3)(.5I 
 
THE EGYPTIAN QUESTION 
 
 Napoleon said to the Governor of St. 
 Helena: "Egypt is the most import- 
 ant country in the world." — Bose's 
 Life of Napoleon, Vol. 1, page 356. 
 
 Egyptian Delegation 
 
 The Shoreham 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 October, 1919 
 
 
Oo or «. 
 
 NOV 20 |9|j 
 
i«3h 
 
 J^ SHALL RIGHT OR MIGHT PREVAIL? 
 
 Egypt is a country of immense wealth. It has mil- 
 lions of acres of agricultural land greater in value per 
 acre and in producing power than any other country 
 in the world. The seizure of Egypt by Great Britain 
 adds to Britain's enormous possessions an area of 
 350,000 square miles and a population of 13,000,000 
 people. The value of the natural resources so seized 
 is beyond computation. 
 
 Egypt is one compact whole — one nation — one lan- 
 guage. The character of the people, their conduct, 
 their habits, their sympathies and their inclinations 
 are the same throughout that country. Because of 
 geographic situation, however, Egypt has attracted 
 the avarice of colonizing powers more, perhaps, than 
 any other country in the world. In 1798 the French 
 under Napoleon invaded Egypt. In 1801 the French 
 were expelled from Egypt. In 1807 Great Britain 
 attempted to invade Egypt but was ejected by the 
 Egyptian Army. 
 
 Egypt continued to be a Turkish province until 1831 
 when war broke out between Egypt and Turkey, and 
 the Egyptian Army was victorious. Constantinople 
 would haven fallen to the Egyptians, but Great Britain 
 and France interfered in order to preserve the balance 
 of power, and the Egyptians were compelled to give 
 up the full fruits of their victories. 
 
 By the Treaty of London of 1840-1841, Egypt be- 
 came autonomous, subject only to an annual tribute to 
 Turkey of about $3,500,000. The government of E.gypt 
 could maintain an army, contract loans, make com- 
 mercial treaties and enter into international agree- 
 ments. For all practical purposes, Egypt was inde- 
 pendent and free. 
 
In 1882, Great Britain occupied Egypt ostensibly to 
 protect the Khedive against the movement for popu- 
 lar government and continued to occupy the country, 
 against the protest of the Egyptians, under the pretext 
 of protecting the people from the Khedive. 
 
 The British Government from the time of occupa- 
 tion up to the beginning of the recent war promised to 
 withdraw the British troops from Egypt. Gladstone, 
 when Prime Minister, said "if one pledge can be more 
 solemn and sacred than another, special sacredness 
 in this case binds us to withdraw the British troops 
 from Egypt." 
 
 Lord Salisbury, when Prime Minister in 1889, sol- 
 einly assured Egypt and the world that Egypt would 
 never be placed under a British "protectorate" or 
 annexed by Great Britain. 
 
 Great Britain had agreed by the Treaty of London 
 of 1840-41 to protect the autonomy of Egypt and in 
 the Anglo-French agreement of April 8, 1904, Great 
 Britain declared that it had no intention of altering 
 the political status of Egypt. 
 
 After the beginning of the war and on December 
 18, 1914, Great Britain deposed the Khedive and ap- 
 pointed a Sultan of her own choosing to the throne 
 of Egypt. On the same date Great Britain proclaimed 
 the so-called protectorate over Egypt announcing, 
 however, at the same time that it was merely for the 
 period of the war and only a step towards the inde- 
 pendence of Egypt. 
 
 King George in a letter which was widely circulated 
 throughout Egypt and which was published in the 
 London Times of December 21, 1914, said : 
 
 " * * * I feel convinced that you will be 
 able, with the cooperation of your Ministers and 
 
the protection of Great Britain, to overcome all 
 influences which are seeking to destroy the in- 
 dependence of Egypt, * * *" 
 
 This change of status being announced at the time 
 as a merely temporary war measure, was assumed 
 by the Egyptians to be such. The Egyptians with 
 absolute unanimity, took sides with the Allies and 
 served to make, as they believed, the world safe for 
 democracy and for the right of national self-determina- 
 tion in all peoples. 
 
 When the Armistice was signed, the Egyptians re- 
 joiced in the thought that the day of their deliver- 
 ance had come, and that henceforth they would enjoy 
 that right of national self-determination proclaimed 
 by President Wilson. A commission was appointed 
 by the Egyptian people to attend the Peace Confer- 
 ence, where their independence and sovereignty could 
 be consecrated and acknowledged by the Powers. 
 
 In violation of its pledges of independence to the 
 Egyptian people, and regardless of the fact that the 
 Egyptian people had served and sacrificed in the 
 Allied cause, Great Britain arrested four of the lead- 
 ing citizens of Egypt, who had been selected by the 
 Egyptian people to go to Paris, and these four were 
 torn from their homes without warning and deported 
 to Malta where they were thrown into a military 
 prison. 
 
 When the Egyptian people learned of this act of 
 perfidy on the part of Great Britain, their indignation 
 was intense. National self-determination demonstra- 
 tions were held throughout Egypt. Great Britain 
 answered these demonstrations for national self-deter- 
 mination, the principle for which Great Britain had 
 ostensibly fought in the war, by firing machine guns 
 
into crowds of these peaceable and unarmed, liberty- 
 seeking people, killing more than a thousand and 
 wounding vastly more. 
 
 Egyptians who dared to assert in public that Egypt 
 should have the right of national self-determination 
 were put in prison. The cry for liberty by an Egyp- 
 tian was answered by British military punishment. 
 
 If present conditions are permitted to continue, 
 liberty is dead to Egypt, and the right of self-determi- 
 nation to all peoples, for which Americans believed 
 they were fighting, has been made a hollow mockery. 
 
 General Allenby finally, by force of Egyptian public 
 opinion, advised the British Government to permit the 
 Commission to proceed to Paris. When the Commis- 
 scion reached Paris, they asked for a hearing before 
 the Peace Conference. This was denied them. They 
 wrote to President Wilson and asked for a confer- 
 ence with him. Their appeals were in vain. 
 
 Some days after the Commission reached Paris, the 
 so-called Protectorate of Great Britain over Egypt 
 was "recognized." The holding of Egypt by Great 
 Britain is not a protectorate in the legal sense of the 
 word, but under guise of a Protectorate, Great Britain 
 is holding Egypt today as a subject and conquered na- 
 tion. 
 
 The approval of this so-called protectorate would 
 be accepted by the British Government as approval 
 of the present holding of Egypt by Great Britain as 
 spoils of war and would rivet the chains of subject- 
 slavery upon the Egyptian people. 
 
 In a statement issued by the British Embassy at 
 Washington, September 2, 1919, and which was pub- 
 lished in the daily press, the Embassy stated : 
 
''Great Britain has carefully avoided destroy- 
 ing the sovereignty of Egypt." 
 
 A few days later the British foreign office in London 
 gave an interview to the International News Service, 
 claiming to have succeeded to Turkish nominal suzer- 
 ainty over Egypt. Great Britain is claiming both a 
 protectorate and a sovereignty over Egypt at the same 
 time. 
 
 Great Britain is holding Egypt today not by right 
 but by might of military force. Great Britain's seizure 
 of Egypt is out of keeping with the world's new temper. 
 Only by the exercise of the gospel of military force 
 can the continued holding of Egypt by Great Britain 
 be maintained. Only in violation of its sacred pledges 
 and treaty obligations, can Great Britain assert do- 
 minion over the people of Egypt. 
 
 On November 10, 1914, Lloyd George in a speech 
 called the world to witness the utter unselfishness of 
 their part in the war. "As the Lord liveth," he de- 
 clared, "England does not want one yard of terri- 
 tory. We are in this war from motives of pure chiv- 
 alry to guard the weak." Shall Egypt be handed over 
 to Great Britain in violation of the great principles 
 for which Americans, Egyptians and the Allies fought? 
 How can it be justly said that Egypt is outside the 
 realm of the principles of the Fourteen Points and 
 that Great Britain may deny the right of self-determi- 
 nation to Egypt? 
 
 The Egyptian people are liberty loving and peace- 
 ful. They have not interfered with other nations and 
 they ask now that Great Britain not be allowed to 
 destroy the inalienable right of the Egyptian people 
 to liberty, and the right to have their own govern- 
 ment, controlled by their own people. 
 
6 
 BRITISH PLEDGES. 
 
 In May, 1882, a British fleet appeared before Alex- 
 andria. In June, 1882, a serious disturbance took place 
 in Alexandria and a number of Europeans were killed. 
 On July 11th and 12th, 1882, Alexandria was bom- 
 barded by the British fleet and British soldiers began 
 to occupy Egypt. Great Britain pledged the Egyptian 
 Government and the world that this occupation would 
 be only temporary. The solemn pledge to this effect 
 made by England are evidenced by the following docu- 
 ments : 
 
 1. Lord Granville's dispatch, November 4th, 1881: 
 Egypt No. 1 (1882), pp. 2, 3, said: 
 
 "The policy of H. M.'s government toward 
 Egypt has no other aim than the prosperity of 
 the country, and its full enjoyment of that liberty 
 which it has obtained under successive firmans 
 of the Sultan. * * * It cannot be too clearly 
 understood that England desires no partisan Min- 
 istry in Egypt- In the opinion of H. M.'s Gov- 
 ernment a partisan Ministry founded on the 
 support of a foreign power, or upon the per- 
 sonal influence of a foreign diplomatic agent, is 
 neither calculated to be of service to the country 
 it administers, nor to that in whose interest it is 
 supposed to be maintained. 
 
 2. In the Protocol signed by Lord Dufferin, to- 
 gether with the representatives of the five other great 
 Powers, June 25th, 1882: Egypt No. 17 (1882), p. 
 33, it was provided: 
 
 "The Government represented by the under- 
 signed engage themselves, in any arrangement 
 which may be made in consequence of their con- 
 
certed action for the regulation of the affairs of 
 Egypt, not to seek any territorial advantage, nor 
 any concession of any exclusive privilege, nor any 
 commercial advantage for their subjects other 
 than those which any other nation can equally 
 obtain." (Italics ours.) 
 
 3. Sir Beauchamp Seymour, in a communication to 
 Khedive Tewfik, Alexandria, July 26th, 1882, published 
 in the Official Journal of July 28, 1882, said: 
 
 "I, admiral commanding the British fleet, think 
 it opportune to confirm without delay once more 
 to your Highness that the Government of Great 
 Britain has no intention of making the conquest 
 of Egypt, nor of injuring in any way the religion 
 and liberties of the Egyptians. It has for its 
 sole object to protect your Highness and the Egyp- 
 tian people against rebels." (Italics ours.) 
 
