THE EGYPTIAN QUESTION 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM 
 THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 
 
 INSERTED BY 
 
 HON. ROBERT L. OWEN 
 
 OF OKLAHOMA 
 
 IN THE 
 
 SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 
 
 THURSDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1919 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 
 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
 1919 
 
 T' 
 
 147311—20000 
 
THE EGYPTIAN QUESTION, 
 
 Mr. OWEN. Mr. President, some days ago, October 15, I 
 Introduced a resolution bearing on the treaty of peace with 
 Germany. I ask to have inserted in the FIecokd a memorandum 
 of a letter fiorn King George to the Sultan of Egypt, which I 
 will not take the time to read, together with a cablegram to 
 Mahmoud Pasha from Mahmoud Soliman Pasha, which I shall 
 not take the time to read, bearing upon the same question, to¬ 
 gether with some data submitted by the Egyptian delegation 
 here, which I,ask, without reading, to have also printed in 
 the Recoro. 
 
 There being no objection, the matter referred to was ordered 
 to he printed in the Record, as follows: 
 
 “ Resolved, That the United States in ratifying the covenant 
 of the league of nations does not intend to be understood as 
 modifying in any degree the obligations entered into by the 
 United States and the Entente Allies in the agreement of No¬ 
 vember 5, iniS. upon which as a basis the German Em[)ire laid 
 down its arms. The United States regards that contract to 
 carry out the principles set forth by the President of the United 
 States on January S, 1917, and in subsequent addresses, as a 
 world agreement, binding on the great nations which entered 
 into it. anil that the t'rincijtles there set forth will be carried 
 out in due time through the mechanism provided in the cove¬ 
 nant, and that article 2H. paragraph (b), pledging tlie meml)ers 
 of the league to undertake to secure just treatment of the 
 native lidiahitants under their control, involves a pledge to 
 carry out these principles. 
 
 “The protectorate which Germany recognizes in Great Brit¬ 
 ain over Egypt is understood to be merely a means through 
 which the nominal suzerainty of Turkey over Pjg>’pt shall be 
 transferred to the Egyiitian people and shall not be construed 
 as a recognition by the United States in Great Britain of any 
 sovereign rights over the Egyptian people or as depriving the 
 peor»le of Egypt of any of their rights of self-government. 
 
 DATA COMPILED BY EGYPTIAN DELEGATION. 
 
 Shall Right or Might Prevail? 
 
 “ Eg.ypt is a country of immense wealth. It has millions of 
 acres of agricultural land greater in value per acre and in pro¬ 
 ducing power than any other country in the world. The seizure 
 of Egypt by Great Britain adds to Britain’s enormous posses¬ 
 sions 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 language. 
 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, Eg.vpt 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 
 2 147311—20090 
 
3 
 
 frora E?:ypt. In 1807 Great Britain attempted to Invade Egypt, 
 but was ejected by the Egyptian Army. 
 
 " Egy’pt continued to be a Turkish Province until 1831, when 
 war broke out between Egypt and Turkey, and the Egyptian 
 Army was victorious. Constantinople would have fallen to the 
 Egyptians, but Great Britain and France interfered in order 
 to preserve the balance of power and the Egyptians were com¬ 
 pelled to give up the full fruits of their victories. 
 
 “ By the treaty of London of 1840-41 Egy[)t became autono¬ 
 mous, subject only to an annual tribute to Turkey of about 
 $3,.o00.000. The Government of Egypt could maintain an army, 
 contract loans, make coimnercial treaties, and enter Into Inter¬ 
 national agreements. For all practical purposes Egypt was 
 independent and free. 
 
 “ In 1882 Groat Britain occupied Egypt ostensibly to protect 
 the Khedive against the movement for popular government, and 
 continued to occupy the counti'y, against the protest of the Egyp¬ 
 tians, under tlie protest of protecting thepeoplefrom the Khedive. 
 
 “ The British Government from the time of occupation 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 an¬ 
 other, special sacredness in this case binds us to withdraw the 
 British troops from Egypt.’ 
 
 “ Lord Salisbury, when prime minister in 1889, solemnly 
 assured Egypt and the world that Egypt would never be i)laced 
 under a British ‘protectorate’ or annexed by Great Britain. 
 
 “ Great Britain had agreed by the treaty of London of 
 1840-41 to pr<ttect the autonomy of Egypt, and in the Anglo- 
 French agreement of April 8, 1904, Great Britain dwhired that 
 It had no intention of altering the political status of Egypt. 
 
 “ Afer the beginning of the war, and on December IS, 1914, 
 Great Britain dei)osed the Khedive and appointed a sultan of 
 her own choosing to the throne of Egj'pt. On the same date 
 Great Britain proclalmetl 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 toward the Independence 
 of Egypt. 
 
 “ King George, in a letter which was widely circulated 
 throughout Egypt and which wms published in the London 
 Times of December 21, 1914, said: 
 
 “ ‘ * « « I feel convinced that you will be able, with the 
 
 cooperation of your mini.sters and the protection of Great 
 Britain, to overcome all influences which are seeking to destroy 
 the independence of Epypt, * * *.’ 
 
 “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 peoj)les. 
 
 “ When the armistice was signed the Egyptians rejoiced in the 
 thought that the day of their deliverance had come, and that 
 henceforth they would enjoy that right of national self-deter¬ 
 mination proclaimed by President Wilson. A commission was 
 appointed by the Egyptian people to attend the peace conference, 
 where their independence and sovereignty could be consecrated 
 and acknov.dedged by the powers. 
 
 147311—20090 
 
4 
 
 “In violfilion of its plod,sees of independence to the Egyptian 
 people, and regardless of the fact that the Egyptian people had 
 served and sacriticefi in the allied cause, Great Britain arresp'd 
 four of the leading citizens of Egypt, who had been selected by 
 the Egyptian people to go to F’aris, and these four were torn from 
 their homes without warning ami deported to Malta, where they 
 were thrown into a military prison. 
 
 “ M'lien the Egyptian people learned of this act of perBdy on 
 the part of Great Britain their indignation was intense. Na¬ 
 tional .self-determination demonstrations were held throughout 
 Egypt. Great Britain answereil these deinonstrarions fur na¬ 
 tional self-determination, the principle for which Great Britain 
 hail ostensibly fought in the war. by firing machine guns into 
 crowds of these peaceable and unarmed, liberty-.seeking people, 
 killing more than a thou.sand an<l wounding vastly mon». 
 
 “ Egyptians who dared to as.sert in public that Egypt should 
 have the right of national self-iletermination were put in prison. 
 The cry for liberty by an Egyptian was answered by British 
 military punishment. 
 
 “ If present conditions are permitted to continue, liberty is 
 dead to EgA’pt, and the right of self-detertnination to all [leoples, 
 for which Americans believed they were fighting, has been imide 
 a hollow mockery. 
 
 “ Gen. Allenby finally, by force of Eg\’ptian public opinion, ad- 
 vi.sed the British (Government to permit the commi.ssion to pro- 
 ceeil to Baris. Wlien the commission reached Baris they asked 
 for a hearing before the peace conference. This was denied 
 them. Tliey wrote to Bresident Wilson and asked for a con¬ 
 ference with Idm. Their appeals were iti vain. 
 
 “Some days after the commission reached Baris the so-called 
 protectorate of Great Britain over Egwpt was ‘ recogrdzi^l.’ The 
 holding of Kgypt by Great Britain is not a protectorate in the 
 legal sense of the word, hut under guise of a [irotectorate (Great 
 Britain Is holding Egypt to-day as a subject and comjjuered 
 nation. 
 
 “ The approval of this so-called protectorate would be accepted 
 by the British (Government as api*roval of the present holding of 
 Egypt by Great Britain as spoils of war and would rivet the 
 chains of subject slavery upon the Egji»rian people. 
 
 “ In a statement i.ssued liy the British Embassy at Washington, 
 Sei)tember 2, 15)10, and which was puhlisiied in the daily press, 
 the emha.s.sy stated : 
 
 “‘Great Britain has carefully avoided destroying the sov¬ 
 ereignty of Egypt.’ 
 
 “A few days later the British foreign ofiice in London gave 
 an interview to the International News Service, claiming to 
 have succeeded to Turkish nominal suzerainty over Egypt. 
 Great Britain is claiming both a protectorate and a sovereignty 
 over Egypt at the same time. 
 
 “ Great Biitain is holding Egypt to-day 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 ihe 
 exercise of the gospel of military force can the continued 
 holdirig of Egypt by Great Britain he maintained. Only in 
 violation of its sacred pledges and treaty obligations can Great 
 Britain assert dominion over the people of Egypt. 
 
 “On November 10, 1914, Lloyd-George in a speech called the 
 world to witness Ihe utter unselfishness of their part in the 
 147311—20090 
 
 / 
 
war. ‘As the Lord liveth,’ he declared, ‘England does not 
 want one yard of territory. We are in this war from motives 
 of pure chivalry 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 prin¬ 
 ciples of the 14 points and that Great Britain may deny the 
 right of self-determination to Egypt? 
 
 “The Egyptian people are liberty loving and peaceful. 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 government, controlled by their own people.” 
 
 BRITISH PLEDGES. 
 
 “ In INIay, 1882, a British fleet appeared before Alexandria, 
 In June, 1882, a .serious disturbance took place in Alexandria, 
 and a number of Europeans were killed. On July 11 and 12, 
 1882, Alexandria was bombarded by the British fleet and Brit¬ 
 ish soldiers began to occupy Egypt. Great Britain pledged the 
 Egj’ptian Government and the world that this occupation would 
 be only temporary. The solemn pledges to this effect made by 
 England are evidenced by the following documents: 
 
 “ 1. Lord Gi’anville’s dispatch, Movember 4, 1881 (Egypt, 
 No. 1 (1882), pp. 2, 3), said: 
 
 “ ‘ The policy of Her Majesty'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 Armans of the Sultan. ❖=!=>!= ^ j-qq 
 
 clearly understood that England desires no partisan ministry 
 in Egypt. In the opinion of Her Maje.sty’s Government a 
 partisan ministry founded on the support of a foreign power, 
 or upon the personal influence of a foreign diplomatic agent. 
 Is neither calculated to be of service to the country it admin¬ 
 isters nor to that in whose interest it is supposed to be 
 maintained.’ 
 
