Coll 15/3(1) 'Egypt. Abolition of Capitulations in Montreux Conference and Convention 1937' [‎305r] (614/1220)

‘21
ptian delega.
i this control
iad given no
liscussions in
! independent
his connexion
Much of the J
1 through the
irt of Appeal
at the actual
)rovisions are
FAssemblee
omulguee par
iscussion in a
ement general
yreement with
the Egyptian
i in terms say
ley have been
ill the foreign
the reglement
ler and it was
e if any other
ion said that,
iv Parliament,
m Government
pendently, but
adopting this
of disputes
don to the
party to the
3 to disputes
substitution
rivately
in their
protocol
3 under-
itain Points.
reign
Interests
u.
of mixed interest, namely, (i) the bankruptcy jurisdiction, and (ii) the principle
under which Egyptian companies in which foreign interests were represented
were regarded as foreigners for jurisdictional purposes, were both maintained.
With regard to (ii), Document A contained in the annex (article 2) a provision
under which all Egyptian companies, in which there were foreign interests, would
continue to be treated as ‘ ‘ foreigners ’ ’ unless there was a clause in their statutes
submitting to the jurisdiction of the national courts, and it was stated that
the Egyptian Government would declare that they would not insist on the insertion
of such a clause in the case of any new company to be created. The point came
up at a meeting of the Reglement Committee at which the United Kingdom
delegation had already been obliged to play a very prominent part in requesting
concession after concession from the Egyptian delegation, including requests on
some points not covered by Document A. When this point was reached we again
asked for a concession as regards companies, and our demand was immediately
met by Bedawi Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. agreeing to retain as justiciable before the Mixed Courts
all existing companies in which foreign interests were represented. Bedawi
Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. went on to state that the concession met every legitimate demand as
respecting all acquired rights, and that if new companies were created the
persons responsible for incorporating them would proceed to this step with the
knowledge that the companies were, for jurisdictional as well as for other
purposes, Egyptian nationals. This half-way response to our demands was
unexpected, but, while Bedawi Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. was still speaking, a note was at once
passed to the Egyptian delegation referring to the relevant passages of
Document A, and pointing out that we were entitled to expect more than this and
asking Makram Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. to intervene before Bedawi had gone too far. (There is
some reason to believe that Nahas and Makram did not at first realise that
Bedawi’s speech did not correspond with Document A.) Unfortunately, while the
discussions by private note were still going on Bedawi had finished speaking and
the French and Belgian delegations immediately expressed the most fulsome
and, in the circumstances, maladroit satisfaction with the Egyptian proposals.
We were therefore faced with the alternative of again intervening in the debate,
and saying that we were not satisfied with a concession which had already been
welcomed by other delegations at a meeting where the United Kingdom delegation
had been demanding and receiving concessions most of the morning or of
remaining silent and insisting that the matter should be put right later. Ihe
latter course was chosen, and at the end of the meeting Makram at once
acknowledged the obligation of his delegation. It was put to him that he might
urge his own people spontaneously to reconsider the matter on the ground that
the result would be that after October next foreigners would incorporate th 61 -*’
companies in Cyprus or elsewhere instead of in Egypt, and the distinction won
therefore only mean a loss of revenue to the Egyptian Government. When it came
to the point, however, so much publicity had been given in the Egyptian press
to the limited concession given and the Egyptian reasons for not extending i^
that Makram found it extremely difficult to be as good as his word; an i was
clear that if the question was to be reopened it would have to be done y e
United Kingdom delegation alone. The United Kingdom delegation in priva
pressed their Egyptian colleagues as hard as they could on this pom , u
unable to achieve success. The Egyptians made it clear that if as e lr ,
this further concession in public because it was in Document 1 ey
thereafter decline at the request of anybody or in any circumstances e
to advance a comma beyond Document A on any point, dney I’eterre
fact that in many points we had ourselves asked for more, and ‘
to it. It was also clear that the United Kingdom instead of con
the political advantage of being the ally which had helped Egyp 1 Jlwation
proceedings—might thereafter be represented as the most ^ n
at the conference. Another contributory cause of our failure 0 mra-
concession was that the United Kingdom delegation were, as exp \r ori f r eux
graph (b) below, seeking assurances about the relationship be we reached
Convention and the Anglo-Egvptian Treaty of Alliance A P „ ^
where the United Kingdom delegation had to choose between P^ Sbin ° re ^ t
one or the other, and it was the latter which they were ms ru interests
all costs. Assurances were given to us privately that i a 7 facility will
wished to incorporate companies before the 15th Octobei nex ^ benefit
be given to them to do so and that these companies won, be kept in
by being subject to Mixed Court jurisdiction. It must, o >