The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
THE EGYPTIAN QUESTION. Mr. OWEN. Mr. President, some days ago, October 15, I introduced a resolution bearing on the treaty of peace with Germany. I ask to have inserted in the R ecord a memorandum o f a letter from King George to the Sultan of Egypt, which I will not take the time to read, together with a cablegram to Mahmoud Pasha from Mahmoud Soliman Pasha, which I shall not take the time to read, bearing upon the same question, to gether with some data submitted by the Egyptian delegation here, which I ask, without reading, to have also printed in the R ecord. T h e r e b e i n g n o o b j e c t i o n , t h e matter r e f e r r e d to was o r d e r e d to b e p r in te d in t h e R ecord, a s fo llo w s : “ Resolved, That the United States in ratifying the covenant o f the league of nations does not intend to be understood as modifying in any degree the obligations entered into by the United States and the Entente Allies in the agreement of No vember 5, 1918, upon which as a basis the German Empire laid down its arms. The United States regards that contract to carry out the principles set forth by the President o f the United States on January 8, 1917, and in subsequent addresses, as a world agreement, binding on the great nations which entered into it. and that the principles there set forth will be carried out in due time through the mechanism provided in the cove nant, and that article 23, paragraph (b ), pledging the members o f the league to undertake to secure just treatment of the native inhabitants under their control, involves a pledge to carry out these principles. “ The protectorate which Germany recognizes in Great Brit ain over Egypt is understood to be merely a means through which the nominal suzerainty of Turkey over Egypt shall be transferred to the Egyptian people and shall not be construed as a recognition by the United States in Great Britain o f any sovereign rights over the Egyptian people or as depriving the people o f Egypt of any o f their rights of self-government. DATA COMPILED BV EGYPTIAN DELEGATION. Shall R i g h t or M ig h t P r evail? “ Egypt is a country o f immense wealth. It has millions of acres o f agricultural land greater in value per acre and in pro ducing power than any other country in the world. The seizure o f Egypt by Great Britain adds to Britain’s enormous posses sions an area o f 350,000 square miles and a population of 13,000,000 people. The value o f the natural resources so seized is beyond computation. “ Egypt is one compact whole— one nation, one language. The character o f the people, their conduct, their, habits, their sympathies, and their inclinations are the same throughout that country. Because o f geographic situation, however, Egypt has attracted the avarice o f colonizing powers more, perhaps, than any other country In the world. In 1798 the French under Napoleon invaded Egypt. In 1801 the French were expelled 2 147311—20090 3 from Egypt. In 1807 Great Britain attempted to invade Egypt, but was ejected by tbe Egyptian Army. “ Egypt continued to be a Turkish Province until 1831, when war broke out between Egypt and Turkey, and the Egyptian Army was victorious. Constantinople would have fallen to the Egyptians, but Great Britain and France interfered in order to preserve the balance o f power and the Egyptians were com pelled to give up the full fruits o f their victories. “ By the treaty of London o f 1840-41 Egypt became autono mous, subject only to an annual tribute to Turkey of about 83,000,000. The Government of Egypt could maintain an army, contract loans, make commercial treaties, and enter into inter national agreements. For all practical purposes Egypt was independent and free. “ In 1882 Great Britain occupied Egypt ostensibly to protect the Khedive against the movement for popular government, and continued to occupy the country, against the protest of the Egyp tians,under the protext o f protecting the people from the Khedive. “ The British Government from the time of occupation up to the beginning of the recent war promised to withdraw the British troops from Egypt. Gladstone, when prime minister, said, ‘ I f one pledge can be more solemn and sacred than an other, special sacredness in this case binds us to withdraw the British troops from Egypt.’ “ Lord Salisbury, when prime minister in 1889, solemnly assured Egypt and the world that Egypt would never be placed under a British ‘ protectorate ’ or annexed by Great Britain. “ Great Britain had agreed by the treaty o f London of 1840-41 to protect the autonomy of Egypt, and in the AngloFrench agreement of April 8, 1904, Great Britain declared that it had no intention of altering the political status o f Egypt. “ Afer the beginning of the war, and on December 18, 1914, Great Britain deposed the Khedive and appointed a sultan of her own choosing to the throne of Egypt. On the same date Great Britain proclaimed the so-called protectorate over Egypt, announcing, however, at the same time that it was merely for the period of 1he war and only a step toward the independence of Egypt. “ King George, in a letter which was widely circulated throughout Egypt and which was published in the London Times of December 23, 3914, said: “ ‘ * * * I feel convinced that you will be able, with the cooperation o f your ministers and the protection o f Great Britain, to overcome all influences which are seeking to destroy the independence o f Egypt, * * V “ This change o f status being announced at the time as a merely temporary war measure, was assumed by the Egyptians to be such. The Egyptians with absolute unanimity took sides with the Allies and served to make, as they believed, the world safe for democracy and for the right o f national self-determina tion in all peoples. “ When the armistice was signed the Egyptians rejoiced in the thought that the day of their deliverance had come, and that henceforth they would enjoy that right o f national self-deter mination proclaimed by President Wilson. A commission was appointed by the Egyptian people to attend the peace conference, Where their independence and sovereignty could be consecrated and acknowledged by the powers. 147311— 20090 “ In violation of its pledges of independence to the Egyptian people, and regardless of the fact that the Egyptian people had served and sacrificed in the allied cause, Great Britain arrested four o f the leading citizens of Egypt, who had been selected by the Egyptian people to go to Paris, and these four were torn from their homes without warning and deported to Malta, where they were thrown into a military prison. “ When the Egyptian people learned of this act o f perfidy on the part of Great Britain their indignation was intense. Na tional self-determination demonstrations were held throughout E gypt Great Britain answered these demonstrations for na tional self-determination, the principle for which Great Britain had ostensibly fought in the war, by firing machine guns into crowds of these peaceable and unarmed, liberty-seeking people, killing more than a thousand and wounding vastly more. “ Egyptians who dared to assert in public that Egypt should have the right of national self-determination were put in prison. ' The cry for liberty by an Egyptian was answered by British military punishment. t1 “ If present conditions are permitted to continue, liberty is dead to Egypt, and the right of self-determination to all peoples, for which Americans believed they were fighting, has been made a hollow mockery. “ Gen. Allenb.v finally, by force of Egyptian public opinion, ad vised the British Government to permit the commission to pro ceed to Paris. When the commission reached Paris they asked for a hearing before the peace conference. This was denied them. They wrote to President Wilson and asked for a con ference with him. Their appeals were in vain. “ Some days after the commission reached Paris the so-called protectorate o f Great Britain over Egypt was ‘ recognized.’ The holding o f Egypt by Great Britain is not a protectorate in the legal sense o f the word, but under guise of a protectorate Great Britain is holding Egypt to-day as a subject and conquered nation. “ The approval o f this so-called protectorate would be accepted by the British Government as approval o f the present holding of Egypt by Great Britain as spoils of war and would rivet the chains of subject slavery upon the Egyptian people. “ In a statement issued by the British Embassy at Washington, September 2, 1910, and which was published in the daily press, the embassy stated: “ ‘ Great Britain has carefully avoided destroying the sov ereignty o f Egypt.’ “ A few days later the British foreign office in London gave an interview to the International News Service, claiming to have succeeded to Turkish nominal suzerainty over Egypt. Great Britain is claiming both a protectorate and a sovereignty over Egypt at the same time. “ Great Britain is holding Egypt to-day not by right but by might o f military force. Great Britain’s seizure o f Egypt is out of keeping with the world’s new temper. Only by the exercise o f the gospel o f military force can the continued holding o f Egypt by Great Britain be maintained. Only in violation of its sacred pledges and treaty obligations can Great Britain assert dominion over the people of Egypt. “ On November 10, 1914, Lloyd-George in a speech called the world to witness the utter unselfishness of their part in the 1 4 -7 3 1 1 — -2 0 0 9 0 war. ‘ As tin- Lord liveth,’ lie declared, 'England docs not want one yard o f territory. We are in this war from motives of pare chivalry to guard the weak.’ Shall Egypt be handed over to Great Britain in violation o f ilie great principles for which Americans, Egyptians, and the Allies fought? How can it be justly said that Egypt is outside the realm of the prin ciples o f the 14 points and that Great Britain may deny the right o f self-determination to Egypt? “ The Egyptian people are liberty loving and peaceful. They have not interfered with other nations and they ask now that Groat Britain not be allowed to destroy the inalienable right o f the Egyptian people to liberty, and the right to have their own government, controlled by their own people.” BRITISH PLEDGES. “ In May, 1882, a British fleet appeared before Alexandria. In June, 1882, a serious disturbance took place in Alexandria, and a number o f Europeans were killed. On July 11 and 12, 1882, Alexandria was bombarded by ihe British fleet and Brit ish soldiers began to occupy Egypt. Great Britain pledged the Egyptian Government and the world that this occupation would be only temporary. The solemn pledges to this effect made by England are evidenced by the following documents: “ 3. Lord Granville’s dispatch, November 4, 1 8 st (Egypt, No. 3 (3882), pp. 2, 3 ), said: “ ‘ The policy o f Her Majesty’s Government toward Egypt lias no other aim than the prosperity o f the country, and its full enjoyment o f that liberty which it has obtained under successive firmans o f the Sultan. * * * It can not be too clearly understood that England desires no partisan ministry in Egypt. In the opinion o f Her Majesty's Government a partisan ministry founded on the support of a foreign power, or upon the personal influence o f a foreign diplomatic agent, is neither calculated to be o f service to the country it admin isters nor to that in whose interest it is- supposed to be maintained.’ “ 2. In the protocol signed by Lord Dufferin, together with the representatives o f the five other great powers, Juno 25, 3882 (Egypt, No. 17 (1882), p. 33), it was provided: “ ‘ The Government represented by the undersigned engaged themselves, in any arrangement which may he made in conse quence o f tlieir concerted action for the regulation o f the affairs of Egypt, not to seek any territorial advantage, nor any concession o f any exclusive privilege, nor any commercial ad vantage for their subjects other than those which any other nation can equally obtain.’ [Italics ours.] “ 3. Sir Beauchamp Seymour, in a communication to Khedive Tewfik, Alexandria, July 26, 3882, published in ihe Official Journal o f July 28, 3,882, said: “ * I, admiral commanding the British fleet, think it opportune to confirm without delay once more to Your Highness that the Government of Great Britain has no intention of making the con quest of Egypt, nor o f injuring in any way the religion and lib erties of the Egyptians. I t has for its sole object to protect Your Highness and the Egyptian people against rebels.' [Italics ours.] 147811— 20000 6 “ 4. Sir Charles Dilke, in the House o f Commons, July 25,1882, said: “ ‘ It is the desire o f Her Majesty’s Government, after reliev ing Egypt from military tyranny, to leave the people to manage their oion affairs. * * * We believe that it is better for the interests o f their country, as well as for the interests o f Egypt, that Egypt should be governed by liberal institutions rather than by a despotic rule. * * * We do not wish to impose on Egypt institutions of our own choice, but rather to leave the choice of Egypt, free, * * * . It is the honorable duty of this country to be true to the principles o f free institutions, which are our glory.’ [Italics ours.] “ 5. The Right Hon. Mr. W\ E. Gladstone, in the House of Commons, August 10, 1882, said: “ ‘ I can go so far as to answer the honorable gentleman when he asks me whether we contemplate an indefinite occupation of Egypt. Undoubtedly of all things in the world, that is a thing which we arc not going to do. It would be absolutely at vari ance with all the principles and views o f Her Majesty’s Govern ment, and the pledges they have given to Europe and with the views, l may say, o f Europe itself.’ [Italics ours.] “ G. Lord Dufferin’s dispatch, December 10, 1882, Egypt No. 2 (1883), page 30, stated: “ ‘ In talking to the various persons who have made inquiries as to my views on the Egyptian question I have stated that wo have-not the least intention of preserving the authority which has thus reverted to us. * * * It was our intention so to conduct our relations with the Egyptian people that they should naturally regard us as their best friends and counselors, but that we did not propose upon that account arbitrarily to impose our views upon them or to hold them in an irritating tutelage.' IItalics ours.J “ 7. Lord Granville, December 29, 1882, Egypt No. 2 (1882), page 33, officially stated: “ ‘ You should intimate to the Egyptian Government that it is the desire of Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the troops from Egypt as soon as circumstances permit, that such with drawal will probably be effected from time to time as the se curity of the country will allow it, and that Her Majesty’s Gov ernment hope that the time will be very short during which the full number of the present force will be maintained.' [Italics ours.] “ 8. Lord Dufferin’s dispatch, February G, 1883, Egypt No. G (1883), pages 41, 43, stated: ‘“ The territory of the Khedive has been recognized as lying outside the sphere o f European warfare and international jeal ousies. * * * “ ‘ The Valley o f the Nile could not be administered from London. An attempt upon our part to engage in such an under taking would at once render us objects o f hatred and suspicion to its inhabitants. Cairo would become a focus o f foreign Intrigue and conspiracy against us, and we should soon find our selves forced either to abandon our pretensions under dis creditable conditions or embark upon the experiment o f a com plete acquisition o f the country.’ “ 9. Again, at page 83, Lord Dufferin sa id : ‘“ Had I been commissioned to place 017011*8 in Egypt on the footing of an Indian subject State the outlook would have l>een 147311— 20090 different. The masterful hand o f a resident would have quickly hcnt everything to his will, and in the space o f five years we should have greatly added to the material wealth and well being o f the country by the extension o f its cultivated urea and the consequent expansion of its revenue; by the partial if not the total abolition of the corvee and slavery; the establishment of justice and other beneficent reforms. But the Egyptians would have justly considered these advantages as dearly pur chased at the expense of their domestic independence. More over, Her Majesty's Government have pronounced against such an alternative/ [Italics ours.] “ 10. Mr. Gladstone, in the House o f Commons August 0, 1883, said: The other powers of Europe * * are well aware of the general intentions entertained by the British Government, intentions which may be subject, o f course, to due consideration o f that state of circumstances, but conceived and held to be in the nature not only of information but a pledge or engage ment: [Italics ours.] “ 11. ^ r- Gladstone, in the House o f Commons August 9, The uncertainty there may be in some portion o f the public mind has reference to those desires which tend toward the permanent occupation o f Egypt and its incorporation in this Empire. This is a consummation to which ice arc resolutely opposed and which we will have nothing to do with bringing about. W e arc against this doctrine of annexation; we are against everything that resembles or approaches i t ; awl we arc against all language that tends to bring about its expectation. IFe arc against it on the ground of the interests of England; wc arc against it on the ground o f our duty to E gypt; wc are against it on the ground o f the specific and solemn pledges given to the world in the most solemn manner and under the most critical circumstances, pledges which have earned for us the confidence of Europe at large during the course o f difficult and delicate operations, and which, if one pledge can be more solemn and sacred than another, special sacrcdncss in this case binds us to observe. We are also sensible that occupation prolonged beyond a certain point may tend to annexation, and consequently it is our object to take the greatest care that the occupation does not gradually take a permanent character. * * \y0 can not name a day and do not undertake to name a day for our final withdrawal, but no effort shall be wanting on our part to bring about that withdrawal as early as possible. [Italics ours. | "12. Lord Granville’s dispatch, June 10, 18si, Egypt No. 23 (18X4), page 13, stated: •“ Her Majesty’s Government * * * are willing that the withdrawal of the troops shall take place at the beginning o f the y «»r provided that the powers are then of opinion that such withdrawal can take place without risk to peace and order.’ "13. Lord Derby, In the House o f Lords, February 20 1885 said: ’ ’ From the first we have steadily kept in view the fact that our occupation was temporary and provisional only. * * * We do not propose to keep Egypt permanently. * * On that point we arc pledged to this countrv and to Europe• and 147311—20090 * ’ 8 if a contrary policy is adopted it will not be by us.’ [Italics ours.] “ 14. Lord Salisbury, in the House o f Lords, June 10, 1887, said: “ ‘ It was not open to us to assume tlie protectorate o f Egypt, because Her Majesty’s Government have again and again pledged themselves that they tvould not do so. * * * My noble friend has dwelt upon that pledge, and he does us no more than justice when he expresses his opinion that it is a pledge which has been constantly present to our minds. * * * It was un doubtedly the fact that our presence in Egypt, unrecognized by any convention * * * gave the subjects of the Sultan cause for a suspicion Which we did not deserve.’ [Italics ours.] “ 15. Lord Salisbury, in the House of Lords, August 12, 1889, said: “ ‘ When my noble friend * * * asks us to convert our selves from guardians into proprietors * * * and to declare our stay In Egypt permanent * * * I must say I think my noble friend pays an insufficient regard to the sanctity of the obligations which the Government of the Queen have undertaken and by rvliich they are bound to abide. In such a matter we have not to consider what is the most convenient or what is the more profitable course; we have to consider the course to which we are bound by our own obligations and by European law.' [Italics ours,] “ 16. Mr. Gladstone, in the House of Commons, May 1, 1893, sa id : “ ‘ I can not do otherwise than express my general concur rence * * * that the occupation of Egypt is in the nature of a burden and difficulty, and that the permanent occupation of that country would not be agreeable to our traditional policy, and that it would not be consistent with our good faith toward the Suzerain power, while it would be contrary to the laws of Europe. * * * I certainly shall not set up the doctrine that we have discovered a duty which enables us to set aside the pledges into which we have so freely entered. * * * The thing we can not do with perfect honor Is either to deny that we are under engagements which preclude the idea o f an indefi nite occupation, or so to construe that indefinite occupation as to hamper the engagements that we are under by collateral con siderations.’ [Italics ours.] “ 17. The text of the Anglo-French agreement of April 8, 1904, provides: “ ‘ The Government of His Majesty declares that it has no in tention of altering the political status of Egypt.’ “ 18. Lord Cromer’s report, March 3,1907, Egypt No. 1 (1907), page 2, stated: “ * There are insuperable objections to the assumption of a British protectorate over Egypt. It would involve a change in the political status of the country. Now, in Article 1 o f the Anglo-French agreement o f the 8th April, 1904, the British Government have explicitly declared that they have no inten tion o f altering the political status o f Egypt.’ “ 19. In an interview with Dr. Nimr, editor of the Mokattam, October 24, 1908, acknowledged as official by Sir E. Grey in the House o f Commons, Sir Eldon Gorst sa id : “ * It has been said that Great Britain proposes shortly to proclaim the protectorate or the annexation o f Egypt to the 147311— 20090 British Empire. Will Sir Eldon Gorst i>ermit me to ask him whether this rumor is well founded or not? ’ “ Sir Eldon Gorst answered: “ ‘ The rumor has no foundation, and you may contradict it categorically. Great Britain has engaged herself by official agreements with Turkey and the European Powers to respect the suzerainty of the Sultan in Egypt. She will keep her en gagements, which, moreover, she reiterated in 1904 at the time of the conclusion o f the Anglo-French agreement. England Stipulated in that agreement that she lias no intention to change the political situation in Egypt. Neither the people nor the Government wish to rid themselves o f these engagements.’ “ 20. Sir Eldon Gorst’s report, March 27, 1909, Egypt No. 1 (1909) , page 1, stated: “ ‘ There exists among the better-educated sections of society a limited but gradually increasing class which interests itself In matters pertaining to the government and administration of the country. This elass aspires quite rightly to help in bringing about the day when Egypt will be able to govern herself without outside assistance. This is also the end to which British policy is directed, and there need be no antagonism or principle be tween the Egyptian and English reforming elements.’ “ 21. In the same report, at page 48, Sir Eldon Gorst said: “ * Since tin; commencement o f the occupation the policy ap proved by the British Government has never varied, and its fundamental idea has been to prepare the Egyptians for selfgovernment while helping them in the meantime to enjoy the benefit of good government.’ “ 22. Sir Eldon Gorst’s report, March 20, 1910, Egypt No. t (1910) , page 51, stated: “ ‘ British policy in Egypt in no way differs from that fol lowed by Great Britain all over the world toward countries under her influence, namely, to place before all else the welfare of their populations.’ “ 23. Sir Edward Grey, in the House o f Commons, August, 1914, said: “ 1England stretches out her hand to any nation whose safety or independence may be threatened or compromised by any aggressor.’ “ 24. Former Premier Balfour, speaking for the Government at Guild Hall, on November 19, 1914, declared: “ ‘ We fight not for ourselves alone but for civilization drawn to the cause o f small States, the cause o f all those countries which desire to develop their own civilization in their own way, following their own ideals without interference from any insolent and unauthorized aggressor.’ “ 25. Premier Asquith, speaking at Guild Hal), November 9, 1915, asserted: “ ‘ We shall not pause or falter until we have secured for the smaller States their charter o f independence and for the world at large its final emancipation from the reign o f force.’ “ 2(5. And, again, Premier Asquith, on November 9, 1910, de clared : “ *This is a war, among other things—-perhaps I may say pri marily—a war for the emancipation o f the smaller States. * * * Peace when it comes, must bo such as will build upon a sure and stable foundation the security o f the weak, the liber ties of Europe, and a free future for the world.’ 14 7 3 11— 20090 “ 27. Premier Lloyd-George, on June 29, 1917, said: “ ‘ In my judgment this war will come to an end when the allied powers have reached the aims which they set out to attain when they accepted the challenge thrown down by Germany to civilization.’ “ 28. Asquith, in the House o f Commons, on December 20,1917, said : “ 1We ought to make it increasing clear by every possible means that the only ends we are fighting for are liberty and justice for the whole world, through a confederation of great and small States, all to possess equal rights. A league of na tions is the ideal for which we are fighting, and we shall con tinue fighting for it with a clear conscience, clean hands, and an unwavering heart.’ “ After the beginning of the World War, and on December IS, 1914, Great Britain proclaimed a so-called protectorate over Egypt. The proclamation seizing Egypt and placing Egypt un der the British flag is published in the London Times of Decem ber 19, 1914, page 8, column 3. It reads: “ ‘ In view of the action of his highness Abbas Helml Pasha, lately Khedive of Egypt, who has adhered to the King’s ene mies. His Majesty's Government has seen fit to depose him from the khedirate, and that high dignity has been offered, with the title o f Sultan of Egypt, to his highness Prince Hussein Gamel Pasha, eldest living Prince o f the family of Mehemet Ali, and has been accepted by him. “ ‘ The King has been pleased to approve the appointment of Prince Hussein to an honorary Knight Grand Cross of the Order o f the Bath on the occasion of his accession to the sultanate.’ [Italics ours.] “ The London Times, in the issue of December 19. 1914, had large headlines saying, ‘ Egypt under the British flag.’ But the Times, in an editorial in the Issue of same date, with character istic British diplomacy, naively said: “ ‘All that is desired now is to defend Egypt against attack and to keep the internal administration running smoothly. Other questions can wait until peace is restored, as Lord Cromer implies in the letter we published to-day. * * * It is purely a practical administrative step, dictated by the appearance of Turkey as a belligerent.’ “ It will be noted that the seizure was sought to be justified only as a protection to Egypt against Turkish aggression. The truth is that under the guise of a ‘ protectorate’ Great Britain seized Egypt and swept away every vestige o f Egyptian freedom and independence. But the people o f Egypt did not realize at that time the full meaning o f this action on the part of Great Britain. They were told that it was a step toward the inde pendence of Egypt. His Majesty King George, in a letter to the Sultan whom he had appointed to rule over Egypt, which letter was widely circulated throughout Egypt and was published in the London Times of date December 21, 1914, said: “ ‘ * * * I feel convinced that you will be able, with the cooperation of your ministers and the protectorate of Great Britain, to overcome all influences which arc seeking to destroy the independence of Egypt. * * * ’ [Italics ours.] 147311— 20090 11 TREATMENT OF EGYPTIAN DELEGATES PEACE CONFERENCE. TO 11110 C H A IR M A N OF T H E E G Y P T IA N D EL EG As i O N E u % V ? o y i ? * - NALI> W IN G A T E > H K IT ISII H IG H GOMMIS[From the Egyptian W hite Book, p. 19.] “ •J addressed to British headquarters on the 20tli instant (November) a letter in which 1 requested for my colleague and myself the permission necessary for voyage. * * * We have just received a letter from the military authorities dated to-day, informing us that dilliculties have arisen which have prevented iliem from responding before and that as soon as they are smoothed out we shall receive an answer. * * * We rely upon the traditions of Great Britain. The British have not ceased to give to the world examples of the devotion to the principles o f individual liberty. Will not our request for pass ports receive a quick and favorable response? ’ “ *° Hiis the following ig letter was received on December 1, 1918, page 21: ■■•I am directed by his excellency, the high commissioner, to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 29tli ultimo and to inform you in reply that after reference to His Majesty’s Gov ernment, his excellency feels unable to make any representations to the military authorities in the matter. “ ‘ 1 am to add that should you desire to submit suggestions as to the government of Egypt, not being inconsistent with the policy of llis Majesty’s Government as already declared, such sugges tions can most conveniently be submitted in writing to his ex cellency. In this connection I may draw your attention to the communication addressed by Sir Mille Cheetham, proclamation of protectorate by the British Government, December 38, 1914. by instruction o f His Majesty’s Government to the late Sultan Hussein on the occasion of Ids accession.’ - T o this tlie delegation replied on December 1918, as fol lows. page 22: •••In response I allow myself to make known to your excel lency that it is not permitted, neither to me nor to any member of the delegation, to make propositions which are liot in ac cordance with the will of the Egyptian nation a s expressed in the mandates that have been given ns. * * * Forbidding our departure makes illusory and inoperative the mission that we have accepted by will o f the people. It is difficult to conciliate this situation with the principles o f liberty and justice which the victory of Great Britain stud her allies i s supposed to have caused to triumph. This victory has repeatedly been declared to be for the purpose o f opening a new era for mankind through listening and granting the just demands o f peoples.’ " I n a letter of protest to Premier Lloyd-George against the virtual imprisonment of the Egyptian delegation at Cairo, the president of the delegation wrote (p. 26) : “ *You have certainly been misinformed o f the circumstances that accompanied our sequestration. We can not imagine how sneli proceedings can be justified, whether from the point of view o f law or social usage, or even o f reasonable policy, and we can not understand how the British can apply systematically so humiliating a treatment to a nation with the rich and glorious past of ours. Whatever may lie its present weakness, a 147311—20090 12 nation with a civilization so ancient will always preserve before the world its prestige and its title to the gratitude of the world. “ ‘ Deny the civilization o f Egypt in spite of traces that attest its glorious past; deny its benefits to the culture o f the world; suppose that it is only an agglomeration of savages ruled by the brutality of their instincts and without law—do you refuse to believe that Egypt has been a precious aid to you? The enor mous sacrifice that we have made during the war in blood and treasure for the triumph of your cause, were indispensable to you, and moreover you have recognized many times that these sacrifices were one of the principal factors of victory in the Orient. _ . . , •««* * * Even were you to suppose that Egypt had no civilization and that Egypt gave you no aid. would you none the less refuse to apply to her the principles which you ha\e agreed with President Wilson to apply— impartial justice on every side o f settlement no matter whose interest is crossed, and not only impartial justice hut also the satisfaction of several peoples whose fortunes are dealt w ith ?’ “ Egyptian case stated as follows in a letter from Egyptian delegation to president of peace conference (p. 88) : “ 4F,)r more than five months the British authorities refused to allow our delegation to leave for Europe. Public opinion, realizing that a peace conference had assembled and was taking up the problems o f the Near East, and preparing a treat\ to present to Germany, became aroused. The Egyptians insisted that the authorization for our departure be granted. Standing by the people, the cabinet presented its resignation, which s\as accepted. The answer o f the British military authorities to the official request of the Egyptian Government was to order the arrest and deportation to Malta of the president of the delegation and o f three o f his colleagues. They were taken suddenly from their homes and hurried away under cover of night. There was no trial, and they were not informed of the reasons for their arrest and deportation. When they learned of this act of violence, totally contrary to the law, there were peaceful demonstrations throughout the country, in which all classes took part. Government officials and the personnel of railways and other transportation service, decided to strike. The English thus saw that in the entire territory o f Egypt the people of all classes. Irrespective of religion, were against their domination, nevertheless they persisted in their wish to govern by force of arms the people who did not want them. ‘“ The manifestations were suppressed by machine guns which mowed down dozens of unfortunate demonstrators. Since the Egyptians had no arms, the order to fire was totally unwarranted. But frightfulness could not stop the Egyptians from proceeding in their determination to make an effort to obtain their independence. They had firm faith in the prin ciples o f President Wilson which had been solemnly accepted by the Entente Allies. They felt that if their delegation could only get to Paris that justice would be accorded to them. So, in^ spite of the death that awaited them, they advanced in groupj in ecstasy, making the sacrifice o f their lives to the cause of liberty, “ ‘ Even the women were not spared. Without mentioning those who fell on the field of honor during the national demon strations, we can cite the case o f the leading ladies o f Cairo 14 7 3 11— 20090 13 who organized under the leadership of the wife of the prime min ister, a demonstration to protest to the diplomatic agencies against the murder of innocent and unarmed citizens in the streets o f Cairo. Suddenly they were surrounded on all sides by soldiers who pointed their guns at them. This inspired one o f the Egyptian women to say “ Make of me if you will a second Miss Cavell.” They were kept for more than two hours in the burning sun. In proof ol' this statement, we refer to the testi mony of the agencies of the United States and Italy. “ ‘ The British authorities in Egypt were as much disturbed as provoked by the extent o f the movement and astonished at their powerlessness to stop it. It was then that the spirit of venge ance got the better o f them, and they then allowed themselves to indulge in the most disgraceful excesses. No longer content to stop the demonstrations by means o f rifles and machine guns, they were guilty in several places o f rape, o f assassination of peaceful villagers, o f pillage, o f arson- -all with the most trifling pretext or even without pretext. No longer was ic a question of individual abuses committed by stray soldiers such as those of which the minister o f justice and the'president o f the legisla tive assembly had been victims—no longer was it a question of blows and thefts in the streets o f Alexandria and Cairo, attacks began to be made by strong military attachments under the com mand of their officers in villages as well as eities.” BRITISH VIEWS ON THE EGYPTIAN QUESTION. “ Sir Thomas Barclay, vice president of the Institute ol’ Inter national Law, says in his book, ‘ New Methods of Adjusting In ternational disputes and the Future’ : ‘“ Turning to another aspect of international matters, it is deeply to be regretted that in several instances in our own time international treaties have not been regarded by public opinion with the same respect as international awards. The attitude of England toward Egypt, o f Italy toward Turkey, o f Russia toward Persia, of France toward Morocco, and especially o f Germany toward Belgium, all are instances o f eventual bad faith, however justifiable the original intervention may have been in the one ease or unjustifiable in the other. They are addi tional evidence o f the difficulty o f preserving the peace o f the world even by the most solemn o f international undertakings.’ ” [ E x c e r p t s f r o m a n a r t i c l e b y 1 lie R i g h t H o n . .T. M . R o b e r t s o n , f o r m e r m e m b e r o f th e B r i t i s h C a b in e t , in th e C o n t e m p o r a r y R e v ie w o f M a y , 1 9 1 9 , u n d e r t h e t i t l e o f “ T h e p r o b le m o f E g y p t ,” s a id in p a r t : ] “ A rebellion in Egypt in 3919 has set all men elsewhere asking the question, Why? In 1914 a rebellion was planned for by the German enemy; how thoroughly the world has not yet been informed. Hud it broken out, the causation would have licen sufficiently obvious, apart from any known native discontent. But that rebellion should have been averted then and should blaze forth now, when the leagued enemies o f the British Em pire are prostrate in defeat, signifies a new causation. What is it? “ Some have put the hypothesis that Egyptian Moslems are alarmed by the prospect of Jewish domination in Palestine. But even if there were not express testimony that the Zionist leaders have maintained thoroughly friendly relations with those of the 147311— 20090 Arabs, such an explanation would be plainly inadequate. Mos lem feeling in Egypt about Palestine could at most aggravate other grounds of resentment; it could not motive a rebellion in which the Moslems of Palestine have no share. Such a rising, exhibiting no signs of direction from without, must be held to signify grievances within E gypt; and new and special grievances at that. The disorders reported from Cairo on April 14 appear to involve riots directed against the Armenians and Greeks; and it may be that the presence of a number o f Armenian refugees has helped to foment fanaticism. But these attacks, as de scribed, have the appearance of being a sequel to the previous insurrection rather than a key to its causation. Normally, the Moslems in Egypt live on perfectly good terms with the numer ous Greeks; fanaticism being in fact not a normal factor in the life of the Egyptian mass. And the remarkable statement made by Miss M. E. Durham, in the Daily News, of April 2 would seem to yield the explanation. Thus it runs: “ 11 was in Egypt from November. 