 “ 2. In the protocol signed by Lord Dufferin, together with 
 the representatives of the live other great powers, June 25, 
 1882 (Egypt, No. 17 (1882), p. 33), it was provided: 
 
 “ ‘ The Government represented by the undersigned engaged 
 themselves, in any arrangement which may be made in conse¬ 
 quence of their concerted 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 ad¬ 
 vantage 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 20, 1882, publi.shed in the Official 
 Journal of July 28, 1882, said: 
 
 “ ‘ I, admiral commanding the British fleet, think it opportune 
 to conlirm without delay once more to Your Highness that the 
 Government of Great Britain has no intention of making the con¬ 
 quest of Egypt, nor of injuring in any way the religion and lib¬ 
 erties of the Egyptians. It has for its sole object to protect Your 
 Highness and the Egyptian people against rebels.' [Italics 
 ours.] 
 
 147311—20000 
 
6 
 
 “ 4. Sir Cliai’les Dilke, in the House of Commons, July 25,18S2, 
 said: 
 
 “ ‘ It is the desire of Her Majesty’s Covernment, after reliev- 
 hiR Esypt 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 Efrypt, 
 that E^ypt should be governed by liberal institutions rather 
 than by a despotic rule. * * \\q (jy not wish to impose on 
 
 Egypt institutions of our own choice, but rather to leave the 
 clK)ice of Egyjjt, free. * * * . it is the honorable duty of 
 
 this country to be true to the principles of free imstitutions, 
 which are our glory.’ [Italics ours.) 
 
 “5. The Eight Hon. Mr. W. E. Gladstone, in the House of 
 Commons, August 10, 1882, said: 
 
 1 can go so far as to answer the honorable gentleman when 
 he asks me whether we contemplate an imlelinite occupation of 
 Egypt. Vniloubtcdly of all things in the irorld, that is a thing 
 which we are not going to do. It would be absolutely at vari¬ 
 ance with all the principles and views of Her Majesty’s Govern¬ 
 ment, and the pledges they have given to Kurope and icith the 
 views, I may say. of Europe itself.' [Italics ours.] 
 
 “6. Lord Dufferin’s dispatch, December 10, 1882, Egypt No. 
 2 (1888), page 80, 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 intentit)n so to 
 
 Conduct our relations with the Egyptian people that they should 
 • - naturally regard us as their best friemis and counsehns. but 
 
 that we did’not propose up(ju that account arbitrarily to impose 
 our views upon them or to hold them In an irritating tutelage.’ 
 [Italics oui's.j 
 
 “ 7. Lord Granville, December 29, 1882, Egj’pt No. 2 (1882), 
 page 38, oflicially stated: 
 
 You should intimate to the Egj'ptian Government that it is 
 the desire of Her Majesty’s Government to withdratv the troops 
 from Egypt as soon as circumstances permit, that such with¬ 
 drawal will probably be effected from time to time as the se¬ 
 curity of the country will allow it, and that Her Majesty’s Gov¬ 
 ernment 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), pages 41, 43, stated: 
 
 “ ‘ The territory of the Khedive has been recognized as lying 
 outside the sphere of European warfare and international jeal¬ 
 ousies. *=!••>!= 
 
 “ ‘ The Valley of the Nile could not be administered from 
 London. An attempt upon our part to engage in such an under¬ 
 taking would at once render us objects of hatred and suspicion 
 to its inhabitants. Cairo would become a focus of foreign 
 Intrigue and conspiracy against us, and we should soon And our¬ 
 selves forced either to abandon our pretensions under dis¬ 
 creditable conditions or embark upon the experiment of a com¬ 
 plete acquisition of the country.’ 
 
 “ 9. Again, at page 83, Lord Diifferin said: 
 
 “ ‘ Had I been commissioned to place affairs in Egypt on the 
 footing of an Indian subject State the outlook would have been 
 147311—20090 
 
‘V 
 
 f 
 
 different. The masterful band of a resident would have quickly 
 bent everything to his will, and In the space of live .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 consequent expansion of its revenue; by the partial if not 
 the total abolition of the corvee and slavery; the establishment 
 of Justice and other beueOeent reforms. But the Egyptians 
 would have justly considered these advantages as dearly pur¬ 
 chased at the expense of their domestic independence. More¬ 
 over, Her Majesty's (Jovennnent have pronounced ayainst such 
 an alternative.’ [Italics ours.J 
 
 “ 10. Mr. Gladstone, in the House of Commons August 6, 
 
 1883. said: 
 
 “‘The other powers of Europe * '•' * are well aware of 
 
 the general intentions entertained by the British Government, 
 intentions which may be subject, of course, to due consideration 
 of that state of circumstances, but Conceived and held to be 
 in the nature not oidy of information but a pledge or engage- 
 inent.’ (Italics ours.] 
 
 “11. Mr. Gladstone, in the House of Commons August 9, 
 
 1883, sa hi: 
 
 “ * The uncertainty there may be in some portion of the public 
 mind has reference to those desires which tend toward the 
 permanent occupation of Eg.vpt and its incorporation in this 
 Empire. This is a consummation to ivhich tee are resolutely 
 opposed arid loliich ivc icill have nothing to do icith bringing 
 about. 1l’e are against this doctrine of annexation; we are 
 
 against everything that resembles or approaches it; and ice arc \ 
 
 against all language that tends to bring about its expectation. 
 
 He arc against it on the ground of the interests of Hngland; 
 ice are against it on the ground of our duty to Egypt; ice 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 have earned for us the 
 confidence of Europe at large during the course of ditlicult and 
 delicate operations, and which, if one pledge can be more solemn 
 and sacred than another, special sacredness in this case binds 
 Us to observe. We are also sensible that occupation prolonged 
 beyond a certain point may tend to annexation, and consequently 
 it is our object to take the greatest care that the occupation 
 does not gradually take a permanent character, * * We 
 
 can not name a day and do not undertake to name a day for 
 our final withdraicul, 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 10, 18S-J, Egypt No. 23 
 (1884), page 13, stated: 
 
 “ ‘ Her Majesty’s Goverunient * * « 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 c:ui take place without risk to peace and order.’ 
 
 “ 13. I.ord Derby, iu 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 wc arc pledged to this countiy and to Europe; and 
 117311—20090 
 
8 
 
 If a contrary policy Is adopted It will not be by us.’ [Italics 
 ours. 1 
 
 “ 14. Lord Sali.sbury, in tlie House of Lords, June 10, 1887, 
 said: 
 
 “ ‘ It was not open to us to assume the protectorate of Efrj'^pt, 
 because Her Majesty’s Oovernmeut have again and again pledged 
 thenisrives that they reovid not do so. • * • My noble 
 fiiend has dwelt upon that pledge, and he does us no more than 
 justice when he exjiresses his ojiinion that It Is a pledge which 
 has been constantly present to our minds. • * * It was un¬ 
 
 doubtedly the fact that our presence in Egypt, unrecfvgnized by 
 any convention * * * gave the subjects of the Sultan cause 
 
 for a suspicion which vA'e did ni*t deserve.’ [Italics ours ] 
 
 “ 1.5. Lord Salisbury, in the House of Lords, August 12, 1889, 
 said: 
 
 “ ‘ When my noble friend * * » asks us to convert our¬ 
 selves from guardians Into proprietors * • * and to declare 
 
 our stay in Egypt permanent * » » j must say I tliink my 
 noble friend pays an insutliclent regard to the sanctity of the 
 obligations which the Clovernnient of the Queen hare undertaken 
 and by which they are bound to abide. In sui-h a matter we 
 have not to consider what is the most convenieiit or what is 
 the more protitaljle course; we have t«> consider the course to 
 which we are hound by our oicn obligations and by European 
 law.' [ Italics ours. 1 
 
 “ 16. Mr. Gladstone, In the House of Commons, May 1, 1893, 
 said; 
 
 “‘I can not do otherwise than express my gen<‘ral concnr- 
 ren('e • • * that the occutiatlon of Egypt is In the nature of 
 
 a luirden and difliculty, and that the pertuanent occupation of 
 that country would not be agreeable to our traditional policy, 
 and that It would not tie consistent with our gcuMi faith toward 
 the Suzerain power, while it would be contrary to tlie laws of 
 Euroiie. • * • j certaitdy shall not set up the doctrine that 
 
 we have discfiveretl a duty wfiicli etiaides us to set aside tlie 
 pledges into whicli we have so freely entered. 
 thing we can not do wdlh perfect honor is either to deny that 
 we are under engagements which preclude the idea of an indefi¬ 
 nite occupation, or so to construe tiiat Indetinlte occupation as 
 to hartifier tlie engagements that we are under by collateral con¬ 
 siderations.’ [Italics ours.] 
 
 “ 17. Ttie text of the Anglo-French agreement of April 8, 1904, 
 provhles; 
 
 “ ‘ Tlie Government of His Majesty declares that it has no in¬ 
 tention of alTering the politiciil status of Egyyit.’ 
 
 “ IS. Lord Cromer’s report, March 3, 1907, Egypt No. 1 (1907), 
 page 2, stated : 
 
 “‘There are iiisuperahle objections to the assumpition of a 
 British protectorate over Egypt. It would involve a change 
 in the fMilirical status of the country. Now, in Article 1 of the 
 Anglo-French agreement of the 8rh April, 1904, the British 
 Government have explicitly declared that they have no inten¬ 
 tion of altering the political status of Eg.vpt.’ 
 
 “19. In an interview with r>r. Nimr, editor of the Mokaffam, 
 October 24, 1908, acknowle<lged as official by Sir E. Grey in 
 the House of Commons, Sir Elilon Gorst said: 
 
 “ ‘ It has been said that Great Britain proposes shortly to 
 proclaim tlie protectorate or the annexation of Egypt to the 
 147311—20000 
 
9 
 
 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 has no foundation, and you may contradict it 
 categorically. Great Britain has engaged herself by official 
 agreements with Turkey and the European Powers to respect 
 the suzerainty of the Sultan in Egypt. She will keep her en¬ 
 gagements, 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 people nor the 
 Goveimment wish to rid themselves of these engagements.’ 
 
