تقرير البعثة الخاصة إلى مصر بقيادة اللورد ميلنر، وأوراق ذات صلة [و‎‎٣‎٨] (٤٧٣/٧٥)

period of the shadowy condominium with France—has been that we will not admit
the interference of any foreign Power in Egypt. I suppose that this principle is still
to be maintained.
Lord Milner and his colleagues clearly foresaw in the first instance the nature of
the responsibility which the devolution upon the High Commissioner of the protection
of foreign interests must entail. For in their earlier Report they wrote that “ this
responsibility involves a certain degree of control over the Egyptian Departments
charged with the conduct of finance and with the maintenance of justice and public
security, and will probably be found to involve the retention of at least two British
advisers with their staffs, in the Egyptian service, who must continue to be nominated
by the British Government, and the extent of whose authority should be clearly
defined.” But in the second memorandum, after the Conference with Zaghloul Pasha and
his friends, these conditions would appear to have been decidedly whittled down. I hese
two all-important officials are, it is true, to be appointed by the Egyptian Government
“ with the concurrence of His Majesty’s Government ” but the Financial Adviser who
is ultimately to replace the present Commissioners of the Debt is only to “ be at the
disposal of the Egyptian Government for all other matters on which they may desire
to consult him ”—a conceivably restricted sphere—while the Judicial Adviser is only
to “ be kept fully informed on all matters connected with the administration of the
law as affecting foreigners, and will also be at the disposal of the Egyptian Government
for consultation on any matter connected with the efficient maintenance of law and
order.” It is further significant that at the meeting of the members of the oM
Egyptian Legislative Council which has given a general support to Lord Milner’s
later proposals, the reservation found unanimous approval that the clauses giving to
the Egyptian Government the option of consulting these officials should be eliminated.
It appears to me that if these officials are to operate either as an effective administrative
safeguard or as a liaison between the High Commissioner and the Egyptian Government
their functions will need the more careful definition postulated in Lord Milner’s earlier
Report.
Let me say, before I leave the subject, that such influence as they are able or
are permitted to exercise, will depend to a very large extent on their ability to speak
French. That is the language in which the business of the Egyptian Government and
the meetings of the Cabinet are conducted, and if they are unable to speak it with ease,
their influence will be small.
I am also left in some doubt as to the position of the High Commissioner,
vis-d-vis the Egyptian Government. He is clearly intended by Lord Milner and his
colleagues to retain a quite exceptional position in the country. But I am not equally
clear upon what sanction (other than that of personal influence and moral prestige)
this will rest. If there are flagrant abuses in the Administration, if the British officials
remaining in Egyptian employ have to complain of outrageous treatment, if the
Egyptian Government deliberately ignores the High Commissioner’s advice, what
exactly is to be done ? I could quote plenty of instances in the history of Eastern
countries where the representative of a Great Western Power, whether Great Britain,
Russia, or France, has been placed in a position of veiled superiority over a native
Government to which were conceded the forms of a purely nominal independence. But
I know of none in which that position has been maintained in face of an independence
which was not nominal but real, and of foreign representatives who were technically
equal and, in some cases, none too friendly. It is, of course, easy to say that if the
High Commissioner is flouted or the superior position of Great Britain ignored, the
treaty can be cancelled and we shall go back again to the 1 lotectorate, and there are
already some cynical spirits who contend that this is the insidious object of Great
Britain in making the present proposals. But such threats are more readily made
than carried out; and I imagine that our real object is to conclude an anangement
that will endure. 1 think, therefore, that we should devote special attention to the
position of the High Commissioner.
Foreign Relations.
I have pointed out that in his original Report Lord Milner proposed that the High
Commissioner “ should remain in charge of the foreign relations of Egypt in so far as
they are of a political character,” but that, in deference to the opposition of Zaghloul
Pasha and his friends, who, I believe, were insistent on the point, this has been
abandoned in favour of the complete surrender to Egypt of the control of her foreign
relations, including the appointment of foreign Ministers abroad. I cannot conceal