 4. Sir Charles Dilke, in the House of Commons, July 
 25th, 1882, said : 
 
 "It is the desire of H. M.'s Government, after 
 relieving Egypt from military tyranny, to leave 
 the people to manage their own affairs. 
 We believe that it is better for the interests of 
 their country, as well as for the interests of 
 Egypt, that Egypt should be governed by liberal 
 institutions rather than by a despotic rule. * 
 We do not wish to impose on Egypt institutions 
 of our own choice, but rather to leave the choice 
 of Egypt, free, * * * It is the honorable duty 
 of this country to be true to the principles of 
 free institutions, which are our glory." (Italics 
 ours.) 
 
 5. The Rt. Honorable Mr. W. E. Gladstone, in the 
 House of Commons, August 10th, 1882, said: 
 
"I can go so far as to answer the honorable 
 gentleman when he asks me whether we contem- 
 plate an indefinite occupation of Egypt. Un- 
 doubtedly of all things in the world, that is a 
 thing which we are not going to do. It would be 
 absolutely at variance with all the principles and 
 views of H. M.'s Government, and the pledges they 
 have given to Europe and with the views, I may 
 say, of Europe itself." (Italics ours.) 
 
 6. Lord Dufferin's dispatch, December 19th, 1882: 
 Egypt No. 2 (1883), p. 30, stated: 
 
 "In talking to the various persons who have 
 made inquiries as to my views on the Egyptian 
 question I have stated that we have not the least 
 intention of preserving the authority which has 
 thus reverted to us. * * * It was our inten- 
 tion so to conduct our relations with the Egyptian 
 people that they should naturally regard us as their 
 best friends and counselors, but that we did not 
 propose upon that account arbitrarily to impose 
 our views upon them or to hold them in an irritat- 
 ing tutelage." (Italics ours.) 
 
 7. Lord Granville, December 29, 1882, Egypt No. 2 
 (1882), p. 33, officially stated: 
 
 "You should intimate to the Egyptian Govern- 
 ment that it is the desire of H. M.'s Government 
 to withdraw the troops from Egypt as soon as 
 circumstances permit, that such withdrawal will 
 probably be effected from time to time as the se- 
 curity of the country will allow it, and that H. 
 M.'s Government hope that the time will be very 
 short during which the full number of the present 
 force will be maintained." (Italics ours.) 
 
 8. Lord Dufferin's dispatch, February 6, 1883, 
 Egypt No. 6 (1883), pp. 41, 43, stated: 
 
"The territory of the Khedive has been recog- 
 nized as lying outside the sphere of "European 
 warfare and international jealousies. * 
 
 "The Valley of the Nile could not be adminis- 
 tred from London. An attempt upon our part to 
 engage in such an undertaking would at once ren- 
 der us objects of hatred and suspicion to its in- 
 habitants. Cairo would become a focus of foreign 
 intrigue and conspiracy against us, and we should 
 soon find ourselves forced either to abandon our 
 pretensions under discreditable conditions or em- 
 bark upon the experiment of a complete acquisi- 
 tion of the country." 
 
 9. Again, at page 83, Lord Duff erin said : 
 
 "Had I been commissioned to place affairs in 
 Egypt on the footing of an Indian subject State 
 the outlook would have been different. The 
 masterful hand of a resident would have quickly 
 bent everything to his will, and in the space of 
 five years we should have greatly added to the 
 material wealth and well-being of the country by 
 the extension of its cultivated area and the con- 
 sequent expansion of its revenue; by the partial 
 if not the total abolition of the corvee and slavery ; 
 the establishment of justice and other beneficent 
 reforms. But the Egyptians would have justly 
 considered these advantages as dearly purchased 
 at the expense of their domestic independence. 
 Moreover, H. M.'s Government have pronounced 
 o^jainst such an alternative." (Italics ours.) 
 
 10. Mr. Gladstone in the House of Commons, Au- 
 gust 6, 1883, said: 
 
 "The other powers of Europe * * are well 
 aware of the general intentions entertained by the 
 British Government, intentions which may be sub- 
 ject, of course, to due consideration of that state of 
 
10 
 
 circumstances, but conceived and held to be in the 
 nature not only of information, but a pledge or 
 engagement." (Italics ours.) 
 
 11. Mr. Gladstone in the House of Commons, Au- 
 gust 9, 1883, said: 
 
 "The uncertainty there may be in some portion 
 of the public mind has reference to those desires 
 which tend towards the permanent occupation of 
 Egypt and its incorporation in this Empire. This 
 is a consummation to which ice arc resolutely op- 
 posed, and which we will have nothing to do with 
 bringing about. We are against this doctrine of 
 annexation ; we are against everything that re- 
 sembles or approaches it; and we are against all 
 language that tends to bring about its expecta- 
 tion. We are against it on the ground of the in- 
 sts of England; we are against it on the 
 ground of our duty to Egypt; we are against it 
 on the ground of the specific and solemn pledges 
 given to the world in the most solemn manner 
 and under the most critical circumstances, pledges 
 which Juice earned for us tie ■ nee of Europe 
 
 at large during the course of difficult and delicate 
 operations, and which, if one pledge can be more 
 solemn and sacred than another, special sacred- 
 ness in this case binds us to observe. We are also 
 sensible that occupation prolonged beyond a cer- 
 tain point may tend to annexation, and conse- 
 quently it is our object to take the greatest care 
 that the occupation does n 1 gradually take a, per- 
 manent character. We cannot name a 
 day, and do not undertake to name a day for our 
 final withdrawal, but no effort shall be wanting 
 on our part to bring about that withdrawal as 
 early as possible. (Italics ours.) 
 
 12. Lord Granville's dispatch, June 16, 1884, Egypt 
 Xo. 23 (1884), p. 13, stated: 
 
11 
 
 "H. M.'s Government are willing that 
 
 the withdrawal of the troops shall take place at 
 the beginning of the year 1888, provided that the 
 Powers are then of opinion that such withdrawal 
 can take place without risk to peace and order." 
 
 13. Lord Derby in the House of Lords, February 26, 
 1885, said: 
 
 "From the first we have steadily kept in view 
 the fact that our occupation was temporary and 
 provisional only. * * * We do not propose to 
 keep Egypt permanently. On that point 
 
 we arc pledged to this country and to Europe ; and 
 if a contrary policy is adopted it will not be by 
 us." (Italics ours.) 
 
 14. Lord Salisbury in the House of Lords, June 10, 
 
 1887, said: 
 
 "It was not open to us to assume the protecto- 
 rate of Egypt, because H. M.'s Government have 
 again and again pledged themselves that they 
 would not do so. My noble friend has 
 
 dwelt upon that pledge, and he does us no more 
 than justice when he expresses his opinion that it is 
 a pledge which has been constantly present to our 
 minds. * It was undoubtedly the fact that 
 
 our presence in Egypt, unrecognized by any con- 
 vention gave the subjects of the Sultan 
 cause for a suspicion which we did not deserve." 
 (Italics Ours.) 
 
 15. Lord Salisbury in the House of Lords, August 
 12, 1889, said: 
 
 ' ' When my noble friend asks us to con- 
 
 vert ourselves from guardians into proprietors 
 
12 
 
 * * * * and to declare our stay in Egypt per- 
 manent * * * I must say I think my noble 
 friend pays an insufficient regard to the sanctity 
 of the obligations which the Government of the 
 Queen have undertaken and by which they are 
 bound to abide. In such a matter we have not to 
 consider what is the most convenient or what is 
 the more profitable course; we have to consider 
 the course to which we are bound by our own 
 obligations and by European laiv." (Italics ours.) 
 
 16. Mr. Gladstone in the House of Commons, May 
 1, 1893, said : 
 
 "I cannot do otherwise than express my general 
 concurrence * * that the occupation of 
 
 Egypt is in the nature of a burden and difficulty, 
 and that the permanent occupation of that country 
 would not be agreeable to our traditional policy, 
 and that it would not be consistent with our good 
 faith towards the Suzerain Power, while it would 
 be contrary to the laws of Europe I 
 
 certainly shall not set up the doctrine that we 
 have discovered a duty which enables us to set 
 aside the pledges into which we have so freely en- 
 tered * * * The thing we cannot do with perfect 
 honour is either to deny that we are under en- 
 gagements which preclude the idea of an indefi- 
 nite occupation, or so to construe that indefinite 
 occupation as to hamper the engagements that 
 wg are under by collateral considerations." (Ital- 
 ics ours.) 
 
 17. The text of the Anglo-French Agreement of 
 April 8, 1904, provides : 
 
 "The Government of His Majesty declares that 
 it has no intention of altering the political status 
 of Egypt." 
 
13 
 
 18. Lord Cromer's Report, March 3, 1907, Egypt 
 No. 1 (1907), p. 2, stated: 
 
 "There are insuperable objections to the as- 
 sumption of a British Protectorate over Egypt. 
 It would involve a change in the political status 
 of the country. Now, in Art. I of the Anglo- 
 French Agreement of the 8th April, 1904, the 
 British Government have explicitly declared that 
 they have no intention of altering the political 
 status of Egypt." 
 
 19. In an interview with Dr. Nimr, Editor of the 
 "Mokattam," October 24, 1908, acknowledged as of- 
 ficial by Sir E. Gray in the House of Commons, Sir 
 Eldon Gorst said: 
 
 "It has been said that Great Britain proposes 
 shortly to proclaim the protectorate or the an- 
 nexation of Egypt to the British Empire. Will 
 Sir Eldon Gorst permit me to. ask him whether 
 this rumor is well founded or not?" 
 
 Sir Eldon Gorst answered: 
 
 '■'■The rumor lias no foundation and you may 
 contradict it categorically. Great Britain has en- 
 gaged herself by official agreements with Turkey 
 and the European Powers to respect the suzer- 
 ainty of the Sultan in Egypt. She will keep her 
 engagements, which, moreover, she reiterated in 
 1904 at the time of the conclusion of the Anglo- 
 French Agreement. England stipulated in that 
 Agreement that she has no intention to change 
 the political situation in Egypt. Neither the peo- 
 ple nor the Government wish to rid themselves 
 of these engagements." 
 
14 
 
 20. Sir Eldon Gorst's Report, March 27, 1909, Egypt 
 No. 1 (1909), p. 1, stated: 
 
 11 There exists among the better-educated sec- 
 tions of society a limited but gradually increasing 
 class which interests itself in matters pertaining 
 to the government and administration of the coun- 
 try. This class aspires quite rightly to help in 
 bringing about the day when Egypt will be able 
 to govern herself without outside assistance. This 
 is also the end to which British policy is directed, 
 and there need be no antagonism or principle be- 
 tween the Egyptian and English reforming ele- 
 ments." 
 