 “20. Sir Eldon Gorst’s report, March 27, 1909, Egypt No. 1 
 (1909), page 1. stated: 
 
 “ ‘ There exists among the better-educated sections of society 
 a limited but gradually increasing class which’ interests itself 
 in matters pertaining to the government and administration of 
 the country. This class aspires quite rightly to help in bringing 
 about the day when Egypt will be al)Ie 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 elements.’ 
 
 “21. In the same report, at page 48, Sir Eldon Gorst said: 
 
 “ ‘ Since the commencement of the occupation the policy ap¬ 
 proved by the British Government has never varied, and its 
 fundamental idea has been to prepare the Egyptians for self- 
 g(vvernment 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), page 51, stated: 
 
 “ ‘ Britisii policy in Egypt in no way differs from that fol¬ 
 lowed by Great Britain all over the world toward countries 
 under her influence, namely, to place before all else the welfare 
 of their populations.’ 
 
 “ 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.’ 
 
 “ 24. Former Premier Balfour, speaking for the Government 
 at Guild Hall, on November 19, 1914, declared: 
 
 “ ‘ We fight not for ourselves alone hut for civilization drawn 
 to the cause of small Stares, the cause of all those countries 
 which desire to develop their own civilization in their owm way, 
 following their owm ideals without interference from any insolent 
 and unauthorized aggressor.’ 
 
 “ 25. Premier Asquith, speaking at Guild Hall, November 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, de¬ 
 clared : 
 
 “ ‘ This is h wmr, among other things—perhaps I may say pri¬ 
 marily—a wmr for the emancipation of the smaller States. 
 * * * Peace when it comes, must be such as wdll build upon 
 
 a sure and stable foundation the security of the weak, the liber¬ 
 ties of Europe, and a free future for the world.’ 
 
 147311—20000 
 
10 
 
 “27. Premier LIoyd-George, on June 20, 1917, said: 
 
 “‘In my .iudgment tliLs war will come to an end when the 
 allied powers have reached the aims which they set out to attain 
 when they accepted the challenge thrown down by Germany to 
 civilization.’ 
 
 “ 2S. Asquith, in the House of Commons, on December 20, 1917, 
 said: 
 
 “ ‘ We ought to make it increasing clear by every possible 
 means that the only ends we are fighting for are liberty and 
 ju.stice for the whole world, through a confederation of great 
 and small States, all to possess equal richts. A league of na¬ 
 tions is the ideal for which we are fighting, and we shall con¬ 
 tinue fighting for it with a clear conscience, clean hands, and an 
 unwavering heart.’ 
 
 “After the beginning of the World War. and on December IS, 
 1914, Great Britain proclaimed a so-called protectorate over 
 Egyiit. The proclamation seizing Egypt and placing Egypt un¬ 
 der the British flag is puldished in the Loudon Times of Decem¬ 
 ber 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 ene¬ 
 mies. IJin Majesty’s Government has seen fit to depose him from 
 the khedirute, 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 IMehemet Ali, and 
 hits been accepted by him, 
 
 “‘The King has been pleased to approve the appointment of 
 Prince Hussein to an honorary Knight Grand Cro.ss of the Order 
 of the Bath on the occasion of his accession to the sultanate.’ 
 [Italics otir.s.] 
 
 “The London Times, in the is.sue of December 19. 1914, had 
 large headlines saying. ‘Egypt under the British flag,’ But the 
 Time.s, in an editorial in the i.ssue of same date, with character¬ 
 istic British diplomacy, naively said : 
 
 “ ‘All that is desired now is to defend Eg^’pt against attack 
 and to keep the internal administration running smoothly. 
 Other questions can wait until peace is restored, as Lord Cromer 
 implies in the letter we published to-day. * * -1= 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 Turkish aggression. The 
 truth is that under the guise of a ‘ i)rotectorate ’ Great Britain 
 seized Egypt and swept away every vestige of Eg^'ptian freedom 
 and indef»endence. But the people of Egypt did not realize at 
 that time the full meaning of this action on the part of Great 
 Britain. Tliey were told that it was a step toward the inde¬ 
 pendence of Egypt. Plis Majesty King George, in a letter to the 
 Sultan whom he had appointed to rule over Egjpt, which letter 
 was widely circulated throughout Egypt and was published In 
 the Loudon Times of date December 21, 1914, said: 
 
 I fggi convinced that you 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. * * * ’ [Italics ours.] 
 147811—20090 
 
11 
 
 TREATMENT OF EGYPTIAN DELEGATES TO 
 PEACE CONFERENCE. 
 
 LETTER PROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE EGYPTIAN DELEGA¬ 
 TION TO SIR REGINALD WINGATE, BRITISH HIGH COMMIS¬ 
 SIONER TO EGYPT: 
 
 [From the EsyRtiaii White Book, p. 19.] 
 
 “ ‘ I addres.'^ed to British headquarters on the 20th instant 
 (November) a letter in which 1 requested for my colleague and 
 myself the permission necessary for voyage. * * * \Ve have 
 just received a letter from the military authorities dated to-day, 
 informing us that dlfhculties have arisen which have prevented 
 them from responding before and that as soon as they are 
 smoothed out we shall receive on answer. * * * \Ve I’ely 
 upon the traditions of Great Britain. The British have not 
 ceased to give to the world examples of the devotion to the 
 principles of individual liberty. Will not our request for pass¬ 
 ports receive a quick and favorable response?’ 
 
 “ To this the following letter was received on December 1, 
 1918, page 21: 
 
 “ ‘ I am directed by his excellency, the high commissioner, to 
 acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 29th u’timo and to 
 inform you in reply that after reference to His Majesty’s Gov¬ 
 ernment. his excellency feels unable to make any representations 
 to the military authorities in the matter. 
 
 “ ‘ I am to add that should you desire to submit suggestions as 
 to the government of Egyqjt, not lieing inconsistent with the policy 
 of His Dlajesty’s Government as already declared, such sugges¬ 
 tions can most conveniently bo submitted in writing to his ex¬ 
 cellency. In this connection I may draw your attention to the 
 communication addressed by Sir Mi le Cheetham, proclamation 
 of protectorate 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 fol¬ 
 lows. page 22: 
 
 “ ‘ In response I allow myself to make known to your excel¬ 
 lency that it is not permitted, neither to me nor to any member 
 of the delegation, to make jiroiiositions which are not in ac¬ 
 cordance with the will of the E,gyptian nation as expressed in 
 the mandates that have been given us. * Forbidding 
 
 our departure makes il usory and inoperative the mission that we 
 have accepted by will of the people. It is diflicult 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 ora for mankind through listening 
 and granting the just demands 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 (p. 26) : 
 
 “ ‘ You have certainly been misinformed of the circumstance.? 
 that accompanied our sequestration. We can not imi^ine how 
 such proceedings can be justified, whether from the point of 
 view of law or social usage, or even of reasonable policy, and 
 we can not understand how the British can apply systematically 
 so humiliating a treatment to a nation with the rich and 
 glorious past of ours. Whatever may bo its present weakness, a 
 147.S11—20090 
 
12 
 
 nation vvitli a civilization so ancient will always preserve before 
 the world its prestige and its title to the j^ratitude of the world. 
 
 “ ‘ Deny the ('ivi)ization of Egypt in spite of traces that attest 
 Its glorious past; deny its benefits 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 precious aid to you? The enor¬ 
 mous sacrifice that we have made during the war in blood and 
 treasure for the triumph of your cause, were indispensable to 
 you, and moreover you have recognized many times that these 
 sacrifices were one of the principal factors of victory in the 
 Orient. 
 
 «»* • Even were you to suppose that Egypt bad no 
 
 civilization and that Egypt gave yon no aid. would you none 
 the less reftise to ai>ply to her the principles which you have 
 agreed with President Wilson to apply—impartial justi<'e on 
 every side of settlement no matter whose interest is crossed, 
 and not only impartial justice hut 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 conference (p. 8<S) : 
 
 “‘For more than five months tlie British authorities refusetl 
 • to allow our delegation to leave for Europe. Public oi)trdon, 
 realizing that a pe:iee conference had assembled gnd was taking 
 up the problems of the Near East, and preparing a treaty to 
 present to (lermany. became aroused. Tlie Egyi»tians insisted 
 that the authorization for onr dettarture he granted. Standing 
 by the people, the cabinet presented its resignation, which was 
 accepted. The answer of the British ndlitary anthoritles to 
 the official reqiiest of the Egyptian (foveniment was to order 
 the arrest ami det>ortation to Malta of the [(resident of the 
 delegation and of three of his colleagties. Tliey 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 tindr arrest and deportation, ^^’hen they learned 
 of this act of violence, totally contrary to the law, there were 
 pe.-iceful demonstrations titnmghoiit tlie country. In wliich all 
 classes took part, (rovernrnent officials and the personnel of 
 railways and otlier fransr)orfafion service, deedded to strike. 
 The Englisti thus saw that In the entire territory of Egypt the 
 people of all classes. Irrespective of religion, were against their 
 domination, nevertheless they persisted In their wish to govern 
 b.v force of arms the people who did not want them. 
 
 “‘The manifestatioris were snpyiressed by machine guns 
 winch mowed down dozens of unfortunate demonstrators. 
 Since the Egyptians had no arms, the order to fire was totally 
 11 nwaminted. But frdghtfnlness could not stop the Eg^’yitians 
 from proceeding in their derennination to make an effort to 
 obtain tlietr independence. They had firm faith in the prin¬ 
 ciples 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. Wifhont mentioning 
 tliose who fell on the field of honor during the national demon¬ 
 strations, we can cite the case of the leading ladies of Cairo 
 
 147311—20090 
 
who organized under the leadership of the wife of the prime min¬ 
 ister, a demonsti’ation to protest to the diplomatic agencies 
 against the murder of innocent and unarmed citizens in the 
 streets of Cairo. Suddenly they were surrounded on all sides 
 by soldiers vvho pointed their guns at them. This inspired 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 testi¬ 
 mony 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 movement 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 allowed themselves 
 to indulge in the most disgraceful 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 legisla¬ 
 tive assembly had been victims—no longer was it a question of 
 blows and thefts in the streets of Alexandria atid Cairo, attacks 
 began to be made by strong military attachments under the,com¬ 
 mand of their ollicers in villages as well as cities.” 
 
