'Egypt: The Soudan' [‎3r] (5/36)

3
ot Egypt would aim at establishing control over the actual administration of the
Soudan
5. For the period with which we have so far had to deal, the facts are quite
clear; the Soudan was part of the undisputed possessions of the Khedive, who,
subject only to the limitations imposed by the suzerainty of the Porte, as laid down
in the firmans, had authority as full and complete as over Egypt itself. On the other
/k hand, international obligations entered into by the Khedive would not properly apply
to the Soudan unless this was specifically mentioned; there was, e.g., some doubt
whether the jurisdiction of the mixed tribunals established in Egypt extended to the
Soudan. Further investigations would be required to determine whether this,
principle was always observed.
II .—The Revolt of the Soudan.
6. In the year 1882 a rebellion broke out in the Soudan, the chief cause of which
was the maladministration of the country by Egypt. This rebellion was successful;
an Egyptian army was defeated and eventually, in obedience to orders received from
the British Government, the Egyptian garrisons were withdrawn from all territory
south of the twenty-second parallel of latitude, with the exception of Suakin. As a
result of this, the Khedive was, in fact, unable to exercise his authority, and this
state of things continued for seventeen years. The mere fact of a rebellion which
was not immediately suppressed did not, however, by itself imply any disappearance
of the rights enjoyed by the Khedive and the Sultan in virtue of their previous
dominion. In order that there should have been brought about any such change in
the legal position, something more was required; there must have been the establish
ment of an orderly Government in the revolting provinces, which was recognised by
other civilised States. If we take, for instance, the revolt of the Spanish colonies:
although this revolt was successful, the legal rights of the Spanish Government
continued until formal recognition of the new state of things was given by England,
America, &c., and if at any time before this recognition was given the Spaniards had
succeeded in reconquering the colonies, then the fact that there had been a period of
* disorder and rebellion for as much as twenty years would have been merely a passing
episode. Such temporary periods of disorder have been common enough in the
history of the Turkish Empire.
7. In the case of the Soudan there never was any formal surrender by the
Egyptian Government of its authority, and there is abundant evidence that other
States continued to regard the Khedive as the legitimate ruler of the country. In the
Anglo-Italian Agreement of the 15th April, 1891, a clause was inserted as follows :—
“ It is agreed between the two Governments that any temporary military
occupation ot the additional territory specified in this article (the Province of
Kassala is in question) shall not abrogate the rights of the Egyptian Government
over the said territory, but that these rights shall only remain in suspense until
the Egyptian Government shall be in a position to reoccupy the district in
question .... and there to maintain order and tranquillity.”*
When in 1894 an arrangement was made by which a certain portion of equatorial
Africa was leased to the Congo Free State, the French Government objected to this
arrangement on the ground that it infringed the rights of the Sultan and of the
Khedive in the provinces of the basin of the Upper Nile, and was incompatible alike
with the firman A Persian word meaning a royal order or decree issued by a sovereign, used notably in the Ottoman Empire (sometimes written ‘phirmaund’). relating to Egypt and with the international acts by which the
integrity of the Ottoman Empire had been secured. They added :—
“ Is it necessary to mention that for many years these provinces have been
occupied and administered by Egypt, and, although the agents of the Khedive,
in consequence of events beyond their control, have been obliged quite recently
to abandon them for the moment, that the Khedivial Government has never
ceased declaring its wish to re-establish its authority there? Moreover, the
declaration made by Turkey ratifies in the clearest manner the legal position.”*
Lord Kimberley, in answer to these observations, does not challenge the main
principle and gives an assurance that ‘‘the claims in question will not be disre
garded whenever Turkey and Egypt may be in a position to assert them .... they
are in accord with the Government of France in desiring to preserve intact the
possessions of the Sultan.”
* “Egypt, No. 2(1898),” p. 14.