, but said it was not final so far as F .
concerned. The bad impression made by the Egyptian method o Pp s ° , ,
Proposal was minimised by a conciliatory rejoinder by Makram Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. , a
Portuguese and United States delegations supported the Egyp i , ‘ ears
This enabled the United Kingdom delegation also to adhere to twelve v ,
without giving the impression that the length of the transitional period had
already been privately agreed upon. Further discussion of the .1
Postponed. h fhf ,
r H9. On the 18th April the United Kingdom delegation indicated t ^ th^
oreign Office that the serious points of difference were: ( ) (" • , es . m) the
transitional regime, and (b) the Egyptian replacement of foreign 1} » the
Mich demand for a number of permanent legal ^ / ag stated
ln g of the non-discrimination obligation permanen .
[15448]