 BRITISH VIEWS ON THE EGYPTIAN QUESTION. 
 
 “ Sir Thomas Barclay, vice president of the Institute of Inter¬ 
 national Law, says in his book, ‘ New Methods of Adjusting In¬ 
 ternational 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 noo lieen regarded by public opinion 
 tvith the same respect as international awards. The attitude 
 of England toward Egypt, of Italy toward Turkey, of Russia 
 toward Persia, of France toward IMorocco, and especially of 
 Germany toward Belgium, all are instances of eventual bad 
 faith, however justiliable the original intervention may have been 
 in the one case or unjustifiable in the other. They are ad<li- 
 tional evidence of the ditflculty of preserving the peace of the 
 world even by the most solemn of international umlertakings.’ ” 
 
 [Excerpts from an article by the Right Mon. J. M. Robertson, 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 elsewhere asking 
 the question, Wliy? In 1914 a rebellion was planned for by the 
 German enemy; iiotv thoroughly the world has not yet been 
 informed. Had it broken out, the causation would have been 
 sulliciently 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 Em¬ 
 pire are prostrate in defeat, signifies a new causation. Wliat 
 Is it? * 
 
 “ Some liave put the hypothesis that Egyptian Moslems are 
 alarmed by the prospect of Jewish domination in Palestine. But 
 even if there were not express testimony that the Zionist leaders 
 have maintained thoroughly friendly relations with those of the 
 147311—20090 
 
14 
 
 Arabs, such nn 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 he held to 
 signify grievances within Egypt; and new and special grievances 
 at that. The disorders reported from Cairo on April 14 appear 
 to involve riots directed against the Armenians and Greeks; and 
 It may be that the presence of a number of Armenian refugees 
 has heli)ed to foment fanaticism. But these attacks, as de¬ 
 scribed, have the appearance of being a sequel to the previous 
 insurrection rather than a key to its causation. Normally, the 
 IMosIems in Egypt live on perfectly good terms with the numer¬ 
 ous Greeks: fanaticism being in fact not a normal factor in the 
 life of the Egyptian mass. And the remarkable statement made 
 by Miss M. E. Durham, in the Daily News, of April 2 would seem 
 to yield the explanation. Thus It runs: 
 
 “ ‘ I was in Egypt from November. 1915. to April, 1916. and can 
 confirm Dr. Eladen 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 Eg>'pt without carefully instructing them as to the 
 pojiulation they would meet there. So Ignorant wvre numbers 
 of these men that they imagined that Egypt was English, and 
 the nil fives of the land were intruders. 
 
 “‘More than one Australian said that he would clear the lot 
 out If he had his w'ay. They treated the natives with cruelty 
 and coijtenqit. In the canteen in which 1 worked a very good 
 native servant wms kicked and knocked about simply because 
 he did not under.stand an order given him by a soldier. An 
 educated native In the towm was struclt in the mouth and had 
 his Inlaid w’aIking 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 done here 
 by the army.” Personally I felt that were I an Egyptian I 
 should have spared no efl'orf to evict the British. I felt ashamed 
 of my country—bitterly ashamed. The opinion of the native for 
 the soldier was amusingly Illustrated by a small conversation 
 hook, one phrase of which was to the effect: “You fool; what 
 for you si)end all your money on beer?” and a dialogue with a 
 beggar wdiich ended: "I am poor; I am miserable,” to w’hich 
 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 enendes of England; that the Germans maltreated the 
 enemy, but that they were attacking their own side and would 
 make enemies. This surprised them very much. They w’ere 
 absolutely ignorant of the situation. 
 
 “ ‘ To make matters w-orse, for the first few' days after tlie 
 troops arrived in quantities, the drink shops were all open all 
 day, and the unlovely results filled the natives with disgust and 
 contempt. It was reported, I do not know with w'hat truth, 
 that drunken men had snatched the veils from Moslem women. 
 The tale was believed by the natives. * 
 
 “ ‘ Small wonder If they hate and dread us.’ 
 
 “ It is probably necessary to impress upon many people in 
 this country that the insolent outrage such as that descrihed, 
 infiicted upon people In their owm country by a dominant alien 
 147311—20090 
 
15 
 
 race, is about as maddening to tlio indigenous population as 
 Englishmen found many of the tales of German brutality to 
 British prisoners and subject Belgians during tbe war. The 
 blood boils In Egj’pt 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 thank¬ 
 ful for our beneticent rule to feel rebelliously about individual 
 grievances, it will be more necessary than ever to point out that 
 such reasoning telis only of an inmirable moral blindness. Old 
 chronicles 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 government 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 wlien the world is intent upon a 
 peace settlement which is to remedy as far as may be all the 
 grievances of subjected peoples, it would be idle to suppose that 
 wild mutiny and stern repression (going to the length of bomb¬ 
 ing open villages) can go on in Egypt without continent or 
 criticism from our allies, to say nothing of our late enemies. 
 
 “ If Egypt were under any rule but British, British ciitics in 
 general would hold it a matter of course that such a mutiny as 
 has recently been quelled there must signify some kind of mis- 
 government. The fact that we can quell a mutiny by bombing, 
 from aeroplanes, the open villages of a population which simply 
 can not organize a military resistance, is no proof whatever 
 either of the general badness of the Egyptian cause or the good¬ 
 ness 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 Egyptian people now but make it 
 unnecossai’y to hold them down in future. Whatever the pa¬ 
 triots in Parliament and the Northcliffe press may say for the 
 moment, this bombing of open villages and flogging of rioters 
 can not improve our reputation either in Christendom or in the 
 iMoslem world ; and it will not be permanently possible even for 
 the patriots to keep up a denunciation of Germans for their past 
 bombing of noncombatants here while we bomb noncombatants 
 in Egypt. And there is a painful probability that such episodes 
 will recur unless we make a new departure in Egyptian Gov¬ 
 ernment. 
 
 “ 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 approach¬ 
 ing real power of any kind either to the mass of the people or 
 to Egyptian ministers who nominally administered. For such 
 a policy of emasculation the private defense 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 dis¬ 
 cussion to admit that for this plea there is some justitication. 
 It would be hard to prove that the majority of the electors in 
 Britain who polled at the last general election are well qualified 
 to vote. They are now showing signs of a change of feeling 
 which could hardly be paralleled in oriental history for quick¬ 
 ness and completeness. That being so, it is not to be supposed 
 147311—20090 
 
16 
 
 that the people of Ejrypt are properly fitted to exercise political 
 power. Bill that does uot alter the fact that in Jts in 
 
 Europe, the only way in which any population can become fitted 
 to exercise [lolitical power is to begin using some degree of 
 political choice. 
 
 “Certainly it is important that some amount of education, in 
 the ordinary sense of the term, should precede political en¬ 
 franchisement—though a franchise long subsisted with a low 
 standard of poymiar education in our own country. But Eng¬ 
 lishmen can not long plead lack of education in Egypt as a 
 ground for denying 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 Brit¬ 
 ish (the controlling) minister of education to syiend more than 
 £200,000 a year on the schooling of a nation numbering some 
 twelve millions. The finances of Egypt, he declared, did not 
 admit of an expenditure much In excess of that. When criti¬ 
 cism was brought to bear in the British Parliament he quickly 
 di.scovered that he couhi spend the £400.000 his mlni.ster had 
 asked for; and since his day the expenditure has greatly in¬ 
 creased. still without giving Egypt a good .systen) of schools. 
 
 “The reforms, such as they are, have been largely the result 
 of native pre.ssure. Egyptians of all classes have long agitated 
 for better and better schools, and in particular for a good mod¬ 
 ern university. Before the advent of the British control Egj'pt 
 was to a verv considerable extent in a state of educational 
 f)rogre.ss. A study of the catalogue of the Khedival Uliirary in 
 1S)()G revealed that qtiite a large number of .scientific and other 
 works hail been translated into Aratiic, cbiefiy from the French, 
 in tiie days of Ismail and his predecessors. Yet wlien It was 
 urged UT'on Lord Cromer’s Covernment that science teaching 
 sliould be Introduced Into the program of the secondary schonla 
 the official answer was timt books for the pnryiose did tiot 
 exist. As they had existed a generation before, the irresi.stible 
 conclusion was that the British control had let Egypt retro¬ 
 grade fiom the level reached under Moslem rule. So reaction¬ 
 ary was the influence of the Cromer traflitlon that only after 
 much pre.ssure 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 Covernment that refu.sed to give 
 instruction in scientific agriculture to farmers’ sous save in a 
 foreign langniage. 
 
 “ 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 gov¬ 
 ernment could have approached to the efficiency, to say nothing 
 of the rectitude, of the British control in finance. As to all 
 that there is no dispute; but it savors almost of burlesque to 
 argue that the duty of the British control toward Egypt was 
 fulfilled when Egypt was made to pay full interest on all its 
 debts and meet the whole costs, civil and military, of the Brit¬ 
 ish admini.stration. For generations past it has been an axiom 
 in our politics that It is the business of governments to look to 
 147311—20090 
 
IT 
 
 the moral welfare of the nation as well as to its finance, and 
 it is upon tlieir contributions to that welfare that political 
 parties now mainly found their chiiins to sii])port. The very 
 backwardness of Ej?ypt was a ground for special measures to 
 promote her moral progress. To make the defense 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-government was to discredit 
 the cause that was defended. The obvious answer of every im¬ 
 partial 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 tlie 
 levels of life for the people of Eg>’pt 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 unlit to 
 manage their own affairs are thereby pronounced low in the 
 human scale.’ 
 