 21. In the same report, at page 48, Sir Eldon 
 Gorst said: 
 
 "Since the commencement of the occupation 
 the policy approved by the British Government has 
 never varied, and its fundamental idea has been to 
 prepare the Egyptians for self-government, while 
 helping them in the meantime to enjoy the benefit 
 of good government." 
 
 22. Sir Eldon Gorst's Report, March 26, 1910 Egypt 
 No. 1 (1910), p. 51, stated: 
 
 "British policy in Egypt in no way differs from 
 that followed by Great Britain all over the world 
 towards countries under her influence, namely, to 
 place before all else the welfare of their popula- 
 tions." 
 
 23. Sir Edward Grey, in the House of Commons, 
 August, 1914, said: 
 
 ' ' England stretches out her hand to any nation 
 whose safety or independence may be threatened 
 or compromised by any aggressor." 
 
15 
 
 24. Former Premier Balfour, speaking for the 
 Government at Guildhall on November 19, 1914, de- 
 clared : 
 
 "We fight not for ourselves alone, but for civi- 
 lization drawn to the cause of small states, the 
 cause of all those countries which desire to de- 
 velop their own civilization in their own way, 
 following their own ideals without interference 
 from any insolent and unauthorized aggressor." 
 
 25. Premier Asquith, speaking at Guildhall, No- 
 vember 9, 1915, asserted : 
 
 "We shall not pause or falter until we have 
 secured for the smaller states their charter of 
 independence and for the world at large its final 
 emancipation from the reign of force. ' ' 
 
 26. And again Premier Asquith, on November 9, 
 1916, declared: 
 
 "This is a war among other things — perhaps 
 I may say primarily — a war for the emancipation 
 of the smaller states. * * * Peace when it 
 comes, must be such as will build upon a sure and 
 stable foundation the security of the weak, the 
 liberties of Europe and a free future for the 
 world. ' ' 
 
 27. Premier Lloyd George, on June 29, 1917, said : 
 
 "In my judgment this war will come to an 
 end when the Allied Powers have reached the 
 aims which they set out to attain when they ac- 
 cepted the challenge thrown down by Germany 
 to civilization." 
 
 28. Asquith, in the House of Commons, on Decem- 
 ber 20, 1917, said: 
 
16 
 
 "We ought to make it increasingly clear by 
 every possible means that the only ends we are 
 fighting for are liberty and justice for the whole 
 world, through a confederation of great and small 
 states, all to possess equal rights. A league of 
 nations is the ideal for which we are fighting and 
 we shall continue fighting for it with a clear con- 
 science, clean hands and an unwavering heart. ' ' 
 
 After the beginning of the World War and on De- 
 cember 18th, 1914, Great Britain proclaimed a so- 
 called protectorate over Egypt. The proclamation 
 seizing Egypt and placing Egypt under the British 
 flag is published in the London Times of December 19, 
 1914, page 8, column 3. It reads: 
 
 "In view of the action of his Highness, Abbas 
 Helmi Pasha, lately Khedive of Egypt, who has 
 adhered to the King's enemies, His Majesty's Gov- 
 ernment has seen fit to depose him from the Khe- 
 clivate, and that high dignity has been offered, 
 with the title of Sultan of Egypt, to his Highness 
 Prince Hussein Gamel Pasha, eldest living Prince 
 of the family of Mehemet Ali, and has been ac- 
 cepted by him. / 
 
 "The King has been pleased to approve the ap- 
 pointment of Prince Hussein to an honorary 
 Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath on 
 the occasion of his accession to the Sultanate." 
 (Italics ours.) 
 
 The London Times, in the issue of December 19th, 
 1914, had large headlines saying, "Egypt Under the 
 British Flag." But the Times, in an editorial in the 
 issue of same date, with characteristic British diplo- 
 macy, naively said: 
 
 "All that is desired now is to defend Egypt 
 against attack and to keep the internal adminis- 
 
17 
 
 tration running smoothly. Other questions can 
 wait until peace is restored as Lord Cromer im- 
 plies in the letter we published today. * * * It 
 is purely a practical administrative step, dictated 
 by the appearance of Turkey as a belligerent. ' ' 
 
 It will be noted that the seizure was sought to be 
 justified only as a protection to Egypt against Turk- 
 ish aggression. The truth is that under the guise of 
 a "protectorate" Great Britain seized Egypt, and 
 swept away every vestige of Egyptian freedom and 
 independence. But the people of Egypt did not real- 
 ize at that time the full meaning of this action on the 
 part of Great Britain. They were told that it was a 
 step toward the independence of Egypt. His Majesty, 
 King George, in a letter to the Sultan whom he had 
 appointed to rule over Egypt, which letter was widely 
 circulated throughout Egypt, and was published in 
 the London Times of date December 21st, 1914, said : 
 
 "* * * I feel convinced that you will be able, 
 with the co-operation of your ministers and the 
 protectorate of Great Britain, to overcome all in- 
 fluences which are seeking to destroy the inde- 
 pendence of Egypt, * * *" (Italics ours.) 
 
 TREATMENT OF EGYPTIAN DELEGATES TO 
 PEACE CONFERENCE. 
 
 Letter from the Chairman of the Egyptian Delega- 
 tion to Sir Reginald Wingate, British High Commis- 
 sioner to Egypt. From the Egyptian White Book, 
 (page 19) : 
 
 "I addressed to British headquarters on the 
 20th inst. (November), a letter in which I re- 
 quested for my colleague and myself the permis- 
 sion necessary for voyage. * * * "We have just 
 
18 
 
 received a letter from the military authorities 
 dated today, informing us that difficulties have 
 arisen which have prevented them from respond- 
 ing before and that as soon as they are smoothed 
 out we shall receive an answer. * * * We rely 
 upon the traditions of Great Britain. The Brit- 
 ish have not ceased to give to the world examples 
 of the devotion to the principles of individual lib- 
 erty. Will not our request for passports receive 
 a quick and favorable response?" 
 
 To this the following letter was received on De- 
 cember 1, 1918 (page 21) : 
 
 "I am directed by His Excellency, the High 
 Commissioner, to acknowledge receipt of your 
 letter of the 29th ult. and to inform you in reply 
 that after reference to His Majesty's government, 
 His Excellency feels unable to make any represen- 
 tations to the military authorities in the matter. 
 
 "I am to add that should you desire to submit 
 suggestions as to the government of Egypt, not 
 being inconsistent with the policy of His Majesty's 
 government is already declared — such suggestions 
 can most conveniently be submitted in writing 
 to His Excellency. In this connection I may draw 
 your attention to the communication addressed 
 by Sir Mille Cheetham (Proclamation of Protec- 
 torate by the British government, December 18, 
 1914) by instruction of His Majesty's government 
 to the late Sultan Hussein on the occasion of his 
 accession." 
 
 To this the delegation replied on December 3, 1918, 
 as follows (page 22) : 
 
 "In response I allow myself to make known to 
 your Excellency that it is not permitted, neither 
 to me nor to any member of the delegation, to 
 
19 
 
 make propositions which are not in accordance 
 with the will of the Egyptian Nation as expressed 
 in the Mandates that have been given us. * * * 
 Forbidding our departure makes illusory and in- 
 operative the mission that we have accepted by 
 will of the people. It is difficult to conciliate 
 this situation with the principles of liberty and 
 justice which the victory of Great Britain and her 
 Allies is supposed to have caused to triumph. 
 This victory has repeatedly been declared to be 
 for the purpose of opening a new era for man- 
 kind through listening and granting the jnst de- 
 mands of peoples." 
 
 In a letter of protest to Premier Lloyd-George 
 against the virtual imprisonment of the Egyptian 
 delegation at Cairo, the President of the delegation 
 wrote (page 26) : 
 
 "You have certainly been misinformed of the 
 circumstances that accompanied our sequestra- 
 tion. We cannot imagine how such proceedings 
 can be justified, whether from the point of view of 
 law, or social usage, or even of reasonable policy, 
 and we cannot understand how the British can 
 apply systematically so humiliating a treatment 
 to a nation with the rich and glorious past of ours. 
 Whatever may be its present weakness, a nation 
 with a civilization so ancient will always preserve 
 before the world its prestige and its title to the 
 gratitude of the world. 
 
 "Deny the civilization of Egypt in spite of 
 traces that attest its glorious past ; deny its bene- 
 fits to the culture of the world; suppose that it 
 is only an agglomeration of savages ruled by the 
 brutality of their instincts and without law — do 
 you refuse to believe that Egypt has been a preci- 
 ous aid to you? The enormous sacrifice that we 
 have made during the war in blood and treasure 
 for the triumph of your cause, were indispens- 
 
20 
 
 able to you, and moreover, you have recognized 
 many times that these sacrifices were one of the 
 principal factors of victory in the Orient. 
 'a* # * Even were you to suppose that Egypt 
 had no civilization and that Egypt gave you no 
 aid, would you none the less refuse to apply to 
 her the principles which you have agreed with 
 President Wilson to apply — impartial justice on 
 every side of settlement no matter whose interest 
 is crossed, and not only impartial justice but also 
 the satisfaction of several peoples whose fortunes 
 are dealt with?" 
 
 Egyptian case stated as follows in a letter from 
 Egyptian delegation to President of Peace Confer- 
 ence (page 88) : 
 
 "For more than five months the British au- 
 thorities refused to allow our delegation to leave 
 for Europe. Public opinion, realizing that a 
 Peace Conference had assembled and was taking 
 up the problems of the Near East, and preparing 
 a treaty to present to Germany, became aroused. 
 The Egyptians insisted that the authorization for 
 our departure be granted. Standing by the peo- 
 ple, the cabinet presented its resignation/which 
 was accepted. The answer of the British mili- 
 tary authorities to the official request of the 
 Egyptian Government was to order the arrest and 
 deportation to Malta of the President of the dele- 
 gation and of three of his colleagues. They were 
 taken suddenly from their homes and hurried 
 away under cover of night, There was no trial 
 and they were not informed of the reasons for 
 their arrest and deportation. When they learned 
 of this act of violence, totally contrary to the law, 
 there were peaceful demonstrations throughout 
 the country, in which all classes took part. Gov- 
 ernment officials and the personnel of railways and 
 other transportation service, decided to strike. 
 
21 
 
 The English thus saw that in the entire territory 
 of Egypt, the people of all classes, irrespective 
 of religion, were against their domination, never- 
 theless, they persisted in their wish to govern by 
 force of arms the people who did not want them. 
 
