تقرير البعثة الخاصة إلى مصر بقيادة اللورد ميلنر، وأوراق ذات صلة [ظ‎‎٨‎٤] (٤٧٣/١٧٠)

At the end of April Adli Pasha, who commands the universal respect ol his
countrymen and whose advice had been of the greatest value to us in Egypt, paid a
visit to Paris, and at once put himself into communication with Zaghlul Pasha \\ ith
the object of bringing about a meeting between him and the Mission. ^ Early in May
we became aware that, largely owing to Adli Pasha’s good offices, Zaghlul Pasha
and the Delegation were now disposed to abandon their former attitude and enter
into direct relations with the Mission. Accordingly, during the third week in May,
Mr. (now Sir Cecil) Hurst, who happened to be in Paris, conveyed to them an invita
tion to meet the Mission in London. Zaghlul Pasha, having satisfied himself that
by so doing he would not compromise his position as the advocate of Egyptian
independence, arrived in London on the 7th June. He was accompanied by seven
members of the Delegation, who were subsequently joined by one or two ol their
colleagues.
Then followed a series of conversations which, with frequent interruptions, due
to the fact that several of the members of the Mission were now busily engaged in
other work, lasted till the middle of August. '
These prolonged discussions took a variety of forms. There were a number of
meetings at which the Mission, as a body, met Zaghlul Pasha and his companions,
Adli Pasha being also present. From time to time, points which it was found
difficult to discuss in so large a body were referred to committees consisting of a few
members of either party, and these to some extent cleared the ground. Moreover,
there was, in the interval between formal meetings, a great deal of useful private
discussion between individual members of the Mission and one or more of the
Egyptians. It would serve no useful purpose to try and give an account of the many
changing phases of this lengthy debate, but it is necessary to indicate its general
character.
In the first place, we record with pleasure that very friendly relations were
maintained from first to last, and that, even when differences of opinion were
sharpest, the controversy was always conducted in an amicable spirit. There was
never any doubt in our minds that our visitors were as sincerely anxious as we were
ourselves to find a way out of the difficulties of the situation. But they were to some
extent hampered—and this is specially true of Zaghlul Pasha himself—by the
uncompromising line which they had taken in the recent past, when they believed
that there was an unbridgeable gulf between Egyptian aspirations and the policy of
Great Britain. They had no doubt come to recognise by this time that they had
misunderstood that policy, but it was not easy for them to readjust their position to
suit their altered view of British intentions. Over and over again they declared that
it was impossible for them to accept some proposal or other made by us, the fairness
of which they did not directly dispute, because it was inconsistent with the
“mandate” which they had received from the Egyptian people. It was useless to
point out to them that the alleged “mandate” was really their own programme,
which the Egyptian public had simply accepted from them, and that there was
nothing to prevent their modifying a policy of their own creation. The reply always
was, that they had no authority to depart from claims which, even if originally put
forward by themselves, had been enthusiastically endorsed by a great majority of
their countrymen. The war-cries of the past eighteen months were, indeed, a
perpetual stumbling-block, and, while in the course of our discussions we were often
very near agreement on points of substance, it was always difficult to clothe such
agreement in words which did not conflict with formulae to which the Egyptians felt
themselves committed.
The idea of a Treaty between Great Britain and Egypt was readily accepted.
That was our starting-point, and without it we should have made little progress.
But when it came to discussing those terms of the Treaty which embodied the few,
but essential, safeguards for British and foreign interests, the Egyptians were
always extremely apprehensive of agreeing to something which might conflict with
their ideal of independence. As a matter of fact, our proposals did not conflict with
that ideal—reasonably interpreted—as the Egyptians themselves, or at any rate
some of them, were ready to admit. But there was always the fear in their minds
that their countrymen would not take the same view, and that they would be
regarded in Egypt as having betrayed the national cause.
In spite of these difficulties, one obstacle after another was gradually
surmounted, and we finally succeeded in drafting the outlines of a settlement with
which both parties were more or less satisfied. This result was only achieved by
considerable concessions on the part of the Mission. On one point in particular, to