Coll 15/3(1) 'Egypt. Abolition of Capitulations in Montreux Conference and Convention 1937' [‎308r] (620/1220)

27
had bluntly refused to bargain at all on an important point.) The Foreign Office
enquired whether they should urge the French Government not to be intransigent,
but the delegation considered that in the existing situation their previous sugges
tion was no longer appropriate, since the French, in their present mood, might be
exasperated by an intervention on the part of His Majesty’s Government; it
seemed preferable to confine action for the moment to mediation at Montreux.
On the 27th April, M. de Tessan returned, and in the course of two days’ private
negotiations with the Egyptians it was learnt unofficially from Makram Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders.
that the outstanding points had been solved on the following lines:—
(a) The French would accept the twelve-year transitional period without
sub-division.
(b) The French would drop their demand for settlement at Montreux of the
principles to be embodied in their future establishment convention
with Egypt, while the Egyptians promised to open negotiations with
them on the subject this year and before negotiating with any other
Power.
(c) The Egyptians would agree, first, that all sujets and proteges established
in Egypt before the coming into force of the transitional regime would
benefit by the Mixed Court jurisdiction during that period, but that
those who emigrated into Egypt later would not. (This compromise
would have caused no difficulty to the United Kingdom delegation, as
it applied to all British-protected persons and all French sujets and
proteges equally, and was less than what His Majesty’s Government
were prepared to accept if other delegations agreed to do likewise.)
Secondly, that it would be provided that the Egyptian nationality law
of 1929 would not apply to persons whose fathers were born in Egypt
before 1929.
123. A session of the General Committee was therefore held on the
30th April to discuss these points. The committee agreed that the duration of the
transitional period should be twelve years, but it was clear that the French had let
slip here a concession which they might have obtained had they negotiated moie
skilfully. The Norwegian, Swedish, Danish and Netherlands delegations openl}
asked for a French lead in insisting on the division of the twelve years into
periods, in the first of which there should be limitations on the replacement ot
foreign judges by Egyptian judges in the Mixed Courts of first instance, ine
French delegation had been strongly in favour of this earlier in the nego ia ions,
and the Egyptians had let the United Kingdom delegation unders an a
would, if necessary, make concessions on this point. The French, ow ^ ’
now got themselves into a position where they could not ask for it, an
was that the Scandinavians and the Dutch had to fall into line.
124. Agreement was then reached without delay on the ,1
Mixed Courts of first instance, a point which offered little i cu y
duration of the courts had been settled. . . „ , , ^ -^pr ”
125. When, however, discussion of the definition of the word ™ re iS ,
began, the misunderstanding referred to in the section discussig prit ; re Ur
delegation at once became apparent; the French and Egyp ia under
different recollections as to what their agreement was. The above and
the impression that they had never accepted the compromise ou deletion
that the Egyptian delegation would, on the contrary, propose a P ^ ^
Of the clause which excluded suiets and protfofe fro “ th ® ^ “khd
Mixed Courts. In the course of a difficult debate the Egyptians suggesteU
another solution which placed sujets on a more favourable oo „ ■ waSi
an d, in addition, excluded all persons from mandated ern - French and
naturally, unacceptable to the United Kingdom delegation c r sons (who
Italian sujets would get better treatment than British-pro P ^ p ers0 ns
ar e all proteges) and because of the further discrimma 19. ® * South Africa
belonging to mandated territories. The delegate of the n date, and the
objected to this in view of the fact that South-West A 11( ? . course there was
U nited Kingdom delegation, in opposing it, explained c £ rom t h e
.° objection to excepting natives of ex-Ottoman man ^ native
jurisdiction of the Mixed Courts, since they are already subject to
courts i 'tb
■F?- The Italian delegation, meanwhile, had empire.
Tt "lr Ulsni smce ^ey have no proteges but only su J e y . , t f an the French
Netherlands delegation, who were even more intransigent than ^ ^
[15448]