Coll 15/3(1) 'Egypt. Abolition of Capitulations in Montreux Conference and Convention 1937' [‎296r] (596/1220)

unilateral
acquired by
signed, the
learing the
ood idea of
was for His
e Egyptian
;eign Office,
is task, and
ced, setting
;erned (both
press for at
as clear an
uld make at
as fully as
Grovernment,
nt, therefore
ing what, in
oe abolished,
which were
arantees for
i reasonable,
i margin for
of the other
ey had been
s, of course,
Government
guarantees on
contained in
hole question
^regarded his
they suffered
took place at
if the Belgian
gation, which
ted Kingdom
discussion on
Jnited States
Hews through
ail themselves
recess of
and of
oints in
: course of the
on, the unseen
egations, with
revealed their
tance.
(Vii minds
that the
XX.—The Attitude of the Various Delegations.
Egyptian Delegation.
12 Nahas Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. , as president of the conference, conducted the formal
business of the plenary sessions with dignity and geniality. He wisely left the
anisation of the conference almost entirely to M. Aghnides, the secretary-
0 ° era l t0 M . Politis, as president of the General and Drafting Committees, and
?o M Hansson as president of the Reglement Committee.
1 13 On the whole the Egyptian delegation were reasonable and acquitted
themselves well. Bedawi Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. ran true to form both in his extraordinary
technical ability and in his obstinacy in securing his own point of view over
matters of detail. Makram Ebeid Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. was an able and conciliatory negotiator.
The Egyptian delegation (with the exception of one point, referred to later)
fulfilled perfectly loyally and readily their side of the bargain under Document A.
Their reception of our" general support at the conference under the conditions
of Document A was genuinely cordial. This was more particularly marked in
the earlier stages of the conference, but their cordiality became slightly lessened
towards the end, owing to the fact that we took the line (already expressed as
the view of His Majesty’s Government to the Egyptian Government before the
conference on a point not settled by Document A) that they should drop the
paragraph of the R.O.J. which provided for the exclusion of “ sujets and
‘‘proteges” from the transitional Mixed Courts when political difficulties were
raised to it by other delegations, and the Egyptian delegation had got their way
as regards the duration of the transitional period. This cloud was removed when
the United Kingdom delegation played an important part in securing the eventual
compromise (now embodied in the last four paragraphs of article 2o of the R.O.J.
annexed to the convention).
French Delegation.
14 The French delegation were friendly and disposed to co-operate with
us and on the technical work in the Drafting Committee, M Chargueraud and
M. de Bellefonds were of great assistance through their ability, and they "ere
as consistently helpful as their instructions would permit them to be_
cordiality of the whole delegation with us became more marke as e •
came to its end and reached its peak at the very end of the conference
general tactics, however, were disastrous for themselves •
conference. To begin with they insisted on three main pom s. ( ) ,
in the length of the transitional regime and its division into F™ ; ( )
Egypt should either enter into engagements of the kind usua y ^ .
establishment conventions for a period of unlimited dura ion m
Convention, or conclude an Establishment Treaty wit which excluded
conference itself; (3) the deletion of the paragraph of the . • • Courts
sujets and protdges from the jurisdiction of the transiDonal Mixed Uurts.
They did this although as regards the first two points . e y , both of
during discussions which Mr. Beckett had held w1 ^ ^^^i delegates then
these desiderata were in our view unattainable. The p P • n 0 f the
went to Paris in the middle of the conference, causing • ^ ,j 0I1 0 f the
sittings of the principal committees, though happi} a authority
Drafting Committee work was secured. When they came with^autiiority
to surrender on the first two points, they could, if f J? on the third,
straightforward manner, have easily secured ^ ^LSfons a situation
Instead, owing to the clumsy and devious nature °f em ^ but the
was created in which an agreement was supposed to . .. ,, recrimination in
two parties differed as to Its terms, and there was considerablejecrimina
the course of which each accused the other ot bad a • ( j e | e[rat j on an d the
may we p } lave the excessive numbers of th ^ question of
divergencies of view which existed in it. The resu , Egyptian feeling
snjets and proteges remained unsolved U P t0 ^ n %k e mos t anodyne character
had run so high that some compromise, even though controversy the French
had to be found, to save their face. As the result of thm controve^ ^ to do
completely exhausted their goodwill and bargaining p pgvond that which
virtually nothing in obtaining from the Egyptians anythmg^eyoi
His Majesty’s Government had already secured in B g
[15448]