1915, to April, 191G, and can confirm Dr. Haden Guest in his statement that it is to our own treatment of the Egyptians that we owe the present trouble. The authorities were certainly to blame in landing colonial troops in Egypt without carefully instructing them as to the population they would meet there. So ignorant were numbers of these men that they imagined that Egypt was English, and the natives of the land were intruders. “ ‘ More than one Australian said that he would clear the lot out if he had his way. They treated the natives with cruelty and contempt. In the canteen in which I worked a very good native servant was kicked and knocked about simply because he did not understand an order given him by a soldier. An educated native in the town was struck in the mouth and had his inlaid walking stick forcibly snatched from him by a soldier who wanted it. More than one English resident said to me: “ It will take years to undo the harm that has been done here by the army.” Personally I felt that were I an Egyptian I should have spared no effort to evict the British. I felt ashamed o f my country—bitterly ashamed. The opinion of the native for the soldier was amusingly illustrated by a small conversation book, one phrase o f which was to the effect; “ You fo o l; what for you spend ail your money on b eer?” and a dialogue with a beggar which ended; “ I am p oor; I am miserable,” to which the Briton replied : “ Go to hell.” “ ‘ I spoke with great severity frequently to the soldiers, telling them that by their conduct they were proving themselves the enemies o f England; that the Germans maltreated the enemy, but that they were attacking their own side and would make enemies. This surprised them very much. They ivere absolutely ignorant of the situation. “ ' To make matters worse, for the first few days after the troops arrived in quantities, the drink shops were all open all day, and the unlovely results filled the natives with disgust and contempt. It was reported. I do not know with what truth, that drunken men had snatched the veils from Moslem women. The tale was believed by the natives. M‘ Small wonder if they hate and dread us.’ “ It is probably necessary to impress upon many people in this country that the insolent outrage such as that described, inflicted upon people In their own country by a dominant alien 147311— 20090 race, is about as maddening to tlie indigenous population as Englishmen found many of the tales of German brutality to British prisoners and subject Belgians during the war. The blood boils in Egypt perhaps more easily than in England. And if any o f our people continue to argue, as many o f them did a dozen or more years ago, that Egyptians ought to be too thank ful for our beneficent rule to feel rebelliously about individual grievances, it will be more necessary than ever to point out that such reasoning tells only of an incurable moral blindness. Old chronicles are full o f rebellion arising out o f individual out rages ; and a nation collectively grateful to an alien race for ruling it is not among the portents o f history. “ How government has gone in Egypt during the war it was practically impossible for us at home to know. It was no time for discussing reforms; and military rule had to prevail there at least as much as here. But when the world is intent upon a peace settlement which is to remedy as far as may be all the grievances of subjected peoples, it would be idle to suppose that wild mutiny and stern repression (going to the length of bomb ing open villages) can go on In Egypt without comment or criticism from our allies, to say nothing of our late enemies. “ If Egypt were under any rule but British, British critics in general would hold it a matter of course that such a mutiny as has recently been quelled there must signifv some kind of misgovernment. The fact that we can quell a mutiny by bombing, from aeroplanes, the open villages o f a population which simply can not organize a military resistance, is no proof whatever either o f the general badness of the Egyptian cause or the good ness of ours. “ Becollections o f the history of Boland might suffice to move thinking men in this country to seek for a policy which shall not merely ‘ hold down ’ the Egyptian people now but make it unnecessary lo hold them down in future. Whatever the pa triots in Parliament and the Nortlicliffe press may say for the moment, this bombing of open villages and flogging o f rioters can not improve our reputation either in Christendom or in the Moslem w orld; and it will not be permanently possible even for the patriots to keep up a denunciation o f Germans for their past bombing of noncombatants here while we bomb noncombatants in Egypt. And there is a painful probability that such episodes Avill recur unless we make a new departure in Egyptian Gov ernment. “ B ,s presumably' well known that the present system is one embodying a few of the forms without any o f the realities of self-government. At every stage at which those forms have been adjusted the obvious purpose was to give nothing approach ing real power o f any kind either to the mass of the people or to Egyptian ministers who nominally administered. For such a policy of emasculation the private defense has always been that neither ministers nor people can be trusted, the former to govern or the latter to control them. It may simplify the dis cussion to admit that for this plea there is some justification. Tt would be hard to prove that the majority o f the electors iii Britain who polled at the last general election are well qualified to vote. They are now showing signs o f a change of feeling which could hardly he paralleled in oriental history for quick ness and completeness. That being so, it is not to he supposed 147311— 20090 16 that the people o f Egypt are properly fitted to exercise political power. But that does not alter the fact that in Egypt, as in Europe, the only way in which any population can become fitted to exercise political power is to begin using some degree of political choice. “ Certainly it is important that some amount o f education, in the ordinary sense o f the term, should precede political en franchisement—though a franchise long subsisted with a low standard o f popular education in our own country. But Eng lishmen can not long, plead lack o f education in Egypt as a ground for denying it any measure of real self-government, when it is bv the decision of the British control that Egypt remains so largely uneducated. The policy of Lord Cromer in that regard was fatally transparent. Until within a short time of his resignation he refused even the appeal o f his Brit ish (the controlling) minister of education to spend more than £200,000 a year on the schooling of a nation numbering some twelve millions. The finances o f Egypt, he declared, did not admit o f an expenditure much in excess of that. When criti cism was brought to bear In the British Parliament he quickly discovered that he could spend the £400,000 his minister had asked fo r; and since his day the expenditure has greatly in creased, still without giving Egypt a good system o f schools. ‘‘ The reforms, such as they are, have been largely the result of native pressure. Egyptians of all classes have long agitated for better and better schools, and in particular for a good mod ern university. Before the advent of the British control Egypt was to a very considerable extent in a state of educational progress. A study o f the catalogue o f the Khedlval Library in 1900 revealed that quite a large number of scientific and other works had been translated into Arabic, chiefly from the French, in the days of Ismail and his predecessors. Yet when it was urged upon Lord Cromer’s Government that science teaching should be introduced into the program o f the secondary schools the official answer was that hooks for the purpose did not exist. As they had existed a generation before, the irresistible conclusion was that the British control had let Egypt retro grade from the level reached under Moslem rule. So reaction ary was the influence o f the Cromer tradition that only after much pressure was it made possible for students o f agriculture in Egypt to secure instruction in their own language. The Cromer tradition was that they must master either French or English for the purpose. Let the reader try to imagine what would he said of a British Government that refused to give instruction in scientific agriculture to farmers’ sons save in a foreign language. “ It is perfectly true that Lord Cromer managed Egyptian finances well and economically, in contrast with the extremely bad management of the old regime. Probably no native gov ernment could have approached to t'le efficiency, to say nothing of the rectitude, o f the