تقارير وأوراق للجنة الإدارة المصرية [ظ‎‎٤] (١٠٨/٨)

u
a British Chairman, a Frenchman and an Italian are taking a leading part in the
introduction of British principles into Egyptian law and administration. The
work on which they are engaged is probably the most important reform since the
institution of the Mixed Courts. We have, moreover, still to devise some method
of giving the European colonies some voice in Egyptian legislation, a problem for
which Lord Cromer and Lord Kitchener proposed solutions now out of date; these
colonies are likely to increase in numbers and weight and, if they are properly
handled, their influence should be a counterpoise to excesses of native feeling.
As to the question of the modifications which it is desired to introduce into
the character of British control over Egyptian internal administration, it would
seem that Lord E. Cecil dislikes the almost autocratic position of the High
Commissioner locally and wishes to reduce his powers. Equally objectionable, in
his view, though its existence is not mentioned, must be the Political Department
or new Foreign Office in Cairo, which, as an adjunct of the High Commissioner,
has now been developed by the grouping together with the previous Agency Staff
of the Arab Bureau, the Sudan Agency, an embryo Intelligence Department, and
the Desert Administration in process of growth. This central office plays a very
large part in the direction of the Egyptian departments. Matters concerning
more than one of these are, in view of the weakness of the Council of Ministers,
necessarily referred to it. Its personnel now contains, in practice, British
members of the Anglo-Egyptian Service who have been attached for convenience
as officiers de liaison. Reading between the lines of the Memorandum the intention
appears to be to arrest this development which alone permits the British Repre
sentative to supervise the whole Administration. The management of internal
affairs would be altered by obtaining more decisions from London Over the head
of the High Commissioner. This would be accompanied by a weakening of the
personal influence and ascendency of His Majesty’s Representative over both
Egyptians and British Civil Servants Which has hitherto been the main factor of
our control. I think such weakening would be a mistake and that the High
Commissioner’s authority should if anything be strengthened. The Protectorate
is proceeding on the basis of the unwritten law that the High Commissioner's
advice must be taken. A number of organic changes must no doubt be made before
or after the end of the war by Supreme Authority in England as part of the
establishment of the Protectorate, and their effect will be to reduce friction with
Egyptians, but a situation will still remain in which the intervention of the British
Representative is constantly needed. Personal Government of this kind, com
patible with perfect control from home where necessary, is understood in Egypt,
and has, I understand, proved a flexible instrument of Imperial policy. The
sketch of historical development given in the first few paragraphs of the Memor
andum does not appear to be correct. We probably intervened in Egyptian local
affairs as much as was feasible or desirable so long as our action in the country
was capable of being made a cause for complaint by one or more first class Powers.
But a large measure of discretionary power was not given to any ifgent and Consul
General without design. This power should not be impaired so long as it is
exercised on the general lines laid down from home.
As for the scheme propounded by Lord E. Cecil, I see no advantage in it unless
it is desired to create new posts and a costly machinery, of which there is no real
need. It is proposed to create a new Department and to place it under the Secre
tary of State for Foreign Affairs, but to locate it outside the walls of the Foreign
Office and to remove it from any kind of Foreign Office control. One may well
ask why the new Department should be placed under the Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs, who is to be deprived of the services of his own expert advisers.
It is even stated that it is important that the officer to be appointed head of the
Department should not be selected from among the Foreign Office officials in spite
of the fact that the Foreign Office and Diplomatic Service are the only public
services in England that have had any connection with Egypt and that they contain
several first-rate officers of long experience in Egypt and with knowledge of the
language. The staff that it is proposed to create is to be composed of officials
“ drawn from the British Civil Service who understand the Government of this
country and Anglo-Egyptian officials.” It is difficult to- know why an understand
ing of the^ Government of this country should primarily be required from such
officials. Some knowledge of Egypt and Egyptian local conditions would be far
more useful. Such knowledge is already in the possession of many officials
employed in and under the Foreign Office, but is not ordinarily to be found amongst
the qualifications of other ranks of the British Civil Service.