File of printed papers marked 'Egyptian negotiation' between Curzon and Adly Pasha and the Egyptian delegation [‎46v] (92/178)

The fears of the foreign colonies are chiefly due to anxiety lest they should come
under a regime of English law. The British colony is aware that complete anglicisation
of the criminal law and procedure is impossible, and greatly dislikes losing the benefit
of such institutions as the jury, habeas corpus, and the law of evidence. Foreign and
British alike dislike losing the protection of their consuls, and the subjection to an
international court of the jurisdiction in family matters.
The proposal not only to require the acceptance and the promulgation of the
judicature laws, but to make the coming into effect ol the political treaty dependent on
the completion of all our plans with regard to the Capitulations and the Mixed Courts, is
open to the political objection that, once the treaty is concluded, it will acquire a
considerable degree of spontaneous momentum, and it will probably be impossible to
postpone its coming into operation pending the consent of one or more foreign Powers
to the introduction of judicial reforms which, as already remarked, have received no
strong measure of support in any quarter.
It is suggested that in the negotiation of the proposed treaty no attempt should be
made to provide for the immediate modification of the regime of the Capitulations, but
that we should confine ourselves to securing that, when the Egyptians have had
opportunity to realise to the full the inconvenience of the present situation, they will
be obliged to come to His Majesty’s Government to assist in securing the mitigation of
this regime and to proceed in accordance with our plan. lo meet this requirement
they should be asked to agree not to negotiate independently with regard to the
Capitulations; they should also be invited to agree to certain stipulations of immediate
application :—
(a ) To leave the selection of foreign judges and of the Procurator-General in
our hands;
(b.) To agree that His Majesty’s Government shall exercise a quasi-protectorate over
the nationals of all European non-capitulary States; and
(c.) To enact any legislation required to carry into effect the provisions of the
Treaties of Peace as to Germans, &c., and not to enact such legislation
without the concurrence of His Majesty’s Government.
It does not appear to be necessary to stipulate in the treaty that Egypt accepts
our conventions, already made or to be made, with regard to the cession to His
Majesty’s Government of capitulary rights. When Egypt wants capitulary reform she
will find us in control of the international forces.
If these suggestions are approved, I submit that we shall be in a position to meet
the three points made by the Egyptian delegation at the last meeting, viz.:—
1. That the coming into force of the political treaty shall not be contingent on the
conclusion of the conventions with the capitulary Powers for the abolition of
the latter’s exterritorial privileges.
2. That Egypt should be a party to the negotiation of any such convention.
3. That the draft judicature laws should be discussed clause by clause with the
delegation, and their approval obtained.
If we are prepared to change our attitude as suggested we should strengthen our
bargaining position, and before I approach the legal sub-committee of the delegation it
occurs to me that you might prefer to utilise this apparently large concession on our
part to obtain Egyptian acceptance of our essential military requirements.
The negotiation of the conventions by His Majesty’s Government would of course
be continued.
I should add that I have prepared this memorandum in consultation with our legal
advisers, Mr. Amos, and the Department, all of whom concur in the views which I have
attempted to express.
R. C. L.