تقرير البعثة الخاصة إلى مصر بقيادة اللورد ميلنر، وأوراق ذات صلة [و‎‎١‎١‎٩] (٤٧٣/٢٣٩)

I
%
126
Circulated by the Secretary of State for India.
SECRE
’T'lC.lt Is ti)6
'The proposals of Lord Milner’s mission to Egypt have now been circulated
to the Cabinet, and 1 feel bound to draw the attention of my colleagues to the
effect of these proposals on Indian affairs. I know so very little about Egypt
that it is only from this standpoint that I would approach the subject, and J
am quite prepared to believe that Lord Milner’s projxjsals are in every way
suitable to the conditions of Egypt.
(1) 1 would draw the attention of the Cabinet to the marked difference
between the two missions—to India and to Egypt. The mission of the Secretary
of State for India to India was carefully considered by the Cabinet. Its view
was circumscribed by a Cabinet pronouncement; it was instructed to discuss
only with the Government of India : its proposals were formulated in a report
to the Cabinet. They were only published with the permission of the Cabinet,
and they were then laid before Parliament.
1 can find no record that Lord Milner’s mission was ever considered by
the Cabinet. No limitation was placed upon his mission. 11 is proposals were
published months before the Cabinet had ever seen them, and he negotiated
not with the Government of Egypt, but with the extremists in Egypt, and his
proposals were published as being contingent in their fuKilment on their
acceptance by the extremists. I do not believe that there is any weight to be
attached to the suggestion that because they had not been approved when
published by the Government we have a free hand. Theoretically, that may
be so. Practically, loyalty to our colleague, the position that he holds, and the
authority with which he put forward his proposals, ties our hands.
He is prepared, and if I am right in my premise, the Government is
prepared, to do what he suggests if Zaghlul will accept it. (Am I
right in describing Zaghlul as the Tilak, the Gandhi, or the de Valera
of Egyptian politics?) if he will accept no consideration of efficient
Government, no consideration of the fact that Egypt as a Protectorate
has been incorporated in the Pritish Imperial system, no consideration
of the well-being of Egyptian civil servants is to modify or circum
scribe his proposal. In India, Parliament has demanded and the
Government lias been scrupulous to secure that the employment of Indian
civil servants, and indeed their prospects of employment, shall not be
jeopardised by any reforms. Disorder, inefficient Government, is to be avoided.
Searching enquiries are to be made as to whether the new Government will be
really representative of the people. I can find no trace that these considera
tions weighed in Egypt. I have always been told that India cannot aspire to
self-government because ultimately the maintenance of order and the
preservation of public safety depends upon the British Army. For Egypt, I
2535 100 10.20