Correspondence with A J Balfour, Sir R Wingate, Lord Allenby, Lord Milner and others on Egypt [‎12v] (24/300)

12
No. 16.
Mr. Balfour to Sir R. Wingate.
(No. 1596.)
(Telegraphic.) Foreign Office, January 1, 1919.
YOUR telegrams Nos. 1928, 1941, and 1944.
Your despatches and letters have been received, and I fully appreciate the situation.
I gather from you that the two Ministers now realise that their precipitate action in
resigning has placed them in a false position, and that they are anxious to recede from
it if this can be done without loss of dignity. I am quite willing to facilitate the
process in so far as is possible, although it is not easy to do • so without appearing to
vield to pressure. Moreover, Rushdy Pasha’s letter, reported in your telegram
No. 1941, betrays a disposition to connect the question of Egyptian reforms with the
Peace negotiations. It cannot be too clearly understood that, while His Majesty’s
Government are prepared to adopt a most sympathetic and liberal attitude towards
legitimate Egyptian aspirations, their future relations with the Egyptians concern only
the Egyptians and themselves. This was explained in my telegram No. 1509.
Your original suggestion was that the two Ministers, accompanied by Sir M.
Cheetham and Sir W. Brunyate, should come to London at once in order to discuss a
programme of Egyptian reforms. This was out of the question at a moment when our
undivided attention must be devoted to the preliminary phases of the Peace Conference
in Paris. In consenting to March next for any such discussions, I have fixed a date
which is not only the earliest possible, but will probably prove earlier than is convenient.
The above arrangement still holds good, but if you consider that the mere presence
here of Egyptian Ministers would have a pacifying effect in Egypt and ease the
situation, and if, after considering the danger of appearing to yield to pressure, you are
prepared to recommend that they should be allowed to come before March, I have no
objection to their arriving during the course of February. They will be assured of a
svmpathetic welcome, although it is unlikely that I can see them before March. In no
case can they be permitted to go to Paris during the session of the Peace Conference.
It has occurred to me, after reading the note from Rushdy Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. enclosed in your
despatch No. 309,* that the unreasonable attitude of the Ministers may be due, in part
at least, to alarm lest the proposed constitutional reforms submitted by Sir W. Brunyate
might be approved by His Majesty’s Government without their being given an oppor
tunity of expressing their opinion. You are authorised to reassure them on this head,
and to state that, while His Majesty’s Government recognise that important reforms
may be necessary, no steps will be taken in this direction without full consultation with
the Sultan and his Ministers, and if they so desire the consultation shall take place in
London.
As regards the last paragraph of your telegram No. 1944, you may certainly give
an assurance to the effect that, far from wishing to repress Egyptian individuality, it is
our earnest desire to see Egypt develop in prosperity and enlightenment, and take her
rightful place as a leading Islamic Power. Indeed, the aspirations to which you refer
seem perfectly legitimate and worthy 7 of encouragement.
* These reforms are referred to in No. 6 (see above).
No. 17.
Sir R. Wingate to Mr. Balfour.—(Received January 2.)
(No. 1.)
(Telegraphic.) Cairo, January 1, 1919.
YOUR telegram No. 1558, last sentence. Rights enjoyed by Egypt under
Turkish suzerainty amounted, as is known, to almost complete autonomy, and hirmans,
taken as a whole, have for effect to define rights enjoyed by Turkey as suzerain Power
rather than to define autonomy of Egyptian Government.
In conversation reported in my telegram No. 1901 Sir W. Brunyate put to Adly
Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. that Great Britain’s rights under protectorate might more properly be compared
with her rights under occupation than with Turkey’s rights by reason of her
suzerainty.
I think it possible that what was really in Adly’s mind was that Turkish rights
were limitatively defined by 7 the Firmans, and that it was desirable that respective
rights of Great Britain and Egypt under protectorate should be similarly defined.
The two cases are so essentially different that I imagine it will be found necessary to
describe discretionary powers of protecting Power in somewhat wide terms, but I have