British control in finance. As to all that there is no dispute; but it savors almost o f burlesque to argue that the duty of the British control toward Egypt was fulfilled when Egypt was made to pay full interest on all its debts and meet the whole costs, civil and military, o f the Brit ish administration. For generations past it has been an axiom in our politics that it is the business o f governments to look to 147311— 20090 17 tlie moral welfare of tlic nation as well as to its finance, and it is upon their contributions to that welfare that political parties now mainly found their claims to support. The very backwardness of Egypt was a ground for special measures to promote her moral progress. To make the defense o f British rule consist in having regulated her finances and increased her productivity while leaving her more backward than ever in the elements of qualification for self-government was to discredit the cause that was defended. The obvious answer of every im partial foreigner to such a plea would be: ‘ You claim credit and gratitude for having secured the safe payment o f your own bondholders, in whose interest you originally entered Egypt. Orderly government was essential to that. To earn credit and gratitude you must do a good deal more. You must raise the levels of life for the people of Egypt as you confessedly seek to raise them for your people at home. And you must know— what nation can know better?—that a people declared unfit to manage their own affairs are thereby pronounced low in the human scale.’ “ It is, to say the least, unfortunate for the British Govern ment that such an outbreak in Egypt should follow immediately on the close of the World War, when ‘ self-determination for subject races ’ passes for a principle with the peace conference. Had those responsible for the control of Egypt in the past sought to fulfill our old pledges with more o f good will and good faith, we might have escaped this unpleasant emergency, though it will doubtless be argued that Lord Morley’s progres sive measures in India did not avert sedition there in 1914 and later. But the conclusion come to by responsible inquirers as regards India is obviously still more compulsive as regards Egypt. Our duty to prepare that country for self-government has been again and again officially avowed from the time o f our first entrance; and those who think we can forever go on sim ply repressing discontent and maintaining the status quo are plainly unteachable by events. If the British control does not get newly into touch with intelligent native opinion, the situa tion will infallibly go from bad to worse, and this in the eves of a world newly critical of •imperialism.’ That long-vaunted ideal has somewhat rapidly become a term o f censure for whole nations. “ We shall be faced, as a matter o f course, with the regulation formula that there can be no talk o f concessions to a people who have been recently in rebellion. The Russian bureaucracy used to talk in that fashion, and we have seen the outcome. If those responsible for British rule in Egypt have in any degree learned the lesson, they will as soon as possible set about secur ing native support by taking natives into council; by giving room for real initiative to the nominal Egyptian ministers, who must know a good deal more about Egypt than do more than a few of the British bureaucracy there, civil or m ilitary; and by giv ing some reality to the form o f self-government which thus far has been allowed to count for next to nothing in Egyptian politics. Before the war there were chronic and bitter com plaints about the disregard o f native wishes, as expressed by the elected representatives, in regard to matters o f administra tion nearly concerning Egyptian welfare. During the war there, as here, must have been the possible minimum o f consultation 147311— 20090 of the people. Perhaps what has happened in the English byelections within the last month or two may suffice to suggest to the British Government that the sooner it resumes touch with public opinion everywhere the better it will be for na tional stability, to say nothing of the stability of the ministry. Egyptian mutiny is only the nouconstitutional version o f the dissatisfaction that expresses itself in elections in the constitu tional country. And, to put the case at its lowest, the safe course is to set about making Egypt constitutional. “ J . M. R o b k r t s o x . ” “ Capt. Wedgwood Bonn, in the House of Commons on May 15, initiated a debate on the state o f affairs in Egypt. Among other things, he sa id : “ 4It was not too much to say that the reason for the calm ness in Egypt, even when the Turks were successful and had overrun the Sinai Peninsula, was that the Egyptians trusted that the assistance they had rendered to the Empire In the war would not be permitted to interfere with the satisfaction of their legitimate aspirations. * * * “ 4The peace that had reigned in 1914, because there was trust, was converted by somebody in 1919, when there was dis appointment, into a national insurrection. * * * The unrest among that large, busy, and influential class o f people was caused by the fact that changes were in the air and nobody had been consulted. The underlying cause was that the status' o f Egypt had been altered.’ 44Mr. Spoor (Bishop Auckland) said in the House o f Com mons on the same d a y : “ ‘ The situation in Egypt appeared to have been aggravated enormously because Egypt was under military control, and mili tary control o f a very short-sighted kind. The methods of gov erning Egypt had become more and more military; and in re gard to the censorship of information which was allowed to be sent from that country, it was interesting to note that the Times asserted ever since 1914 it had been the most inept and most savagely ruthless censorship in any country under British con trol. “ 'There were facts which could be thoroughly well au thenticated o f atrocities o f the most extreme kind that had been committed with the full sanction o f our own military au thorities. * * * The allegation (o f atrocities) had become so general, not only in this country but throughout Europe, that it was high time an inquiry was held.’ FRENCH VIEWS. [Speech of M. d o m i c , of t h e F r e n c h C h a m b e r o f Deputies, at tie- sitting of S e p t . 4, l'Jli). T r a n s l a t e d f r o m Lc J o u r n a l Otfieiel.) “ M. Goude: In his speech o f yesterday M. Franklin-Boullon said that under the appearance o f 4no compromise’ M. Clemenceau had surrendered on every point. 441 will try to show that the president o f the council (prime minister) at any rate adopted these tactics when it canto to settling a question that lie understands thoroughly, a question often discussed from this tribune and itism which the prime minister lias often spoken. 