أوراق مطبوعة عن الوضع السياسي والسياسة العسكرية في مصر [و‎‎٨‎٥] (١٧٦/١٦٩)

prevalent reluctance to deny the demands of relatives and proteges, they have made a
^reat number of highly arbitrary appointments and promotions. Though some of these
may bring them political advantage and provide convenient channels for the exercise of
power, there can be no doubt that in earning the thanks of one man they have incurred
the resentment of fifty, and that, while they have become unpopular among their
officials, they have not established at large the respect which accompanies a reputation
for justice.
The relations of the Egyptian Government with foreign representatives here appear
to be friendly and correct. 1 am not aware that any difficulties of importance have
arisen, but I shall observe with interest the negotiations with the German Minister
regarding the Egyptian articles of the Treaty of Versailles and the western frontier
negotiations with Italy.
Their relations with myself have been most cordial, and, in spite of their refusal to
^accept my scheme for the retirement and compensation of British officials, they have, in
general, shown-a friendly willingness to meet our views and to accept suggestions, and
where matters of principle were at stake they have been ready to seek some provisional
•and practical way out of a difficulty. Some patience, however, is often required to pass
the time between Sarwat Pasha’s very prompt verbal acquiescences and their practical
-application.
The Egyptian Government have, 1 think, been unwise in appointing no diplomatic
or consular representatives abroad; such appointments would have emphasised the
reality of Egyptian independence, and would have afforde 1 a means of countering
anti-Ministerial propaganda in England and elsewhere. They are, perhaps, more
interested in diplomatic than in consular reoresencation, and they have been precluded
from making any appointment to London by the King’s desire to appoint Adly Pasha,
who, for his part, is determined to remain in Egypt. Seifuflah Yousri Pasha, Mahmud
Fakhry Pas ia (ex-Minister of Finance and the King’s son-in-law) and Ismail Sidkv
Pasha have been proposed, and successively refused by His Majesty ; Mahmud Fakhry
Pasha has recently been proposed again, but has himself refused the appointment.
1 he course ot the relations between King Fuad and his Prime Minister has been
interesting. Until eighteen months ago the King was known to entertain an acute
personal dislike for Sarwat Pasha, and he did not easily acquiesce in Sarwat’s inclusion
in the Adly Ministry of last year. During that summer and autumn, however, while
Sarwat was acting as Prime Minister, their relations appeared to improve—helped, one
may presume, by the King’s acquisition at that time*of certain valuable properties of
the ex-Khedive—and that your Lordship will remember that by December Hs Majesty
had become most anxious that Sarwat should succeed Adly as Prime Minister. It may
be supposed that Sarwat regulated his behaviour towards the King with an eye to this
eventuality.
The advent of Sarwat Pasha to power, with a constitutional programme,
introduced the elements of certain discord, and during the summer the King and his
Prime Minister have been drifting apart, the former towards the consolidation of royal
prerogatives, the latter towards the constitutional limitation of the monarchy. The
crisis of July and August, reported to you in my despatches No. G71 of the 21st August
and No. 799 of the 30th September, were a phase of this constitutional struggle, and
the more recent disagreement over the King’s Vese-majestc law had the same origin.
1 npw pass from summarising the progress of the Ministry since it took office to
considering the political conditions prevalent in Egypt to-day.
The commonest general charge against the Sarwat Ministry is that it is
unrepresentative. It is, of course, like all preceding Egyptian Ministries, un
representative in the sense that it does not represent any electoral or otherwise
ascertained expression of majority opinion, but the charge is also true in the sense that
the Ministry is not really representative of that large section of opinion which in the
main shares its views. It is a group in a loosely arranged party of practical
Constitutional Nationalists, which had the courage to come forward when, upon the
rupture ot Anglo-Egyptian negotiations, the most prominent representative of these
views was driven into retirement, and another group, largely composed of ex-Zaghlulists,
from motives of prudence and of personal attachment to Adly Pasha, preferred to
remain in the background. The party, if it can be called by that name, draws its
strength from its constitutional principles, and the belief that it is the party of order.
It finds its support among the more level-headed of the professional classes, and,
especially on the second of these two grounds, among the land-owners large and small,
w ho are not, however, a politically-minded class. I have seen it alleged in certain
English papers, with reference to our difficulties in Turkey, that this is a party'of
Turkish pashas ; such a nomenclature is many years out of date.
[9311] , . . E