تقارير وأوراق للجنة الإدارة المصرية [ظ‎‎٨] (١٠٨/١٦)

a
be available to give up his whole time to Egyptian affairs. Lord E. Cecil’s strictures
regarding the administrative incompetence of the Foreign Office point to an
immediate change, but I may be permitted to observe that at the present moment,
and probably until the end of the war, there will be a Permanent Under-Secretary,
who has been Viceroy of India, and an Assistant Under-Secretary with 10 year^
experience of Egyptian administration, both in normal times and, as it is at present,
under military law, during which latter period he represented the G.O.C. with
the native administration.
As regards the future Head of the new Near Eastern or Egyptian Department,
I believe that it will be found necessary that he should have some knowledge of
foreign politics; further, as Egyptian .and Arab notables, few of whom speak
English, will expect to be received by him when they visit London, it is desirable
tbnf he should possess a good colloquial knowledge of French and, if possible, of the
Arabic language also.
P. G.
Sevtember 2. 1917.
The whole case of Lord E. Cecil’s memorandum is, as he himself admits,
dependent upon whether the need of a more effective control of Egyptian affairs is
accepted or not.
The combination of Foreign Office control of policy with a free hand for local
recommendation of measures is the system under which Egypt has been gradually
brought into the British Empire and has reached its present flourishing condition.
That system has, up to date, been approved by Anglo-Egyptian opinion. The
question now raised is one of such far-reaching importance that the dictum of
Lord E. Cecil alone is not sufficient to carry conviction, and before any decision is
taken the opinions of those responsible for the administration in Egypt and of
others in England who have a fundamental knowledge gained by experience of the
system of Government in that country should be invoked.
Consequently the first question that arises is whether a more effective control
from home than that exercised at present over the administration of Egypt is either
desired by Parliament and public opinion or is to the advantage of the Empire and
of Egyptian interests in their present phase. As far as Parliamentary control is
concerned it is difficult to see how the scheme propounded by Lord E. Cecil makes
it more effective than now. Parliamentary control does not depend upon whether
a department is inside or outside of the walls of the Foreign Office, while
administrative control is more likely to be efficient when exercised by a body
experienced in the tactful handling of delicate matters than by a hybrid body
recruited from Heaven knows where and with but little or no such experience.
Whether the present control of Egypt is “ defective and inadequate ” or not the
fact remains that Egypt has now been in British occupation for 35 years, and has
developed under our administration into one of the most prosperous and contented
of countries. It must be conceded that the progress and development of Egypt
during that period constitute one of the brightest pages in the records of the Foreign
Office. In writing this I have no desire to claim that this prosperity and content
ment are primarily due to Foreign Office control, although the Foreign Office and
Diplomatic service have contributed a considerable proportion of officers to the
little band of administrators who have succeeded in making the Government of
Egypt a success. The Foreign Office has never claimed to be a body organised for
the detailed control of administration carried on in foreign lands, but it has the
advantage, perhaps from the training of its members, of being able to assimilate its
views to foreign conditions and thus to inspire sympathy and confidence with the
minimum of intereference in administrative details. This has succeeded admirably
in the past, and it is interesting to note that a very large slice of Africa now under
the control of the Colonial Office, consisting of Somaliland, Uganda, Zanzibar, and
Nigeria, has during a stage of transition been under the control of the Foreign
Office with beneficial results. Egypt is still passing through that transitional
period which will not have closed until a definite decision has been taken as to the
future status of Egypt and the Sudan, whether as a Protectorate or as an annexed
territory, which in view of the Sultan’s health cannot be long deferred, and until
agreements have been concluded with foreign Powers for the abolition of the Caisse *
de la Dette, the Capitulations and extraterritorial jurisdiction which now hamper
the progresive development of Egypt.