 "The manifestations were suppressed by ma- 
 chine guns which mowed down dozens of unfortu- 
 nate demonstrators. Since the Egyptians had no 
 arms, the order to fire was totally unwarranted. 
 But frightfulness could not stop the Egyptians 
 from proceeding in their determination to make 
 an effort to obtain their independence. They had 
 firm faith in the principles of President Wilson 
 which had been solemnly accepted by the Entente 
 Allies. They felt that if their delegation could 
 only get to Paris that justice would be accorded 
 to them. So, in spite of the death that awaited 
 them, they advanced in groups in ecstasy, making 
 the sacrifice of their lives to the cause of liberty. 
 
 "Even the women were not spared. Without 
 mentioning those who fell on the field of honor 
 during the national demonstrations, we can cite 
 the case of the leading ladies of Cairo who organ- 
 ized under the leadership of the wife of the Prime 
 Minister, a demonstration to protest to the diplo- 
 matic agencies against the murder of innocent and 
 unarmed citizens in the streets of Cairo. Sud- 
 denly they were surrounded on all sides by sol- 
 diers who pointed their guns at them. This in- 
 spired one of the Egyptian women to say "Make 
 of me if you will a second Miss Cavell." They 
 were kept for more than two hours in the burning 
 sun. In proof of this statement, we refer to the 
 testimonv of the agencies of the United States and 
 Italy. 
 
 "The British authorities in Egypt were as much 
 disturbed as provoked by the extent of the move- 
 ment and astonished at their powerlessness to 
 stop it. It was then that the spirit of venge- 
 ance got the better of them, and they then al- 
 lowed themselves to indulge in the most disgrace- 
 
22 
 
 ful excesses. No longer content to stop the 
 demonstrations by means of rifles and machine 
 guns, they were guilty in several places of rape, 
 of assassination of peaceful villagers, of pillage, 
 of arson — all with the most trifling pretext or 
 even without pretext. No longer was it a question 
 of individual abuses committed by stray soldiers 
 such as those of which the Minister of Justice and 
 the President of the Legislative Assembly had 
 been victims— no longer was it a question of blows 
 and thefts in the streets of Alexandria and Cairo, 
 attacks began to be made by strong military at- 
 tachments under the command of their officers in 
 villages as well as cities." 
 
 BRITISH VIEWS ON THE EGYPTIAN QUESTION. 
 
 Sir Thomas Barclay, Vice President of the Insti- 
 tute of International Law, says in his book, "New 
 Methods of Adjusting International Disputes and The 
 Future:" 
 
 "Turning to another aspect of international 
 matters, it is deeply to be regretted that in several 
 instances in our own time international treaties 
 have not been regarded by public opinion with the 
 same respect as international awards. The at- 
 titude of England towards Egypt, of Italy to- 
 wards Turkey, of Russia towards Persia, of 
 France towards Morocco, and especially of Ger- 
 many towards Belgium, all are instances of event- 
 ual bad faith, however justifiable the. original 
 intervention may have been in the one case or un- 
 justifiable in the other. They # are additional evi- 
 dence of the difficulty of preserving the peace of 
 the world even by the most solemn of interna- 
 tional undertakings." 
 
23 
 
 Excerpts from an article by the Eight Hon. J. M. Eobertson, former 
 member of the British Cabinet, in the Contemporary Review of 
 May, 1919, under the title of "The Problem of Egypt," said in 
 part: 
 
 "A rebellion in Egypt in 1919 has set all men else- 
 where asking the question, Why? In 1914 a rebellion • 
 was planned for by the German enemy; how thoro- 
 ughly, the world has not yet been informed. Had it 
 broken out, the causation would have been sufficiently 
 obvious, apart from any known native discontent. But 
 that rebellion should have been averted then and should 
 blaze forth now, when the leagued enemies of the 
 British Empire are prostrate in defeat, signifies a new 
 causation. What is it? 
 
 "Some have put the hypothesis that Egyptian Mos- 
 lems are alarmed by the prospect of Jewish domina- 
 tion in Palestine. But even if there were not express 
 testimony that the Zionist leaders have maintained 
 thoroughly friendly relations with those of the Arabs, 
 such an explanation would be plainly inadequate. Mos- 
 lem feeling in Egypt about Palestine could at most 
 aggravate other grounds of resentment; it could not 
 motive a rebellion in which the Moslems of Palestine 
 have no share. Such a rising, exhibiting no signs of 
 direction from without, must be held to signify griev- 
 ances within Egypt; and new and special grievances 
 at that. The disorders reported from Cairo on April 
 14th appear to involve riots directed against the Ar- 
 menians and Greeks ; and it may be that the presence of 
 a number of Armenian refugees has helped to foment 
 fanaticism. But these attacks, as described, have the 
 appearance of being a sequel to the previous insurrec- 
 tion rather than a key to its causation. Normally, the 
 Moslems in Egypt live on perfectly good terms with 
 the numerous Greeks; fanaticism being in fact not a 
 
24 
 
 normal factor in the life of the Egyptian mass. And 
 the remarkable statement made by Miss M. E. Dur- 
 ham, in the Daily News, of April 2nd would seem to 
 yield the explanation. Thus it runs: 
 
 'I was in Egypt from Nov., 1915, to April, 1916, 
 and can confirm Dr. Haden Guest in his statement 
 that it is to our own treatment of the Egyptians 
 that we owe the present trouble. The authorities 
 were certainly to blame in landing Colonial troops 
 in Egypt without carefully instructing them as 
 to the population they would meet there. So ignor- 
 ant were numbers of these men that they imagined 
 that Egypt was English, and the natives of the 
 land were intruders. 
 
 'More than one Australian said that he would 
 clear the lot out if he had his way. They treated 
 the natives with cruelty and contempt. In the 
 canteen in which I worked, a very good native serv- 
 ant was kicked and knocked about simply because 
 he did not understand an order given him by a 
 soldier. An educated native in the town was 
 struck in the mouth, and had his inlaid walking 
 stick forcibly snatched from him by a soldier who 
 wanted it. More than one English resident said 
 to me : "It will take years to undo the harm that 
 has been do^e here by the army." Personally I 
 felt that were I an Egyptian I should have spared 
 no effort to evict the British. I felt ashamed of 
 my country — bitterly ashamed. The opinion of 
 the native for the soldier was amusingly illus- 
 trated by a small conversation book, one phrase 
 of which was to the effect: - "You fool. What for 
 you spend all your money on beer?" and a dia- 
 logue with a beggar which ended : "I am poor ; I 
 am miserable;" to which the Briton replied: "Go 
 to hell." 
 
 'I spoke with great severity frequently to the 
 soldiers, telling them that by their conduct they 
 were proving themselves the enemies of England ; 
 
25 
 
 that the Germans maltreated the enemy, but that 
 they were attacking their own side and would 
 make enemies. This surprised them very much. 
 They were absolutely ignorant of the situation. 
 
 ' To make matters worse, for the first few days 
 after the troops arrived in quantities, the drink 
 shops were all open all day, and the unlovely re- 
 sults filled the natives with disgust and contempt. 
 It was reported, I do not know with what truth, 
 that drunken men had snatched the veils from 
 Moslem women. The tale was believed by the na- 
 tives. 
 
 ' Small wonder if they hate and dread us.' 
 
 f< It is probably necessary to impress upon many peo- 
 ple in this country that the insolent outrage such as 
 that described, inflicted upon people in their own coun- 
 try by a dominant alien race, is about as maddening to 
 the indigenous population as Englishmen found many 
 of the tales of German brutality to British prisoners 
 and subject Belgians during the war. The blood boils 
 in Egypt perhaps more easily than in England. And 
 if any of our people continue to argue, as many of 
 them did a dozen or more years ago, that Egyptians 
 ought to be too thankful for our beneficent rule to feel 
 rebelliously about individual grievances, it will be more 
 necessary than ever to point out that such reasoning 
 tells only of an incurable moral blindness. Old chron- 
 icles are full of rebellion arising out of individual out- 
 rages; and a nation collectively grateful to an alien 
 race for ruling it is not among the portents of history. 
 
 "How Governent has gone in Egypt during the war 
 it was practically impossible for us at home to know. 
 It was no time for discussing reforms; and military 
 rule had to prevail there at least as much as here. 
 But when the world is intent upon a Peace Settlement 
 which is to remedy as far as may be all the grievances 
 
26 
 
 of subjected peoples, it would be idle to suppose that 
 wild mutiny and stern repression (going to the length 
 of bombing open villages) can go on in Egypt without 
 comment or criticism from our Allies, to say nothing 
 of our late enemies. 
 
 "If Egypt were under any rule but British, British 
 critics in general would hold it a matter of course 
 that such a mutiny as has recently been quelled there 
 must signify some kind of misgovernment. The fact 
 that we can quell a mutiny by bombing, from aero- 
 planes, the open villages of a population which simply 
 cannot organize a military resistance, is no proof what- 
 ever either of the general badness of the Egyptian 
 cause or the goodness of ours. 
 
 "Recollections of the history of Poland might suffice 
 to move thinking men in this country to seek for a 
 policy which shall not merely "hold down" the Egyp- 
 tian people now but make it unnecessary to hold them 
 down in future. Whatever the patriots in Parliament 
 and the NorthclifTe press may say for the moment, 
 this bombing of open villages and flogging of rioters 
 cannot improve our reputation either in Christendom 
 or in the Moslem world ; and it will not be permanently 
 possible even for the patriots to keep up a denuncia- 
 tion of Germans for their past bombing of non-com- 
 batants here while we bomb non-combatants in Egypt. 
 And there is a painful probability that such episodes 
 will recur unless we make a new departure in Egyp- 
 tian Government. 
 
 "It is presumably well known that the present system 
 is one embodying a few of the forms without any of 
 the realities of self-government. At every stage at 
 which those forms have been adjusted, the obvious 
 purpose was to give nothing approaching real power 
 of any kind either to the mass of the people or to 
 
27 
 
 Egyptian Ministers who nominally administered. For 
 such a policy of emasculation the private defence has 
 always been that neither Ministers nor people can be 
 trusted, the former to govern or the latter to control 
 them. It may simplify the discussion to admit that for 
 this plea there is some justification. It would be hard 
 to prove that the majority of the electors in Britain 
 who polled at the last General Election are well quali- 
 fied to vote. They are now showing signs of a change 
 of feeling which could hardly be parelleled in Oriental 
 history for quickness and completeness. That being 
 so, it is not to be supposed that the people of Egypt 
 are properly fitted to exercise political power. But 
 that does not alter the fact that in Egypt as in Europe 
 the only way in which any population can become 
 fitted to exercise political power is to begin using some 
 degree of political choice. 
 