 “ It Is. to say the least, unfortunate for the British Govern¬ 
 ment that such an outbreak in Egypt shouM follow immediately 
 on the close of the World War, wiien ‘self-determination for 
 subject races’ passes for a principle with the peace conference. 
 Had those responsible for the control of Egypt In the past 
 sought to fulfill our old pledges with more of good will and 
 gooil faith, we might have escaped this unpleasant emergency, 
 though it will doubtless be argued that Lord Morley’s progres¬ 
 sive measures In India did not avert sedition there in 1014 and 
 later. But the conclusion come to by responsible inquirers as 
 regards India is tdiviously still more compulsive as regards 
 Egypt. Our duty to prefuire that country bir .self-government 
 has been again and again otiicially avowed from the time of i>ur 
 first entrance; and those who thitdt we can forever go on sim¬ 
 ply repressing discontent and maintaining the status quo are 
 plainly unteachahle by events. If the British control does not 
 get newly into touch with Intelligent native opinion, the situa¬ 
 tion will Infallibly go from laid to worse, and this in the eyes 
 of a world newly critical of ‘Imperialism.’ That long-vaunted 
 ideal has sttmewhat 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 he no talk of concessions to a people 
 who have been recently in rebellion. The Bussltm bureaucra<‘,v 
 u.sed to talk in that fashion, and we have seen the outcome. If 
 tho.se respon.slhle for British rule in EgyiU have In any degree 
 learned the lesson, tlu'.v will as soon as pos.sible set about secur¬ 
 ing native support by taking natives into council ; by giving room 
 for real initiative to the nominal Egyptian ministers, who me.st 
 know a good deal more ahotit Egypt than do more than u few 
 of the British bureaucracy there, civil or military; and by giv¬ 
 ing some reality to the form of self-government .which thus far 
 has been allowed to count for nest to nothing in Egyptian 
 politics. Before the war there were chronic and bitter com¬ 
 plaints about the disregard of native wishes, as expres.sed by 
 the elected represent a tive.s, in regard to matters of a<lmlidsrra- 
 tion nearly concerning Egyptian welfare. TMiring the war there, 
 as here, must have been the possible minimum of consultation 
 147311—200a0 
 
18 
 
 of the people. Perhaps what has happened in the English by- 
 elections within the last month or two may sulFice to suggest 
 to the British Government that the sooner it resumes touch 
 with public opinion everywhere the better it will be for na¬ 
 tional stability, to say nothing of the stability of the ministry, 
 Egyptian mutiny is only the nonconstitutional version of tho 
 dissatisfaction that expresses itself In elections in the constitu¬ 
 tional country. And, to put the case at its lowest, the safe 
 course is to set about making Egypt constitutional. 
 
 “ J. M, Robertson.” 
 
 " Cnpt. Wedgwood Bonn, 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 nnich to say that the reason for the calm¬ 
 ness in Egypt, even when the Turks were successful and liad 
 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 tlie 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 dis- 
 nppointmet)t, into a national 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 underlying cause was that the status 
 of Egypt had been altered.’ 
 
 “Mr. Spoor (Bishop Auckland) said in the House of Com¬ 
 mons on the same day : 
 
 “ ‘ The situation in Egypt appeared to have been aggravated 
 enormously because Egypt was under military control, and mili¬ 
 tary control of a very short-sighted kind. The methods of gov¬ 
 erning Egj-pt had become more and more military ; and in re¬ 
 gard to the censorship of information which was allowed to be 
 sent from that country, it was interesting to note tJiat the Times 
 asserted ever since 1914 it had been the most inept and most 
 savagely ruthless censorship in any country under British con¬ 
 trol. 
 
 “‘There were facts which could be thoroughly well au¬ 
 thenticated of atrocities of the most extreme kind that had 
 bei'n committed with the full sanction of our own military au¬ 
 thorities. * * * The allegation (of atrocities) had become 
 
 so general, not only in this country but throughout Europe, 
 that it was high time an inquiry was held.’ 
 
 FRENCH VIEWS. 
 
 [Speech of M. Goiide, of the French Ch.Tml)er of Deputies, nt the sitting 
 of Sept. 4, 1919. Transiatecl from Le JournaJ Offlciel.] 
 
 “ M. Goude: In his speech of yesterday M. Franklin-Boullon 
 said that under the appearance of ‘ no compromise ’ M. Clemen- 
 ceau had surrendei-ed 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 tribune and upon which the prime 
 minister has often spoken. 
 
 147811—20090 
 
19 
 
 “Article 147 of the treaty submitted to us for ratification 
 says: 
 
 “ ‘ Germany declares that she recognizes the proteetorate 
 proclaimed over Egypt by Great Britain on the 18th of Decem¬ 
 ber, 1914.’ 
 
 “This means that Egypt is placed under the protectorate 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 ques- 
 ti<m; it is well known that it is a thorny one and that it is 
 absolutely contrary to all the principles laid down by the En¬ 
 tente Governments during the cour.se of the war. 
 
 “ It is known that at the pre.sent moment—in spite of their 
 appeals to all the parliaments and all the politicians of the 
 Entente—a iieople are being placed under the domination of 
 another people. This is being done in nn underhand way. 
 We are not asked at first—we the French Ghamher—to ratify 
 an agreement recognizing the protectorate deelare<l by England 
 over Egypt in 1914, but we are told: ‘We are comiielling Ger¬ 
 many to recognize the protectorate proclaimed by England over 
 Egypt.’ 
 
 “The question is brought up, I repeat, in an underhand 
 way, because it is known that if the sole que.stion of the English 
 protectorate In Egypt wa.s brought before Farliament a great 
 debate would spring up. and I am convinced that If this que.stion 
 was the only one under discussion before you such a project of 
 the treaty would never be approved. I therefore wish t<» know 
 and I ask for what rea.sons the French Government thinks it 
 right to place under English domination the Egyptian people, 
 who protest with all their might and all their energy, as 1 will 
 show. 
 
 “ Is It not well known that Egypt has always shown its de¬ 
 termination to be independent? Is it not well known that it is 
 worthy of this independence? 
 
 The prime minister him.self has vigorously defended the dig¬ 
 nity of Egypt. He knows, as we do, that the production of 
 Egypt supports ite 16,000,000 of Inhabitants, including Egyptians 
 and Soudanese: that almost all the landed property belongs 
 to Egyptians; that its farms are cultivated by native-born sub¬ 
 jects to the exclusion of all others; that this country had in 
 1913 a foreign commerce amounting in value to 12,000,000,000 
 francij (about $2,400,000,000) ; that the national budget of 
 Egypt is 800,000,000 francs (about $100,000,000) ; that intel¬ 
 lectual Eg.vptians cultivate French traditions; that there exists 
 in this coTintry boys’ and girls’ colleges in large numbers, 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 yeai's or so ago, the prime minister, rising in this 
 tribune to defend Egyptian independence as 1 defend it to-day, 
 declared: 
 
 “ ‘ I do not desire to enter into ethnographic consideration as 
 regard the FJgyptian 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 
 147311—20090 
 
20 
 
 race—too docile, it uiay bo said at certain moments—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 incapable of freeing them- 
 Belves 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 declara¬ 
 tions. Since then, as we know, European civilization has been 
 spreading itself more and more in Egypt, which ardently 
 desires to Europeanize its civilization, which is modifying its 
 political structure, which has extended the suffrage to all 
 citizens, who have attained their tw’entieth year—a reform that 
 certain European nations might well envy. 
 
 “ It must be I'emembered that at the moment of the declara¬ 
 tion of war, on the 2d of August, 1914, Egyjjt was inde¬ 
 pendent under the sole suzerainty of the Sultan of Turkey. 
 This suzerainty, approved in 1840 by the European powers, 
 consisted in the payment each year by Egypt of a tribute of 
 15,000,000 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 foi'ce of her armies, had got hold of Egyptian 
 Institutions, that the members of the Government were hardly 
 anything more than English officials, and that the President of 
 the Legislative Assembly is appointed by the Government. But 
 this was putting into practice the formula against which w'o 
 are all struggling: ‘Might is right.’ England had no precise 
 and express right in Egypt. The most famous English poli¬ 
 ticians, the heads of the Government, have said so on several 
 occasions, as, for instance, Gladstone, wlio in the House of 
 Commons as far back as the 23d of .Tune, 1SS4, stated : 
 
 “ ‘ We pledge ourselves not to prolong our military occupation 
 In Egypt beyond the 1st of .lanuai-y. 1888.’ 
 
 “ It is the same prime minister who said, on the 18th of Sep¬ 
 tember, 1885: 
 
 “ ‘ England ought to witlidraw from Egypt as soon as British 
 honor will permit of it. We will never admit that there can 
 be any question of annexation, of a protectorate, or even of an 
 indefinite prolongation of the English occupation, and we re¬ 
 pudiate all idea of any compensation 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 cud to such an inter¬ 
 vention.’ 
 
 “ It is Lord Sali.sbury who said on the 10th of June, 1887, in 
 the House of Lords: 
 
 “ ‘ Her Majesty’s Government, by virtue of its previous en¬ 
 gagements and of the rules of international 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 political calamities and to 
 main the statu quo in the valley of the Nile.’ 
 
 “ There has been a large number of the declarations, but to 
 shoi’ten matters I will only quote the one made by Lord Salis¬ 
 bury in the House of I.ords on the 12th of August, 1889: 
 
 147311—20090 
 
21 
 
 “ ‘ We can not proclaim onr protectorate over E^j^pt nor our 
 Intention to occupy it effectively and perpetually; this would 
 amount to breaking the international pledges signed by Eng¬ 
 land.’ 
 
 “ Such was the state of the question during the occupation. 
 In the agreement called the ‘ entente cordiale,’ concluded in lVt04 
 between Erance and Englanrl, article 1 begins as follows: 
 
 “‘The Gnvernment of His Rritannic Majesty declares that it 
 has not the intention to change the political state of Egypt.’ 
 
 “ In the course of the dis<-ussion of the Fashoda affair, when 
 Englanii asked me to withdraw, it was n(»t because the Siulan 
 belonged or could belong to England; It was because of Eng¬ 
 land’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 
 suzerainty of the Sultan atid under the conditions that I have 
 precisely intlicated, become less deserving of our cimstderarion 
 during the war? Is there any reason for modifying, by lowering 
 it, the political status of Egypt? 
 