 1 ' Certainly it is important that some amount of edu- 
 cation, in the ordinary sense of the term, should pre- 
 cede political enfranchisement — though a franchise 
 long subsisted with a low standard of popular educa- 
 tion in our own country. But Englishmen cannot long 
 plead lack of education in Egypt as a ground for de- 
 nying it any measure of real self-government, when 
 it is by the decision of the British control that Egypt 
 remains so largely uneducated. The policy of Lord 
 Cromer in that regard was fatally transparent. Until 
 within a short time of his resignation he refused even 
 the appeal of his British (the controlling) Minister 
 of Education to spend more than £200,000 a year on 
 the schooling of a nation numbering some twelve mil- 
 lions. The finances of Egypt, he declared, did not 
 admit of an expenditure much in excess of that. When 
 criticism was brought to bear in the British Parlia- 
 ment, he quickly discovered that he could spend the 
 
28 
 
 £400,000 his Minister had asked for; and since his 
 day the expenditure his greatly increased, still without 
 giving Egypt a good system of schools. 
 
 "The reforms, such as they are, have been largely 
 the result of native pressure. Egyptians of all classes 
 have long agitated for better and better schools, and in 
 particular for a good modern University. Before the 
 advent of the British control Egypt was, to a very con- 
 siderable extent, in a state of educational progress. A 
 study of the catalogue of the Khedival Library in 1906 
 revealed that quite a large number of scientific and 
 other works had been translated into Arabic, chiefly 
 from the French, in the days of Ismail and his pre- 
 decessors. Yet when it was urged upon Lord Cromer's 
 Government that science teaching should be introduced 
 into the programme of the secondary schools, the of- 
 ficial answer was that books for the purpose did not 
 exist. As they had existed a generation before, the 
 irresistible conclusion was that the British control had 
 let Egypt retrograde from the level reached under 
 Moslem rule. So reactionary was the influence of the 
 Cromer tradition that only after much pressure was 
 it made possible for students of agriculture in Egypt 
 to secure instruction in their own language. The 
 Cromer tradition was that they must master either 
 French or English for the purpose. Let the reader 
 try to imagine what would be said of a British Gov- 
 ernment that refused to give instruction in scientific 
 agriculture to farmer's sons save in a foreign lan- 
 guage. 
 
 "It is perfectly true that Lord Cromer managed 
 Egyptian finances well and economically, in contrast 
 with the extremely bad management of the old regime. 
 Probably no native Government could have approached 
 to the efficiency, to say nothing of the rectitude, of the 
 
29 
 
 British control in finance. As to all that there is no 
 dispute. But it savours almost of burlesque to argue 
 that the duty of the British control towards Egypt 
 was fulfilled when Egypt was made to pay full in- 
 terest on all its debts and meet the whole costs, civil 
 and military, of the British administration. For gen- 
 erations past, it has been, an axiom in our politics 
 that it is the business of governments to look to the 
 moral welfare of the nation as well as to its finance, 
 and it is upon their contributions to that welfare 
 that political parties now mainly found their claims 
 to support. The very backwardness of Egypt was a 
 ground for special measures to promote her moral 
 progress. To make the defence of British rule consist 
 in having regulated her finances and increased her 
 productivity while leaving her more backward than 
 ever in the elements of qualification for self-govern- 
 ment, was to discredit the cause that was defended. 
 The obvious answer of every impartial foreigner to 
 such a plea would be : 'You claim credit and gratitude 
 for having secured the safe payment of your own 
 bondholders, in whose interest you originally entered 
 Egypt. Orderly government was essential to that. 
 To earn credit and gratitude you must do a good 
 deal more. You must raise the levels of life for the 
 people of Egypt as you confessedly seek to raise them 
 for your people at home. And you must know — what 
 nation can know better? — that a people declared unfit 
 to manage their own affairs are thereby pronounced 
 low in the human scale.' 
 
 "It is, to say the least, unfortunate for the British 
 Government that such an outbreak in Egypt should 
 follow immediately on the close of the world war, 
 when 'self-determination for subject races' passes for 
 a principle with the Peace conference. Had those 
 
30 
 
 responsible for the control of Egypt in the past sought 
 to fulfil our old pledges with more of good will and 
 good faith, we might have escaped this unpleasant 
 emergency; though it will doubtless be argued that 
 Lord Morley's progressive measures in India did not 
 avert sedition there in 1914, and later. But the con- 
 clusion come to by responsible inquirers as regards 
 India is obviously still more compulsive as regards 
 Egypt. Our duty to prepare that country for self- 
 government has been again and again officially avowed, 
 from the time of our first entrance; and those who 
 think we can forever go on simply repressing dis- 
 content and maintaining the status quo, are plainly 
 unteachable by events. If the British control does not 
 get newly into touch with intelligent native opinion, 
 the situation will infallibly go from bad to worse, and 
 this in the eyes of a world newly critical of 'imperial- 
 ism.' That long vaunted ideal has somewhat rapidly 
 become a term of censure for whole nations. 
 
 "We shall be faced, as a matter of course, with the 
 regulation formula that there can be no talk of con- 
 cessions to a people who have been recently in re- 
 bellion. The Russian bureaucracy used to talk in that 
 fashion and we have seen the outcome. If those re- 
 sponsible for British rule in Egypt have in any degree 
 learned the lesson, they will as soon as possible set 
 about securing native support by taking natives into 
 council ; by giving room for real initiative to the nomi- 
 nal Egyptian Ministers, who must know a good deal 
 more about Egypt than do more than a few of the 
 British bureaucracy there, civil or military; and by 
 giving some reality to the form of self-government 
 which thus far have been allowed to count for next 
 to nothing in Egyptian politics. Before the war, there 
 were chronic and bitter complaints about the disre- 
 
31 
 
 gard of native wishes, as expressed by the elected 
 representatives, in regard to matters of administration 
 nearly concerning Egyptian welfare. During the war, 
 there, as here, must have been the possible minimum of 
 consultation of the people. Perhaps what has hap- 
 pened in the English by-elections within the last month 
 or two may suffice to suggest to the British Government 
 that the sooner it resumes touch with public opinion 
 , everywhere the better it will be for national stability, 
 to say nothing of the stability of the Ministry. Egyp- 
 tian mutiny is only the non-constitutional version of the 
 dissatisfaction that expresses itself in elections in the 
 constitutional country. And, to put the case at its 
 lowest, the safe course is to set about making Egypt 
 constitutional. 
 
 "J. M. KOBERTSON." 
 
 Capt. Wedgwood Benn in the House of Commons 
 on May 15, initiated a debate on the state of affairs 
 in Egypt. Among other things he said: 
 
 "It was not too much to say that the reason for 
 the calmness in Egypt, even when the Turks were 
 successful and had overrun the Sinai peninsula, 
 was that the Egyptians trusted that the assistance 
 they had rendered to the Empire in the war would 
 not be permitted to interfere with the satisfaction 
 of their legitimate aspirations. * * * 
 
 "The peace that had reigned in 1914, because 
 there was trust, was converted by somebody in 
 1919, when there was disappointment, into a na- 
 tional insurrection. * The unrest among 
 that large, busy and influential class of people 
 was caused by the fact that changes were in the 
 air and nobody had been consulted The under- 
 lying cause was that the status of Egypt had been 
 altered. 
 
32 
 
 Mr. Spoor (Bishop Auckland) said in the House of 
 Commons on the same day: 
 
 ' ' The situation in Egypt appeared to have been 
 aggravated enormously because Egypt was under 
 military control, and military control of a very 
 short-sighted kind. The methods of governing 
 Egypt had become more and more military; and 
 in regard to the censorship of information which 
 was allowed to be sent from that country, it was in- 
 teresting to note that the Times asserted ever 
 since 1914, it had been the most inept and most 
 savagely ruthless censorship in any country under 
 British control. 
 
 ''There were facts which could be thoroughly 
 well authenticated of atrocities of the most ex- 
 treme kind, that had been committeed with the 
 full sanction of our own military authorities. 
 * * The allegation (of atrocities) had become 
 so general, not only fn this country but throughout 
 Europe, that it was high time an inquiry was 
 held." 
 
33 
 
 FRENCH VIEWS. 
 
 Speech of M. Goude, of the French Chamber of Deputies, at the Sittii 
 of September 4, 1919. Translated from "Le Journal Officiel." 
 
 "M. Goude: In his speech of yesterday, M. Frank- 
 lin-Boullon said that under the appearance of 'no com- 
 promise' M. Clemenceau had surrendered on every 
 point. 
 
 "I will try to show that the President of the Council 
 (Prime Minister) at any rate adopted these tactics 
 when it came to settling a question that he understands 
 thoroughly, a question often discussed from this tri- 
 bune and upon which the Prime Minister has often 
 spoken. 
 
 ''Article 147 of the Treaty submitted to us for rati- 
 fication says: 
 
 'Germany declares that she recognizes the pro- 
 tectorate proclaimed over Egypt by Great Bri- 
 tain on the 18th of December, 1914.' 
 
 "This means that Egypt is placed under the Pro- 
 tectorate of England without this agreement having 
 ever been ratified by Parliament. Neither in the 
 Treaty of Peace nor in the report of M. Maurice Long 
 has one dared to directly approach this question; it 
 is well known that it is a thorny one and that it is 
 absolutely contrary to all the principles laid down by 
 the Entente Governments during the course of the war. 
 
 "It is known that at the present moment — in spite of 
 their appeals to all the Parliaments and all the poli- 
 ticians of the Entente— a people are being placed under 
 
34 
 
 the domination of another people. This is being done 
 in an underhand way. We are not asked at first — we, 
 the French Chamber, to ratify an agreement recogniz- 
 ing the protectorate declared by England over Egypt 
 in 1914, but we are told: 'We are compelling Ger- 
 many to recognize the protectorate proclaimed by 
 England over Egypt.' 
 
 "The question is brought up, I repeat, in an under- 
 hand way, because it is known that if the sole question 
 of the English protectorate in Egypt was brought be- 
 fore Parliament, a great debate would spring up and 
 I am convinced that if this question was the only one 
 under discussion before you, such a project of the 
 Treaty would never be approved. I, therefore, wish to 
 know and I ask for what reasons the French Govern- 
 ment thinks it right to place under English domination 
 the Egyptian people who protest with all their might 
 and all their energy as I will show. 
 
 "Is it not well known that Egypt has always shown 
 its determination to be independent? Is it not well 
 known that it is worthy of this independence? 
 
 "The Prime Minister himself has vigorously de- 
 fended the dignity of Egypt. He knows as we do that 
 the production of Egypt supports its 16 millions of 
 inhabitants, including Egyptians and Soudanese; that 
 almost all the landed property belongs to Egyptians; 
 that its farms are cultivated by native born subjects 
 to the exclusion of all others ; that this country had in 
 1913 a foreign commerce amounting in value to 12 
 thousand million francs (about 2,400,000,000 dollars) ; 
 that the National budget of Egypt is 800,000,000 francs 
 (about 160,000,000 dollars); that intellectual Egyp- 
 tians cultivate French traditions; that there exists in 
 this country boy's and girl's colleges in large num- 
 
35 
 
 bers as well as different high schools where the French 
 language is exclusively employed without forgetting 
 the celebrated Law school. 
 
 ' ' Fifty years ago the Khedive could declare : 
 
 'My country is no longer in Africa. It is a part 
 of Europe.' 
 
 " Thirty years or so ago, the Prime Minister, rising 
 in this Tribune to defend Egyptian independence as 
 I defend it today declared: 
 
 'I do not desire to enter into ethnographic con- 
 sideration as regard the Egyptian race — this is 
 not the place for it — but it is certain that this 
 race, of which we see some remarkable specimens 
 amongst us, in our schools, is a calm and docile 
 race — too docile, it may be said at certain mo- 
 ments — susceptible of culture and application — 
 an industrious race of which surely one has every 
 reason to expect much. No one can stand up in this 
 Tribune, no one will come into this Parliament 
 of the Republic to say that these men are incap- 
 able of freeing themselves and that we owe no 
 other duty to them, except to govern them with 
 a courbash and a cudgel. ' 
 
 ('Hear, Hear' at the extreme left). 
 
 "Thirty- two years ago the Prime Minister made 
 these declarations. Since then, as we know, Euro- 
 pean civilization has been spreading itself more and 
 more in Egypt, which ardently desires to Europeanize 
 its civilization, which is modifying its political struc- 
 ture, which has extended the suffrage to all citizens, 
 who have attained their twentieth year — a reform that 
 certain European nations might well envy. 
 
36 
 
 "It must be remembered that at the moment of the 
 declaration of war, on the 2nd of August, 1914, Egypt 
 was independent under the sole suzerainty of the Sul- 
 tan of Turkey. This suzerainty, approved in 1840 by 
 the European Powers, consisted in the payment each 
 year by Egypt of a tribute of 15 million francs to 
 the Sultan — and that was all! Having done this, it 
 had an absolute right recognized by the European 
 powers, to manage its own affairs according to its 
 fancy and to have its own constitution. I know well 
 that little by little England, by the force of her armies, 
 had got hold of Egyptian institutions, that the Mem- 
 bers of the Government were hardly anything more 
 than Englsh officials and that the President of the 
 Legislative Assembly is appointed by the Government. 
 But this was putting into practice the formula against 
 which we are all struggling: 'Might is right.' Eng- 
 land had no precise and express right in Egypt. The 
 most famous English politicians — the heads of the 
 Government — have said so on several occasions, as, for 
 instance, Gladstone, who in the House of Commons as 
 far back as the 23d of June, 1884, stated: 
 
 'We pledge ourselves not to prolong our military 
 occupation in Egypt beyond the 1st of January, 
 
 1888.' 
 
 " It is the same Prime Minister who said on the 18th 
 September, 1885: 
 
 'England ought to withdraw from Egypt as 
 soon as British honour will permit of it. We will 
 never admit that there can be any question of 
 annexation, of a protectorate or even of an in- 
 definite prolongation of the English occupation 
 and we repudiate all idea of any compensation 
 
37 
 
 whatsoever for the efforts and sacrifices that we 
 have made up to this day. English policy is 
 founded on an error and what is best to be done 
 in a matter like this, is promptly to put an end 
 to such an intervention.' 
 
 "It is Lord Salisbury who said on the 10th June, 
 1887 in the House of Lords: 
 
 'Her Majesty's Government by virtue of its pre- 
 vious engagements and of the rules of interna- 
 tional law does not think that it can place Egypt 
 under a protectorate. Its rule should be limited 
 to coming to an understanding with the Porte 
 to defend the interests of the Khedive against po- 
 litical calamities and to maintain the Statu quo 
 in the valley of the Nile.' 
 
 "There has been a large number of the declarations 
 but to shorten matters, I will only quote the one made 
 by Lord Salisbury in the House of Lords on the 12th 
 August, 1889: 
 
 'We cannot proclaim our protectorate over 
 Egypt nor our intention to occupy it effectively 
 and perpetually; this would amount to breaking 
 the international pledges signed by England.' 
 
 "Such was the state of the question during the 
 occupation. In the agreement called the 'entente cor- 
 diale' concluded in 1904 between Prance and England, 
 article 1, begins as follows : 
 
 'The Government of His Britannic Majesty de- 
 clares that it has not the intention to change the 
 political state of Egypt.' 
 
38 
 
 "In the course of the discussion of the Fashoda 
 affair, when England asked me to withdraw it was 
 not because the Soudan belonged or could belong to 
 England — it was because of England's declaration 
 that it was Egyptian territory. England has then 
 clearly recognized on every occasion the independence 
 of Egypt. 
 
 ' * Has the country, which was independent under the 
 sole suzeranity of the Sultan, and under the conditions 
 that I have precisely indicated become less deserving 
 of our consideration during the War? Is there any 
 reason for modifying, by lowering it, the political 
 status of Egypt? 
 
 "You know that Egypt came at once and took her 
 stand with the Allies. It must not be forgotten that 
 the silver thread to which I referred a moment ago 
 still bound it to Turkey. • 
 
 "Before Turkey declared war, Egypt placed itself 
 at the disposal of England — of the English Consul Gen- 
 eral — by saying: 
 
 'If you will promise us our complete independ- 
 ence, if the English armies undertake to quit our 
 country after the war, we will place our financial 
 resources, our provisions, our arms and our sons, 
 all in fact that we possess at your entire disposal ; 
 we are ready to go with you to the Continent to 
 defend the interests of the Allies.' 
 
 "To the offer thus made at this moment, England 
 replied by a downright refusal. 
 
 "Later the situation got worse. Turkey who was 
 suzerain over Egypt went to war against the Allies. 
 Egypt renewed its offer in the same way. The Sul- 
 tan, be it noted, had proclaimed a Holy War. Do not 
 forget that Egypt is a musulman country, but a country 
 
39 
 
 of semi-European civilization where a very lively sym- 
 pathy for Europe exists. In spite of the powerful 
 effect that the proclamation of the Holy War might 
 have on the peasant masses, who are profoundly 
 musulman in sentiment, Egypt, attracted by Euro- 
 pean culture came to us and said once more : ' Insure 
 us our independence after the war and we are with 
 you body and soul.' 
 
 "We have made use of Egypt; it is the Egyptian 
 artillery which checked the impetus of the German- 
 Turkish armies in February, 1915 when these armies 
 tried to seize the Suez Canal and to cut our communi- 
 cations. Egypt put its cotton at the disposal of 
 Europe. Later on in face of the necessity of growing 
 wheat, it abandoned the profitable production of cot- 
 ton in order to cultivate wheat and it put all its pro- 
 visions at the disposal of the Army of Salonica which 
 it victualled to a great extent. 
 
 "With a population of 13 millions of inhabitants, it 
 has placed 1,200,000 workers at the disposal of the 
 Entente — a figure recognized as exact by the English. 
 
 "All this Egypt has done for the Entente. Have 
 we now the right as a recompense for these services, 
 to violate the very principles that everyone here in- 
 vokes, the principles which have been laid down with 
 precision by President Wilson, when for instance he 
 said : ' Peoples ought not be passed on from one Sov- 
 ereignty to another by an International Conference 
 or an arrangement between rivals and adversaries 
 (Hear, Hear from several benches of the extreme 
 left).' The national aspirations ought to be respected. 
 The peoples ought today be governed by their own 
 consent. 
 
40 
 
 "Is it not there, besides an international interest that 
 Egypt shall not be placed under the domination of a 
 European Power? I have here under my eyes a short 
 extract from a speech of M. de Freycinet, then Prime 
 Minister, who on the 27th November, 1886, summed 
 up admirably the Egyptian question by saying: 
 
 'Egypt is a sort of crossing for the old world. 
 It is a junction between Europe, Asia and Africa. 
 It is a highway which permits of the penetration 
 of the Far East possessions. Besides, he who is 
 master of Egypt is master to a great extent of 
 the Mediterranean. It is certain that if a Great 
 Power installed itself definitely in Egypt, this 
 would be a very heavy blow to French influence 
 in the Mediterranean in such a manner that in 
 my estimation, France ought never reconcile her- 
 self to the idea that Egypt could definitely fall 
 into the hands of a European Power.' ('Hear, 
 hear' from the extreme left). 
 
 "This is an undoubted fact. And the question ought 
 not to be examined merely from a material stand- 
 point but also from a moral point of view. This 
 musulman country into which European civilization 
 penetrates little by little is being driven by us into a 
 corner where violence is its only recourse. This is 
 henceforth its only political issue. We could however 
 have made of Egypt a point of contact between East- 
 ern and Western civilization ('Hear, Hear' from the 
 extreme left). This is exactly what we are not doing. 
 
 "Not only will this country which came of its own 
 accord to the Entente receive no compensation but by 
 virtue of the Treaty of Peace its bounds will be 
 tightened and its chains made heavier. 
 
 " * * * in this Chamber, which during such a 
 long time and so very justly complained of the Bis- 
 
41 
 
 marckian policy, which had left in the side of France 
 the painful scar of Alsace-Lorraine, it is my desire to 
 declare that it is helping to create at this moment 
 another Alsace-Lorraine. 
 
 'M. Jean Longuet: Ten Alsace-Lorraines. 
 
 'M. Goude: Certainly, many Alsace-Lorraines, but 
 this one is particularly characteristic. 
 
 "Egypt which during the whole of the war and in 
 order to insure the victory of the Allies, has endured 
 without complaining the yoke of English militarism, 
 which has borne with all the measures of censure, with 
 all the house searches, trial sentences, etc. 
 
 'M. Jean Longuet: With the atrocities! 
 
 'M. Goude: Atrocities, — yes, that is the word. 
 Egypt will have no more of that now. It is in full 
 open revolt. You are aware that the President of the 
 Egyptian Council (Egyptian Prime Minister) who, 
 however, is a nominee of the English, and in a certain 
 sense an English official, found the Egyptian people so 
 unanimous against this domination and the protector- 
 ate, that he resigned. You know that the officials who 
 are specially under English authority, seeing that their 
 written protests were distorted went out on a general 
 strike in order to emphasize their vote of independ- 
 ence. You are aware that the working men are on 
 strike — that revolts have taken place in the streets in 
 which all classes and creeds have been united by a 
 common determination to win independence, that 
 crowds have been fired upon, that there have been 
 massacres and that condemnations have been pro- 
 nounced. ' 
 
 "Here, we have a University Professor — a Fellow — 
 condemned to penal servitude for life for having made 
 a speech — in favor of independence. Here again — 
 
42 
 
 to mention one case amongst many others — we have 
 Ibrahim Chalami sent to the gallows for having cried 
 out at the head of a demonstration ' Liberty, Equality, 
 Fraternity. ' 
 
 'M. Barthe: .They condemn even those who cry 
 "Long live France." 
 