 “ You know that Eg.vpt came at once and took her stand with 
 the Allie.s. If must not he forgotten that the silver thread to 
 which I referred a moment ago still hound it to Turkey. 
 
 “ K('fore Turkey declared war Egypt placed itself at the dis¬ 
 posal of England—«if the English consul general—hy sa.ving: 
 
 “‘If you will promise us our conqilete inde[iendence, if the 
 Etiglish armies undertake t«» (|uit our country after the war, we 
 will place our tinanclal resources, our jirovisions, our arms, and 
 otjr Sons. all. in fact, that we ftossess, at your entire di.'^po.sal; 
 we are really to go with yam to the Coutiiient to defend the inter¬ 
 ests of the Allies.’ 
 
 “To the offer thus made at this moment England replied by a 
 downright refusal. 
 
 “ Eater the situation gtd worse. Turkey, who was suzerain 
 over Egypt, went to w’ar against the Allies. Egypt renewed its 
 offer In tlie same way. The Sultan, he it noted, had proclaimed 
 a holy war. Do not forget that Egypt Is a Mussulman country, 
 but a country of send-European civilization, where a very lively 
 s.vmpathy for Europe exi.st.s. In spite of the powerful effect that 
 the prochimallon of the holy war ttdght have on the peasant 
 masse.s, who are profoundly Mussulman in sentiment, Eg.vpt, 
 attracted hy European 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 l.s the Egyptian artillery 
 which chei ked the impetus of the Oerman-Turkish armies in 
 February, lh15, when the.se armies tried to seize the Suez Canal 
 and to cut our communications. Egypt fiut its cotton at the 
 disposal of Eurojte. Eater on, in face of the necessity of grow¬ 
 ing wheat, it abandoned the profitable production of cotton in 
 order to cultivate wheat, and it put all its provisions at the 
 disposal of the army of Salonlca, vvliich it victualed to a great 
 extent. 
 
 “ With a population of 13,000,000 of inhabitants it has placed 
 1.200.000 workers at the disimsal of the Entente—a figure recog¬ 
 nized as exact by the English. 
 
 “All this Eg.vpt has clone for the Entente. Have we now 
 the right as a recompense for these services to violate the very 
 147311—200‘J0 
 
22 
 
 priudples that evciyone here invokes, the principles which 
 have been laid down with precision by President Wilson, when, 
 for instance, he said, ‘ Peoples ought not he passed on from one 
 sovereignty to another by an international conference or an 
 arrangement between rivais and adversaries.’ (’Hear, hear,’ 
 from several benches of the extreme left.] The national aspi¬ 
 rations ought to he respected. The peoples ought to-day be gov¬ 
 erned by their own consent. 
 
 “ Is it not there, besides an international intere.st, that 
 Eg>’pt shall not he 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 pidine minister, who on the 27th 
 of November, 1886, summed up admii’ably the Egj'ptian 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 higliway 
 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 |M)vver in¬ 
 stalled itself dehnitely in Egj’pt this wouhl be a very heavy 
 blow to French Iniluence in the Mediterranean in such a man¬ 
 ner that, in my estimation, France ought never reconcile her¬ 
 self to the idea that Egjpt could definitely fall into the hands of 
 a European power.’ [‘ Hear, hear,’ from the extreme left.] 
 
 “ This is an undoubted fact. And tlie (piestion ought not to 
 be examined merely from a material standpoint, hut also from 
 a moral point of view. This Mussulman country into whicli 
 European civilization penetrates little l)y 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 Egj’pt a point of contact between eastern and western 
 civilization. Hejir, hear,’ from the extreme left.] This is ex¬ 
 actly 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 Bismarckian policy, whiqh 
 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. .Iean Longuet. Ten Alsace-Lorraines.’ 
 
 " ‘ M. OouDE. 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 com¬ 
 plaining the yoke of English militarism, which has borne with 
 all the measures of censure, with all the house searches, trial 
 sentences, etc. 
 
 “ ‘ M. Je.\n LoNotTET. With the atrocities! 
 
 *“ M. Gouue. Atrocities. Yes; that is the w’ord. Egv’^pt will 
 have no more of that now. It is in full open revolt. Yon are 
 aware that the pre.sident of the Egyptian Council (Egyptian 
 prime minister), who, however. Is a nominee of the English 
 and in a cej'tain sense an English official, found the Egyptian 
 people so unanimous against this domination and the pro- 
 147311—20090 
 
23 
 
 tec'torate that ho 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 independence. You are aware that 
 the workingmen 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 fii-ed upon; that there have been massacres; and that 
 condemnations have been pronounced.’ 
 
 Here we bare a university professor—a fellow—condemned 
 to penal servitude for life for having made a speech in favor 
 of, independence. Here, again—to mention one case amongst 
 many others—we have Ibrahim Chalarni sent to the gallows 
 for having cried out at the head of a demonstration, ‘Liberty, 
 equality, fraternity.’ 
 
 “ ‘ M. Bakthe. They condemn even those who cry “ Long live 
 France.” 
 
 ” ‘ M. Goude. There are thousands of examples of this kind. 
 To maintain its protectorate, England has at present 150,000 
 soldiers; she is obliged to keep soldiers in every village, be¬ 
 cause amongst university men, notables, commercial men, fella¬ 
 heen, no one vviil accept this domination at any price and 
 everyone demands independence. Thrilling appeals have been 
 addressed to President Wil.son, M. Clemenceau, to the chair¬ 
 man of our peace commission, to the Italian, American, and 
 English Parliaments.’ 
 
 ‘‘ ‘ M. Jean Lonouet. They are all deaf.’ 
 
 ‘‘‘ M. Goude. But at all times and everywhere everybody 
 remains deaf except, however, the American Senate, the com- 
 ndssinn of whi(± has proclaimed that Egjpt ought to he as 
 Independent «»f English ditilomacy as of Turkish diplomacy, 
 and that It must be left master nf its own destinies.’ 
 
 ‘‘‘Monsieur le President of the Council,’ said the orator ad¬ 
 dressing M. Clemenceau, ‘not only have you abandoned EgA’pt 
 that you know personally, since, 1 repeat to you, you have 
 ST)oken very hard words against our friends, the English, 
 from this very tribune when this question was under discus¬ 
 sion, but, what is graver still—what seems to me monstrous— 
 Is that a peace conference brought together to settle the ques¬ 
 tion of the entire world has, upon tlie orders of the English 
 Government, refused to hear the Egyptian delegation, composed, 
 as you well know, of the president of the Chamber of Depu¬ 
 ties of that country, of members of Parliament, of reprt'senta- 
 tlves 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, JM. the president of the c(»uucil, how can Egypt 
 otherwise get out of the situation in wdilch you have placed it? 
 Yes; by your attitude and your decl.sions you have decreed for 
 that country violence and revolution, 
 
 ‘‘ You said of Egypt that its inhabitants were pacific and do¬ 
 cile—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 rep¬ 
 resentatives apply? They already have tried all the means at 
 their disposal. 
 
 147311—20090 
 
24 
 
 “ The vice president of the Chamber of Deputies and several 
 of his colleagues have been imprisoned simitly because they 
 wanted to come to Europe to be heard i)y 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 utilized during 
 the war to occupy Hedjaz. The Egyptian armies have been 
 equally employed to occupy Soudan and put a stop to the (Jer- 
 mau maneuvers. To-day at the conference of the peace, the King 
 of Hedjaz is received—a King entirely of English manufacture 
 created In order that England might have an additional vote. 
 And this King, who has just come into existence, who repre¬ 
 sents a country inhaltired exclu.sively by nomadic tribes—this 
 King has been given the right to sign a treaty in which a protec¬ 
 torate has been imposed on the neighboring Egyptian people. 
 
 “ To this point have you gone in your injustices towai-d Egypt, 
 and yet, M. le president of the council, when you delivered 
 the speech that I have recalled—on the question of Egypt and 
 the Anglo-French relations—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 practice 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 greatest energy, and 1 would say to our pretended 
 allies—to our acconq)li<-es, I should cal] them—that I refund 
 my share of responsibility in such a reprehensible undertaking.’ 
 
 “ 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 to-day 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. I am cei’tain that the English people repudiating Eng¬ 
 lish bourgeois traditions [applause on some benches of the ex¬ 
 treme 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.]” 
 
 AMERICAN VIEWS. 
 
 “ President Wilson, in his great address at Mount Vernon, the 
 home of Washington, on .July 4, 1918, said : 
 
 “ ‘ There can be but one issue. The settlement must be tinal. 
 There can be no compromise. No haif-w^ay decision w’ould be tol¬ 
 erable. 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 ierritory or sover¬ 
 eignty or economic arrangement or of political relationship upon 
 the basis of the free acceptance of that settlement by the people 
 immediately concerned and not upon the basis of the material 
 interest 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 organized 
 opinion of mankind.’ [Italics ours.] 
 
 “ Shall Egypt, without the consent of the Egyptians, be turned 
 over to England for the sake of I4ngland’s influence or mastery? 
 
 147311—20090 
 
25 
 
 “ In the 14 points ndvanced hy President Wilson we And the fol- 
 lovvinjr pertinent and appliesihle provisions: 
 
 Point 14. A general association of nations most he formed 
 nnder specific covenants for the pnriatse of affording nnirual 
 guarantees of pnlltirnl independence and territorial integrity to 
 great and ttmall States alike.' (Italics onrs.] 
 
 “ This principle ai»i)Iie<l to Egypt would lead to a conclusion di¬ 
 rectly opposite to the indorsement of the British seizure of Egypt 
 ami destruction of Egypt’s indepenflence. 
 
 “Apidying the principle of the s*‘venrh point to Egypt and oidy 
 gnhstituting the word ‘Egypt’ for ‘Belgium,’ the seventh point 
 would read: 
 
 “ ‘ Egypt, the whole world will agree, miist he evacuated and 
 restored without any attempt to limit the si>vereignty which she 
 enjoys in common with all other free nations. No other single 
 act will serve as this will serve to restore confidence among the 
 nations in the laws which they have themselves .set and deter- 
 ndneil for the government of their relations with one anotlier. 
 Without this healing act the irhale structure and validity of 
 intemational laic is forever impaired.' [Italics ours.J ” 
 
 THE QUESTION OF EGYPT. 
 
 fProra the Washington Post, Thursfl.ay, Oet. 16, 1919.1 
 
 “The question of Egyjit’s .status is hronght to the front hy 
 Bernitor ( )wkn’s projnised reservation—liiteritretafive resolu¬ 
 tion—to the peace treaty. The fa« t that this reservation—re.solu- 
 tion—is offered liy a n^-mocfat, a strong siippiuter of the Presi¬ 
 dent, increas**s the weight of tlie ohjections vvidch are tinding 
 voice in the I’idied States against the sniitrmg out of the priti- 
 Ciple of selfsleteruiiriathm of vvell-detitie<l nathaiallties. I'resl- 
 deTit W'il.son gained the su[)[)ort of liherty-loving men throughout 
 the world when tie set fcu’th that princii)le and announced that 
 It would i»e made effei tive at Pari.s. In so far as the conference 
 adhercal to this principle its work was good and [lermanent. and 
 wherever the principle was violated there have been disijrders 
 and threats of war. 
 
 “Senator Ovvkn’s proposed reservation ( re.solution ) j)rovide3 
 that the British protectorate over Egypt shall be recognized as 
 merely a means thnmgh which tlie nominal suzerainty of 
 Turkey over Egypt shall be transferred to the Egyi)tian peo¬ 
 ple, and shall not he c(»nstrued to mean recognition hy tlie 
 United States of British sovereignty over the Egyi»tian people. 
 
 “The story of British ascendanc.v over Egypt, now apparently 
 to cultiminate in the extinction of self-government, is compaia- 
 tively brief. The first occu[)arion by British troo[is was hi 18S2 
 and the ostensible object was to suiqire.ss a rebellion against 
 tlie Khedive. The occupation was to be only temporary, accord¬ 
 ing to Premier Gladstone. He declared that England had given 
 ‘specilic and solemn pledges to the world’ that it would not 
 annex Egypt, and he added that these pledges had earned for 
 ICngland the confidence of Euro[)e. Evidently there was no in¬ 
 tention at that time to absorb Egypt. Yet the ti-oops were not 
 withdrawn, and have never been withdrawn, notwithstanding 
 147311—20090 
 
 4 
 
26 
 
 the persistent efforts of the Egyptian people to recover the 
 practical iudepenrlence they had enjoyed. 
 
 “After the World War began the British Government re- 
 nroved the Khedive and appointed another, as a war measure, 
 and announced that Egypt was placed under a British protec¬ 
 torate. The Egyptian people might have been alarmed by this 
 liad not King George him.self sent a letter to the Egyptians, 
 telling them that the change was but a step toward the com¬ 
 plete irulependenee 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, 
 furtiishing troo[)s and large numbers of laborers who built the 
 railroads, pipe lines, and other military works in Palestine and 
 elsewhere. 
 
 “ When the armistice was signed the Egyptians believed the 
 day of their national independence to be at liattd. They sent a 
 commission to Paris to attend the peace conference and to ar¬ 
 range for recogidtlon of the independence of Egypt. But the 
 leaders of this commission were seized by British officers and 
 depoi’ied to Malta, where they were placed in a German prison 
 camp. 
 
 “ From that hour there has been a smoldering volcano of re¬ 
 volt in Egypt. The people have had several serious clashes with 
 British soldiers in which machine guns have quelled popular 
 uprisltigs. In the meantime Great Britain has obtained from 
 Pre.sident Wilson a conditional recognition of the profe«*torate 
 over Egypt, and in the peace treaty is a clause requiring Ger-, 
 many to recogj)lze the protectorate. 
 
 The Intentions of Great Bi'itain toward Egypt are some¬ 
 what confused in the minds of other Govei-nnients on ac*-<mnt of 
 contlicting statements issued by British authority. Whan the 
 Egyptian questi(m was before the Senate CouTinittee on Foreign 
 Kelations on Seqjteinber 2, the British Embassy here made pui> 
 lie a statement declaring that ‘ the British Government has 
 carefully avoided destroying Egyptian sovereignty,’ and that the 
 British flag in Egypt covered only British military establish¬ 
 ments. But the British foreign office a few days later an¬ 
 nounced that Great Britain laid succeeded to the sovereignty 
 of Turkey over Egypt and had acquired Egypt as spoils of war, 
 apparently discarding the pledge of King George and develop¬ 
 ing a new policy of permanent control over Egypt. 
 
 “ It may be that unfortunately worded or unautliorized state¬ 
 ments by British officials are at the bottom of the public con¬ 
 fusion. In that case a cleai' reaffirmation of Britain’s intention 
 to relinquish the protectorate and restore Egypt to its people 
 ns soon as the peace treaty is ratified would remove all appre¬ 
 hension. In the meantime, taking the treaty as it finds it, the 
 Senate will doubtless adopt a reservation on the lines sug¬ 
 gested by Senator Owen, for it is quite evident that the United 
 States can not consistently subscribe to a general principle of 
 self-determination and independence of nations and yet concur 
 in the involuntary absorption of Egypt by Great Britain.” 
 
 147311—iiooyo 
 
27 
 
 EGYPTIAN BETRAYAL THE MOST HEINOUS OF 
 THE REACTIONIST WRONGS. 
 
 [By George H. Shibley.] 
 
 “ The case of tlie people of Egypt is a betrayal the most 
 heinous of the reactioni.st wrongs, 
 
 “On December 21, 1014, five mouths after the opening of the 
 war, the British Liberal Government, after deposing the Egyp¬ 
 tian Khedive and placing in office a Sultan of their own chiH»s- 
 ing, spoke as follows to the people of Egypt in tlie name of the 
 King of England: 
 
 , “ ‘1 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 Egj'pt * * (London Times.) 
 
 “And yet tlie so-called peace conference of tlie allied coalition 
 governments has actually refused to the 13,000,000 Egyptians 
 their iudetteudence under the protection of the league of nations, 
 and the liritish Reactionist iiorernnient has shot down hundreds 
 of the Pfgyptians who had the manhood to assert their lawfully 
 established rights, icon in part of the lives and the suerifiocs 
 of we Americans I 
 
 EGYPT’S SOVEREIGNTY VIOLATED. 
 
 [By Herbert Adams Gibbons, somerirae fellow of Princeton University, 
 aullior of the New Map of Europe, the New Map of A.sia, the New 
 Map of Africa, etc ] 
 
 “ The ‘ interpretative resolutions ’ pre.sented by Senator Owen 
 in the Senate on Tuesday greatly encourage liberal tliinkers, who 
 are dissatisfied with tJie tn^aty at Versailles not for party or 
 internal but for international rea.sons. Senator Owen is a 
 I>emocrat 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 tlie 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 covenant that will give 
 freedom to subject States capable of self-government. Senator 
 Owen mentions specifically a gi’eat wrong done to a sovereign 
 State by the treaty of Versailles. 
 
 “‘That the protectorate which Germany recognizes in Great 
 Britain over Egypt,’ reads the Owen 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 sovereign rights over the Egj'ptian peo¬ 
 ple or as depriving the people of Egypt of any right of self- 
 govornment.’ 
 
 “ 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 un¬ 
 founded. If we allowed our natural sentiments of affection 
 ] 47311—20090 
 
28 
 
 for our kinsmen overseas to keep us silent at this time, Ave 
 should find them getting aAvay with a lot of booty—and our¬ 
 selves unconsciously or unthinkingly giving sanction to high¬ 
 handed and unjustified acts of opin-ession and international 
 robbery. We can .not be too strong in our condemnation, for 
 Instance, of the Anglo-I’ersian 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 l‘^g.vpt 
 Is an illegal action, not only violating ihe 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 tro to British official correspondence ptiblished by the British 
 foreign office, and you will read the repeat('d 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- 
 ectoiate over Egypt. 
 
 “ 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 clmnged by the 
 war and during the war. Technically, as well as morally, the 
 Egyptians bad as mueh right to participation in the confer¬ 
 ence as the Arabs of the Hedjaz, and more right to inde¬ 
 pendence. For Egypt was only nominally under the suzerainty 
 of Turkey. By her declaration of war against Turkey, the 
 bond of vassalage Avas bi'oken. Ipso facto Egjqit was inde¬ 
 pendent. 
 
 “ But the British, who Avere occupying the country, pro¬ 
 claimed—without taking into their confidence the Egyptian 
 legislative assembly or asking tbe conseut of the Egyptian 
 people—their protectorate over Egypt. In war what is expe¬ 
 dient is justifiable. Although formally protesting against this 
 violation of pledges giAmn and reiterated, the Egyptians co¬ 
 operated loyally Avith the British throughout the war, waiting 
 for the peace conference to deside 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 Avhen I Avas in Cairo in 1016 that he was simply Avaiting 
 until the end ( f the AAmr 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. Permission was refused. A rigorous censorship was 
 maintained. The Egyptians were held prisoners in their oAvn 
 country. 
 