 "M. Gonde: There are thousands of examples of 
 this kind. To maintain its protectorate, England has 
 at present 150,000 soldiers ; she is obliged to keep sol- 
 diers in every village because amongst University men, 
 notables, commercial men, fellaheen, no one will 
 accept this domination at any price and everyone de- 
 mands independence. Thrilling appeals have been 
 addressed to President Wilson, M. Clemenceau, to the 
 Chairman of our Peace Commission, to the Italian, 
 American, and English Parliaments." 
 
 'M. Jean Longuet: They are all deaf. 
 
 'M. Groude: But at all times and everywhere every- 
 body remains deaf except however the American Sen- 
 ate, the Commission of which has proclaimed that 
 Egypt ought to be as independent of English diplomacy 
 as of Turkish diplomacy and that it must be left master 
 of its own destinies.' 
 
 ("Monsieur le President of the Council" — said the 
 orator addressing M. Clemenceau) "not only have you 
 abandoned Egypt that you know personally, since, I 
 repeat to you, you have spoken very hard words 
 against our friends, the English, from this very Tri- 
 bune when this question was under discussion but, 
 what is graver still — what seems to me monstrous, is 
 that a Peace Conference brought together to settle 
 the question of the entire world has upon the orders 
 of the English Government refused to hear the Egyp- 
 tian Delegation, composed, as you well know, of the 
 President of the Chamber of Deputies of that Country, 
 
43 
 
 of Members of Parliament, of representatives of the 
 intellectual classes and of Egyptian notables. And 
 by refusing to hear them you have precipitated Egypt 
 into the only path left open to it ; the path of violence ! 
 
 "I ask you, M. the President of the Council, how can 
 Egypt otherwise get out of the situation in which you 
 have placed it? Yes — by your attitude and your de- 
 cisions you have decreed for that country violence and 
 revolution. 
 
 "You said of Egypt that its inhabitants were pacific 
 and docile — too docile perhaps. A heap of iniquities 
 have indeed been necessary to provoke the revolt of 
 such a peaceable race. 
 
 "How is it possible to better such a situation? Is 
 there any means of doing so? To whom should the 
 Egyptian National Representatives apply? They al- 
 ready have tried all the means at their disposal. 
 
 "The Vice-President of the Chamber of Deputies 
 and several of his colleagues have been imprisoned 
 simply because they wanted to come to Europe to 
 be heard by a delegation of the Peace Conference. And 
 never at any single moment has this Conference been 
 willing to listen to them. 
 
 "More than that, the Egyptian Army has been util- 
 ized during the war to occupy Hedjaz. The Egyptian 
 armies have been equally employed to occupy Soudan 
 and put a stop to the German maneuvers. Today at 
 the Conference of the Peace, the King of Hedjaz is 
 received — a king entirely of English manufacture cre- 
 ated in order that England might have an additional 
 vote. And this king, who has just come into existence, 
 who represents a country inhabited exclusively by no- 
 madic tribes — this king has been given the right to 
 sign a treaty in which a Protectorate has been imposed 
 on the neighboring Egyptian people. 
 
44 
 
 "To this point, have you gone in your injustices 
 towards Egypt, and yet, M. le President of the Coun- 
 cil, when you delivered the speech that I have recalled 
 —on the question of Egypt and the Anglo-French re- 
 lations you concluded by saying 'Assuredly if the end 
 of the Anglo-French alliance such as it has been de- 
 picted to us and such as it would be applied in prac- 
 tice was to organize with our aid the Slavery of the 
 Egyptian people and to reduce them to the position 
 of an inferior race, I would repudiate it with the great- 
 est energy and I would say to our pretended allies — to 
 our accomplices, I should call them — that I refund my 
 share of responsibility in such a reprehensible under- 
 taking. ' 
 
 "Thirty years ago you expressed yourself in this 
 manner. Since then Egypt has progressed; it has 
 come closer and closer to European civilization. And 
 you want today to make us share the responsibility 
 for the crime committed against Egypt in the Peace 
 Treaty. For my part, I will not lend myself to it. 
 Besides, T am certain that the English people repudiat- 
 ing English bourgeois traditions (applause on some 
 benches of the extreme left) and united with the French 
 people, will soon redress the injustice and the crime 
 that you are committing by once more enslaving 
 Egypt (Applause at extreme left)." 
 
45 
 AMERICAN VIEWS. 
 
 President Wilson, in his great address at Mt. Ver- 
 non, the home of Washington, on July 4, 1918, said: 
 
 "There can be but one issue. The settlement 
 must be final. There can be no compromise. No 
 half-way decision would be tolerable. No half- 
 way decision is conceivable. These are the ends 
 for which the associated peoples of the world are 
 fighting, and which must be conceded them before 
 there can be peace. * * * The settlement of 
 every question, whether of territory, or sover- 
 eignty, or economic arrangement, or of political 
 relationship upon the basis of the free, acceptance 
 of that settlement by the people immediately con- 
 cerned and not upon the basis of the material in- 
 terest or advantage of any other nation or people 
 which may desire a different settlement for the 
 sake of its own Influence or mastery. 
 What we seek is the reign of law based upon the 
 consent of the governed and sustained by the or- 
 ganized opinion of mankind." (Italics ours.) 
 
 Shall Egypt, without the consent of the Egyptians, 
 be turned over to England for the sake of England's 
 influence or mastery? 
 
 In the 14 points advanced by President Wilson, we 
 find the f olio wing pertinent and applicable provisions : 
 
 "Point 14. A general association of nations 
 must be formed under specific covenants for the 
 purpose of affording mutual guarantees of politi- 
 cal independence and territorial integrity to gnat 
 and small states alike." (Italics ours.) 
 
 This principle applied to Egypt would lead to a 
 conclusion directly opposite to the endorsement of 
 
46 
 
 the British seizure of Egypt and destruction of Egypt's 
 independence. 
 
 Applying the principle of the Seventh Point to Egypt 
 and only substituting the word "Egypt" for "Bel- 
 gium, ' ' the . Seventh Point would read : 
 
 "Egypt, the whole world will agree, must be 
 evacuated and restored, without any attempt to 
 limit the sovereignty which she enjoys in com- 
 mon with all other free nations. No other single 
 act will serve as this will serve to restore con- 
 fidence among the nations in the laws which they 
 have themselves set and determined for the gov- 
 ernment of their relations with one another. With- 
 out this healing act the whole structure and valid- 
 ity of international law is forever impaired. (Ital- 
 ics ours.) 
 
 The Question of Egypt. 
 
 From the Washington Post, Thursday, October 16, 1919. 
 
 "The question of Egypt's status is brought to the 
 front by Senator Owen's proposed reservation to the 
 peace treaty. The fact that this reservation is offered 
 by a Democrat, a strong supporter of the President, 
 increases the weight of the objections which are find- 
 ing voice in the United States against the snuffing 
 out of the principle of self-determination of well de- 
 fined nationalities. President Wilson gained the sup- 
 port of liberty-loving men throughout the world when 
 he set forth that principle and announced that it would 
 be made effective at Paris. In so far as the confer- 
 ence adhered to this principle its work was good and 
 
47 
 
 permanent, and wherever the principle was violated 
 there have been disorders and threats of war. 
 
 "Senator Owen's proposed reservation provides 
 that the British protectorate over Egypt shall be rec- 
 ognized as merely a means through which the nominal 
 suzerainty of Turkey over Egypt shall be transferred 
 to the Egyptian people, and shall not be construed to 
 mean recognition by the United States of British sov- 
 ereignty over the Egyptian people. 
 
 "The story of British ascendancy over Egypt, now 
 apparently to culminate in the extinction of self-gov- 
 ernment, is comparatively brief. The first occupation 
 by British troops was in 1882 and the ostensible ob- 
 ject was to suppress a rebellion against the Khedive. 
 The occupation was to be only temporary, according 
 to Premier Gladstone. He declared that England had 
 given 'specific and solemn pledges to the world' that 
 it would not annex Egypt, and he added that these 
 pledges had earned for England the confidence of 
 Europe. Evidently there was no intention at that 
 time to absorb Egypt. Yet the troops were not with- 
 drawn, and have never been withdrawn, notwithstand- 
 ing the persistent efforts of the Egyptian people to 
 recover the practical independence they had enjoyed. 
 
 "After the world war began the British government 
 removed the Khedive and appointed another, as a 
 war measure, and announced that Egypt was placed 
 under a British protectorate. The Egyptian people 
 might have been alarmed by this had not King George 
 himself sent a letter to the Egyptians, telling them that 
 the change was but a step toward the complete inde- 
 pendence of the people, and that the protectorate would 
 endure only during the war period. This reassurance 
 was satisfactory, and the Egyptians joined the allies 
 heartily, furnishing troops and large numbers of lab- 
 
48 
 
 orers who built the railroads, pipe lines, and oilier 
 military works in Palestine and elsewhere. 
 
 "When the armistice was signed the Egyptians be- 
 lieved the day of their national independence to be at 
 hand. They sent a commission to Paris to attend the 
 peace conference and to arrange for recognition of the 
 independence of Egypt, But the leaders of this com- 
 mission were seized by British officers and deported 
 to Malta, where they were placed in a German prison 
 camp. 
 
 "From that hour there has been a smoldering vol- 
 cano of revolt in Egypt. The people have had several 
 serious clashes with British soldiers in which machine 
 guns have quelled popular uprisings. In the meantime 
 Great Britain has obtained from President Wilson a 
 conditional recognition of the protectorate over Egypt, 
 and in the peace treaty is a clause requiring Germany 
 to recognize the protectorate. 
 
 ' ' The intentions of Great Britain toward Egypt are 
 somewhat confused in the minds of other governments 
 on account of conflicting statements issued by British 
 authority. When the Egyptian question was before 
 the Senate committee on foreign relations on Septem- 
 ber 2, the British embassy here made public a state- 
 ment declaring that 'the British government has care- 
 fully avoided destroying Egyptian sovereignty,' and 
 that the British flag in Egypt covered only British mili- 
 tary establishments. But the British foreign office a 
 few days later announced that Great Britain had suc- 
 ceeded to the sovereignty of Turkey over Egypt and 
 had acquired Egypt as spoils of war, apparently dis- 
 carding the pledge of King George and developing a 
 new policy of permanent control over Egypt. 
 