 “ Rushdi Pasha and the entire cabinet resigned. A period of 
 military dictatorship began. When the elected representatiA'es 
 of the Eg^’ptian people asked for passports to proceed to Paris, 
 the British suddenly arrested without Avarrant or Avarning the 
 president of the delegation anil three of its leaders and deported 
 147311—20090 
 
29 
 
 them to Malta. This led to the insTirrection put down by ma¬ 
 chine guns and burning of villages. The Hritisb used the ineang 
 of suppressing what they called ‘rebellion’ which the world 
 roundly condemned the Germans for in Belgium. P'’inally. force 
 of Egyptian public opinion compelled the release of the dele¬ 
 gates and the granting of passports for Baris. But the Egyptian 
 delegation, after its arrival in Baris, was never heard by the 
 conference. The stipulation conir>elling Germany to recognize 
 the British protectorate was inserted in the treaty of Versailles 
 in defiance of the basic principle Bre.sident Wilson had declared 
 would be followed in making peace. A whole nation was rohbod 
 I 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 T am writing with¬ 
 out knowledge of the facts. A White Book has just hcen pub- 
 lished by the Egyptian delegation, which contains documents 
 setting forth the lilsrory of the past year. The British foreign 
 office does not deny the authenticity of these documents. As 
 for ttie men deported to Malta. I ktuAV them personally. No 
 foreigner, even a Britisher, who knows Egypt can deny that 
 these men are honorable and capable and that they represent 
 t the Eg>i>tian fieojile. The president of the delegation, Zagloiil 
 Basha, is one of the best lovoi) men in Egypt, a vetitattle father 
 of his peojtle: Mohammeil .Mahmoud Basha. a graduate of Ox¬ 
 ford. was formerly governor of the Suez Canal. The other 
 members of the delegation include the Sheik of the .Xralts of 
 tlie Fayotim, the f(»remost landowners and lawyers in Egyqtt. and 
 the librarian of the National Library. They are the cream of 
 the Christian element ami rhe Greek Orthodox anil GjithoMc ele¬ 
 ment. as well as the Mohammedttn element. The Eg.viithms are 
 united, Irresjiective of creed, in their determination not to be 
 bartered from one .sovereignty ft* another like <'atrle.” * * <k 
 
 ••On November d, BBS, Secretary of Stale Lansing published 
 the foliowing to the world : 
 
 ''‘From, the Sterretnry of Fttnte to the Miniafer of Siritserland, 
 in charye of (Jerman inter'estn in the United States. 
 
 “ ‘ Department of State, 
 
 '"November 3, 1918. 
 
 “‘Sir: T have the honor to request you to transmit the fol¬ 
 lowing communication to the German Government;. 
 
 -•‘‘In my note of Oclolier 28, 19iS. I advised .vou that the 
 President had transmitted bis correspondence with the <Jerman 
 antliorlties to the Governments with winch the Government of 
 the United States is associated as a belligerent, with the sug¬ 
 gestion that, if tiiose Governments were disposed to effect peace 
 U|ion the terms and principles indicated, tlieir military advi-sers 
 and the military advisers of the United States lie asked to sub¬ 
 mit to the Governments associated against Germany the neces¬ 
 sary terms of such armistice as would fully protect the interests 
 of the peoples involved and insure to the associated Govern¬ 
 ments the unrestricted power to safeguard and enforce the de¬ 
 tails of the peace to which tlie German Government had agreed, 
 provided they deemed such an armistice possible from the mili¬ 
 tary point of view. 
 
 147311—20090 
 
30 
 
 “ ‘ The President is now in receipt of a memorandum of ob- 
 Beiwations by the allied Governments on this correspondence, 
 which is as follows; 
 
 ‘“The allied Governments have given careful consideration 
 to the correspondence which has passed between the President 
 of the United States and the German Government. Subject to 
 the qualifications which follow, they declare their willingness 
 to make peace with the Government of Germany on the terms 
 of peace laid down in the President’s address to Congress of 
 January, 1918, and the principles of settlement enunciated in 
 his subsequent addresses. They must point out, however, that 
 elause 2, relating to what is usually described as the freedom 
 of the seas, is open to various interpretations, some of which 
 they could not accept. They must, therefore, reserve to them- 
 Belves complete freedom on this subject when they enter the 
 peace conference. 
 
 “ ‘ “Further, in the conditions of peace laid down In his ad¬ 
 dress to Congress of January 8, 1918, the President declared 
 that invaded territories must be restored as well as evacuated 
 and freed, and the allied Governments feel that no doubt ought 
 to be allowed to exist as to what, this provision Implies. By it 
 they understand that compensation will be made by Germany 
 for all damage done to the civilian population of the Allies and 
 theii- property by the aggression of Germany by land, by sea, 
 and from the air.” 
 
 “ ‘ I am instructed by the President to say that he is in agree¬ 
 ment with the interpretation set forth in the last paragraph 
 of the memorandum above quoted. I am further Instructed by 
 the President to request you to notify the German Government 
 that Marslial Foch has been authorized by the Government of 
 the United States and the Allied Governments to receive prop¬ 
 erly accredited representatives of the German Government, 
 and to communicate to them the terms of the armistice. 
 
 “ ‘ Accept, sir, with renewed assurances of my highest con¬ 
 sideration. 
 
 “‘(Signed) Robert Lansing.’ 
 
 “Among other things the President, on January 8, 1918, in 
 his address to Congress said: 
 
 “ ‘ We entered this war because violations of right had 
 occurred which touched us to the quick and made the life of 
 our own people impossible unless they were corrected and the 
 world secured once for all against their recurrence. What we 
 demand in this war, therefore, is nothing peculiar to ourselves. 
 It is that the world be made fit and safe to live in ; and par¬ 
 ticularly that it be made safe for every peace-loving nation 
 which, like our own, wishes to live its own life, determine its 
 own institutions, be assured of justice and fair dealing by the 
 other peoples of the world as against force and selfish aggres¬ 
 sion. All the peoples of the world are in effect partners in this 
 Interest, and for our own part we sec very clearly that unless 
 justice be done to others it will not be done to us. The pro¬ 
 gram of the world’s peace, therefore, is our ])rogram ; and that 
 program, the only possible program, as we see it, is this: 
 
 “ ‘ I. Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which 
 there shall be no private international understandings, of any 
 147311—20090 
 
31 
 
 kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and In the 
 public view. 
 
 “‘IT. Absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas, outside 
 territorial waters, alike in peace and in war, except as the 
 seas may be closed in whole or in part by international action 
 for the enforcement of international covenants. 
 
 “‘III. The removal, so far as possible, of all economic bar¬ 
 riers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions 
 among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating 
 themselves for 'ts maintenance. 
 
 “‘IV. Adequate guarantees given and taken that national 
 armaments will be reduced to the low’est point consistent with 
 domestic safety, 
 
 “‘V. A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjust¬ 
 ment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of 
 the principle that in determining all such questions of sov'er- 
 eignty the interests of the populations concerned must have 
 equal weight with the equitable claims of the Goverumeut 
 whose title is to be determined. 
 
 “ ‘ VT. The evacuation of all Ttnssian territor.v and such a 
 settlenient of all cpiestions affecting Russia as will secure the 
 best and freest cooperation of the other nations of the world 
 in obtaining for her an unhampered and unembarrassed oppor¬ 
 tunity for the independent determination of her own political 
 development and national policy and assure heCj^of a sincere 
 welcome into the society of free nations under Institutions of 
 her own choosing; and, more than a welcome, assistance also 
 of every kiml that she may need and may hers(‘lf desire. The 
 treati!ient accorded Russia by her sister nations in the months 
 to come will he the acid test of their good will, pf their com¬ 
 prehension of her needs as distinguished from their own inter¬ 
 ests, and of their intelligent and unselfish sympathy. 
 
 “ ‘ VII. Belgium, the whole world will agree, must he evacu¬ 
 ated and restored, without any attempt to limit the sovereignty 
 which she enjoys in common with all other free nations. No 
 other single act will serve as this will serve to restore confi¬ 
 dence among the nations in the laws which they have them¬ 
 selves set and determined for the government of their rela¬ 
 tions with one another. Without this healing act the whole 
 structure and validity of international law is forever impaired. 
 
 “‘VIII. All French territory should be freed and the invaded 
 portions restored, and the wrong done to France by Prussia 
 In 1871 in the matter of Alsace-Lorraine, which has unsettled 
 the peace of the world for nearly 50 years, should be righted, 
 in order that peace may once more be made secure in the 
 interest of all. 
 
 “ ‘ IX. A readjustment of the frontiers of Italy should be 
 effected along clearly recognizable lines of nationality. 
 
 “ ‘ X. The peoples of Austria-Hungary, whose place among 
 the nations we wish to see safeguarded and assured, should be 
 accorded the freest opportunity of autonomous development. 
 
 “ ‘ XI. Roumania, Serbia, and Montenegro should be evacuated; 
 occupied territories restored; Serbia accorded free and secure 
 access to the sea; and the relations of the several Balkan 
 States to one another determined by friendly counsel along 
 historically established lines of allegiance and nationality; and 
 147311—20090 
 
32 
 
 International guarantees of tlie" political and economic iiide-' 
 pendence and territorial integrity of tlic several Balkan States 
 should be entered into. 
 
 “ ‘ XII. The Turkish portions of the present Ottoman Empire 
 should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nation¬ 
 alities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured 
 an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested 
 opportunity of autonomous development, and the Dardanelles 
 should be permanently opened as a free passage to the ships 
 and commerce of all nations under international guarantees. 
 
 “ ‘ XIII. An independent Polish State should be erected whieh 
 should Include the territories inhabited by indisputably Polish 
 populations, which should be assured a free and secure access to 
 the sea, and whose political and economic independence and ter¬ 
 ritory integrity should be guaranteed by international covenant. 
 
 “‘XIV. A general association of nations must be formed 
 under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual 
 guaranties of political independence and territorial Integrity 
 to great and small States alike.’ ’’ 
 
 [Letter from King George to the Snltan of Rgypt, published In London 
 Times Dec-ember 21, 1914.] 
 
 * ♦ ♦ I f 0 gl convinced that you will be able, with the 
 cooperation of your ministers and of the protectorate of Great 
 Britain, to overcome all inlluences which are seeking to destroy 
 the independence of Egypt * 
 
 [Cablegram to Mahmoud Pasha, Shoreham Hotel, from Mahmoud 
 
 Soliinan Pasha.] 
 
 “ In an interview with Cairo newspapers on the 22d instant 
 Rushdi Pasha—who was prime minister when the Khedive was 
 dethroned by England and a Sultan appointed, and continued 
 throughout the war as prime minister of Egypt and resigned 
 toward the end of May last—declared that he never consented 
 to the “protectorate” of Great Britain over Egj’pt, except that 
 It was temporary and a war measure, and that it would disap¬ 
 pear when the Allies’ victory was complete. He asked England 
 to hear him and to hear the Egyptian nation duly represented 
 by the Egyptian delegation. He adds that Egypt’s aid to Eng¬ 
 land during the war was immense, and that 1,200,000 Egyptians 
 served on the allied side.” 
 
 147311—20000 
 
 o