 "It may be that unfortunately worded or unauthor- 
 ized statements by British officials are at the bottom 
 
49 
 
 of the public confusion. In that case a clear reaffirma- 
 tion of Britain's intention to relinquish the protec- 
 torate and restore Egypt to its people as soon as the 
 peace treaty is ratified would remove all apprehension. 
 In the meantime, taking the treaty as it finds it, the 
 Senate will doubtless adopt a reservation on the lines 
 suggested by Senator Owen, for it is quite evident that 
 the United States cannot consistently subscribe to a 
 general principle of self-determination and inde- 
 pendence of nations and yet concur in the involuntary 
 absorption of Egypt by Great Britain. ' ' 
 
 Egyptian Betrayal the Most Heinous of the Reactionist 
 
 Wrongs. 
 
 By George H. Shipley. 
 
 "The case of the people of Egypt is a betrayal the 
 most heinous of the reactionist wrongs. 
 
 "On December 21, 1914, five months after the open- 
 ing of the war, the British Liberal Government after 
 deposing the Egyptian Khedive and placing in office 
 a sultan of their own choosing, spoke as follows to 
 the people of Egypt in the name of the King of 
 England : 
 
 'I feel convinced that you [the new Sultan] will 
 be able, with the cooperation of your ministers and 
 the protectorate of Great Britain, to overcome 
 
 ALL INFLUENCES WHICH ARE SEEKING TO DESTROY THE 
 
 INDEPENDENCE OF EGYPT * * *. (London 
 Times.) 
 
 "And yet the so-called Peace Conference of the 
 Allied Coalition Governments, has actually refused to 
 
50 
 
 the 13,000,000 Egyptians their independence under the 
 protection of the League of Nations, and the British 
 Reactionist Government has shot down hundreds of 
 the Egyptians who had the manhood to assert their 
 lawfully established rights, won in part of the lives 
 and the sacrifices of we Americans! 
 
 EGYPT'S SOVEREIGNTY VIOLATED. 
 
 By Herbert Adams Gibbons, Sometime Fellow of Princeton University; 
 
 Author of the ' ' New Map of Europe ; " the " New Map 
 
 of Asia;" the "New Map of Africa," etc. 
 
 "The 'interpretative resolutions' presented by Sena- 
 tor Owen in the Senate on Tuesday, greatly encourage 
 liberal thinkers, who are dissatisfied with the treaty at 
 Versailles, not for party or internal, but for interna- 
 tional reasons. Senator Owens is a Democrat and a 
 loyal supporter of the Administration. He makes it 
 clear that he intends to vote for ratifying the treaty 
 without amendment or reservation. But he feels that 
 the Senate while unqualifiedly accepting the document 
 from a technical point of view, should not fail to let 
 the world know how the United States stands in regard 
 to many of its provisions. 
 
 " Senator Owen wants the United States to start 
 to work immediately for a change in the league cove- 
 nant that will give freedom to subject states capable of 
 self-government. Senator Owen mentions specifically 
 a great wrong done to a sovereign State by the treaty 
 of Versailles. 
 
 'That the protectorate which Germany recog- 
 nizes in Great Britain over Egypt, ' reads the Owen 
 
51 
 
 resolution, 'is understood to be merely a means 
 through which the nominal suzerainty of Turkey 
 over Egypt shall be transformed to the Egyptian 
 people and shall not be construed as a recognition 
 by the United States in Great Britain of any sov- 
 ereign rights over the Egyptian people or as de- 
 priving the people of Egypt of any right of self- 
 government. ' 
 
 "This resolution is apt to displease British public 
 opinion, and Senator Owen may be accused of indulging 
 in the old sport of twisting the lion's tail. But the 
 accusation is unfounded. If we allowed our natural 
 sentiments of affection for our kinsmen overseas to 
 keep us silent at this time, we should find them getting 
 away with a lot of booty — and ourselves unconsciously 
 or unthinkingly giving sanction to high-handed and un- 
 justified acts of oppression and international robbery. 
 We cannot be too strong in our condemnation for in- 
 stance, of the Anglo-Persian treaty, concluded secretly 
 by intimidation and bribery at the very moment we are 
 asked to give our cooperation to a Society of Nations, 
 which Persia is invited to join. 
 
 ''The case of Egypt stands out with remarkable 
 clearness. It is one of the few moot questions of the 
 Treaty of Versailles which has not two sides. The 
 British protectorate over Egypt is an illegal action, 
 not only violating the sovereignty of Egypt, but also 
 the promises officially made by generations of British 
 statesmen. No denial of this fact is possible. Open 
 any history or go to British official correspondence 
 published by the British Foreign Office, and you will 
 read the repeated assurances given to the Egyptians 
 and to the other Powers that Great Britain did not 
 intend to stay in Egypt and would not establish a pro- 
 tectorate over Egypt. 
 
52 
 
 "The excuse for not hearing the representatives of 
 Egypt at the Peace Conference was that the question of 
 Egypt did not come within the scope of the conference. 
 If this were valid, why did the Treaty of Versailles 
 mention Egypt? And what right had the Powers to 
 deal with Egyptian questions at all? But Egypt did 
 enter within the scope of the conference, because it 
 was a country whose status had been changed by the 
 war and during the war. Technically, as well as 
 morally, the Egyptians had as much right to partici- 
 pation in the conference as the Arabs of the Hedjaz, 
 and more right to independence. For Egypt was only 
 nominally under the suzerainty of Turkey. By her 
 declaration of war against Turkey, the bond of vas- 
 salage was broken. Ipso facto, Egypt was independent. 
 
 "But the British, who were occupying the country, 
 proclaimed — without taking into their confidence the 
 Egyptian Legislative Assembly or asking the consent 
 of the Egyptian people — their protectorate over Egypt. 
 In war, what is expedient is justifiable. Although for- 
 mally protesting against this violation of pledges given 
 and reiterated, the Egyptians cooperated loyally with 
 the British throughout the war, waiting for the Peace 
 Conference to decide upon the legality of British action. 
 The Prime Minister, who consented to serve the new 
 regime and who continued in office throughout the war, 
 told me when I was in Cairo in 1916 that he was simply 
 waiting until the end of the war to hold the British to 
 their promises. After the armistice, Rushdi Pasha 
 asked to be allowed to go to London to take up the 
 matter of the status of Egypt with the British. Per- 
 mission was refused. A rigorous censorship was main- 
 tained. The Egyptians were held prisoners in their 
 own country. 
 
53 
 
 "Rushdi Pasha and the entire Cabinet resigned. A 
 period of military dictatorship began. When the 
 elected representatives of the Egyptian people asked 
 for passports to proceed to Paris, the British suddenly 
 arrested without warrant or warning the president of 
 the delegation and three of its leaders and deported 
 them to Malta. This led to the insurrection put down 
 by machine guns and burning of villages. The British 
 used the means of suppressing what they called 're- 
 bellion' which the world roundly condemned the Ger- 
 mans for in Belgium. Finally, force of Egyptian public 
 opinion compelled the release of the delegates and the 
 granting of passports for Paris. But the Egyptian 
 delegation, after its arrival in Paris, was never heard 
 by the conference. The stipulation compelling Ger- 
 many to recognize the British protectorate was inserted 
 in the Treaty of Versailles in defiance of the basic prin- 
 ciple President Wilson had declared would be followed 
 in making peace. A whole nation was robbed of its 
 sovereignty and its international status changed 
 against its will and, without having been heard, Egypt 
 was Shantung over again. 
 
 "I would not have my readers think that I am 
 writing without knowledge of the facts. A White 
 Book has just been published by the Egyptian dele- 
 gation, which contains documents setting forth the 
 history of the past year. The British Foreign Office 
 does not deny the authenticity of these documents. As 
 for the men deported to Malta, I know them personally. 
 No foreigner, even a Britisher, who knows Egypt can 
 deny that these men are honorable and capable and 
 that they represent the Egyptian people. The presi- 
 dent of the delegation, Zagloul Pasha, is one of the best 
 loved men in Egypt, a veritable father of his people, 
 Mohammed Mahmoud Pasha, a graduate of Oxford, 
 
54 
 
 was formerly Governor of the Suez Canal. The other 
 members of the delegation include the Sheik of the 
 Arabs of the Fayoum, the foremost landowners and 
 lawyers in Egypt, and the librarian of the National 
 Library. They are the cream of the Christian element 
 and the Greek Orthodox and Catholic element, as well 
 as the. Mohammedan element. The Egyptians are 
 united, irrespective of creed, in their determination 
 not to be bartered from one sovereignty to another 
 like cattle. * * *" 
 
THE WIND AND THE WHIRLWIND 
 
 BY 
 
 WILFRED BLUNT. 
 
 Published in 1883 
 From which the following may be quoted : 
 
 I have a thing to say. But how to say it? 
 
 I have a cause to plead. But to what ears' 
 How shall I move a world by lamentation, 
 
 A world .which heeded not a Nation 's tears ? 
 
 Where shall I find a hearing? In high ]daces? 
 
 The voice of havoc drowns the voice of good. 
 On the throne's steps? The elders of the Nation 
 
 Rise in their ranks and call aloud for blood. 
 
 We have had enough of strangers and of princes 
 Nursed on our knees and lords within our house. 
 
 The bread which they have eaten was our children 's. 
 For them the feasting and the shame for us. 
 
 Alas for liberty, alas for Egypt! 
 
 What chance was yours in this ignoble strife 1 
 Scorned and betrayed, dishonored and rejected, 
 
 What was there left you but to fight for lifel 
 
 Sad Egypt! Since that night of misadventure 
 
 Which slew your first-born for your Pharaoh's crime 
 
 No plague like this has God decreed against you, 
 No punishment of all fore-doomed in Time. 
 
 And thou too, Egypt, mourner of Nations, 
 
 Though thou hast died to-day in all men's sight, 
 
 And though upon thy cross with thieves thou hangst, 
 Yet shall thy wrong be justified in right. 
 
 Thou shall not be forsaken in thy children. 
 
 Thy righteous blood shall fructify the earth. 
 The virtuous of all lands shall be thy kindred, 
 
 And death shall be to thee a better birth. 
 
 Therefore I do not grieve. Oh hear me, Egypt! 
 
 Even in death thou art not wholly dead. 
 And hear me England! Nay, thou needs must hear me. 
 
 I had a thing to say. And it is said. 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 020 914 653 8 • 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, 
 
 if 
 
 020 914 653 8 
 
 Hollinger Corp.