147311— 20090 19 “ Article 147 of tlie treaty submitted to us for ratification says: “ ‘ Germany declares that she recognizes the protectorate proclaimed over Egypt by Great Britain on the 18tli o f Decem ber, 1914/ “ This means that Egypt is placed under the protectorate o f England without this agreement having ever been ratified by Parliament. Neither in the treaty o f peace nor in the report o f M. Maurice Long has one dared to directly approach this ques tion ; it is well known that it is a thorny one and that it is absolutely contrary to all the principles laid down by the En tente Governments during the course o f the war. “ It is known that at the present moment— in spite o f their appeals to all the parliaments and all the politicians of the Entente a people are being placed under the domination of another people. This is being done in an underhand way. We are not asked at first—we the French Chamber—to ratify an agreement recognizing the protectorate declared by England over Egypt in 1914, but we are to ld : ‘ We are compelling Ger many to recognize the protectorate proclaimed by England over Egypt/ “ The question is brought up, I repeat, in an underhand way, because it is known that if the sole question o f the English protectorate in Egypt was brought before Parliament a great debate would spring up, and I am convinced that if this question was the only one under discussion before you such a project o f the treaty would never be approved. I therefore wish to know and I ask for what reasons the French Government thinks it right to place under English domination the Egyptian people, who protest with all their might and all their energy, as I will show. “ Is it not well known that Egypt has always shown its de termination to be independent? Is it not well known that it is worthy of this independence? The prime minister himself has vigorously defended the dig nity o f Egypt. He knows, as we do, that the production of Egypt supports its 10,000,000 of inhabitants, including Egyptians and Soudanese; that almost all the landed property belongs to Egyptians; that its farms are cultivated by native-born sub jects to the exclusion o f all others; that this country had in 1913 a foreign commerce amounting in value to 12,000.000,000 francs (about 82,400,000,000) ; that the national budget of Egypt is 800,000,000 francs (about $160,000,000); that intel lectual Egyptians cultivate French traditions; that there exists in this country boys’ and girls' colleges in large numbers, as well as different high schools, where the French language is exclusively employed, without forgetting the celebrated law school. “ Fifty years ago the Khedive could declare: “ ‘ My country is no longer in Africa. It is a part of Europe/ “ Thirty years or so ago, the prime minister, rising in this tribune to defend Egyptian independence as I defend it to-day, declared: “ ‘ I do not desire to enter into ethnographic consideration as regard the Egyptian race—this is not the place for it—but it is certain that this race, o f which we see some remarkable specimens amongst us, in our schools, is a calm and docile 147311— 20090 race— too docile, it may be said at certain moments—susceptible o f culture and application, an industrious race o f which surely one has every reason to expect much. No one can stand up in this tribune, no one will come into this Parliament of the Republic to say that these men are incapable of freeing them selves and that we owe no other duty to them, except to govern them with a courbash and a cudgel.’ “ [ ‘ Hear! H e a r !’ at the extreme left.] “ Thirty-two years ago the prime minister made these declara tions. Since then, as we know, European civilization has been spreading itself more and more in Egypt, which ardently desires to Europeanize its civilization, which is modifying its political structure, which has extended the suffrage to all citizens, who have attained their twentieth year—a reform that certain European nations might well envy. “ It must be remembered that at the moment of the declara tion of war, on the 2d o f August, 1914, Egypt was independent under the sole suzerainty o f the Sultan of Turkey. This suzerainty, approved in 1840 by the European powers, consisted in the payment each year by Egypt o f a tribute of 15,000,000 francs to the Sultan—and that was all. Having done this, it had an absolute right recognized by the European powers, to manage its own affairs according to its fancy and to have its own constitution. I know well that little by little England, by the force o f her armies, had got hold o f Egyptian institutions, that the members o f the Government were hardly anything more than English officials, and that the President of the L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly is appointed by the Government. But this was putting into practice the formula against which we are all struggling: ‘ Might is right.’ England had no precise and express right in Egypt. The most famous English poli ticians, the heads o f the Government, have said so on several occasions, as, for instance, Gladstone, who in the House o f Commons as far back as the 2.3d of June, 1884, stated: “ ‘ We pledge ourselves not to prolong our military occupation in Egypt beyond the 1st o f January, 1888.’ “ it is the same prime minister who said, on the I8tli o f Sep tember, 1885: “ ‘ England ought to withdraw from Egypt as soon as Britisli honor will permit o f it. We will never admit that there can ho any question o f annexation, o f a protectorate, or even of an indefinite prolongation of the English occupation, and we re pudiate all idea of any compensation whatsoever for the efforts and sacrifices that we have made up to this day. English policy is founded on an error, and what is best to be done in a matter like this is promptly to put an end to such an inter vention.’ “ It is Lord Salisbury who said on the 10th of June, 1887, in the House o f Lords: “ ‘ Her Majesty’s Government, by virtue of its previous en gagements and o f the rules of international law’, does not think that it can place Egypt under a protectorate. Its rule should bo limited to coming to an understanding with the Porte to defend the interests of 'the Khedive against political calamities and to main the statu quo in the valley o f the Nile.’ “ There has been a large number o f the declarations, but to shorten matters I will only quote the one made by Lord Salis bury In the House o f Lords on the 12th o f August, 18.80: 147311—20090 21 “ ‘ VVe can not proclaim our protectorate over Egypt nor our intention to occupy it effectively and perpetually f this would amount to breaking the international pledges signed by Eng land.’ “ Such was the state of the question during the occupation. In the agreement called the * entente cordiale,’ concluded in 3904 between France and England, article 1 begins as follows: The Government o f His Britannic Majesty declares that it has not the intention to change the political state o f Egypt.’ ^ “ In the course of the discussion of the Fashoda affair, when England asked me to withdraw, it was not because the Sudan belonged or could belong to England; it was because o f Eng land s declaration that it was Egyptian territory. England has, then, clearly recognized on every' occasion the independence of Egypt. Has the country, which was independent under the sole suzerainty o f the Sultan and under the conditions that I have precisely indicated, become less deserving o f our consideration during the war? Is there any reason for modifying, by lowering it, the political status o f Egypt? \ou know that Egypt came at once and took her stand with the Allies. It must not be forgotten that the silver thread to which I referred a moment ago still bound it to Turkey. “ Before Turkey declared war Egypt placed itself at the dis posal o f England— of the English consul general—by saying: “ ‘ If you will promise us our complete independence, if the English armies undertake to quit our country after the war, we Mill place our financial resources, our provisions, our arms, and our sons, all, in fact, that we possess, at your entire disposal ; we are ready to go with you to the Continent to defend the inter ests of the Allies.’ “ To the offer thus made at this moment England replied by a downright refusal. Later the situation got worse. Turkey, who was suzerain over Egypt, went to war against the Allies. Egypt renewed its offer in the same way. The Sultan, be it noted, had proclaimed a holy war. Do not forget that Egypt is a Mussulman country, but a country of semi-European civilization, where a very lively sympathy for Europe exists. In spite o f the powerful effect that the proclamation of the holy war might have on the peasant masses, who are profoundly Mussulman in sentiment, Egypt, attracted by European culture, came to us and said once more • ‘ Insure us our independence after the war and we are with you" body and soul.’ “ We have made use of Egypt; it is the Egyptian artillery which checked the impetus of the German-Turkish armies in February, 1935, when these armies tried to seize the Suez Canal and to cut our communications. Egypt put its cotton at the disposal o f Europe. Later on, in face of the necessity of grow ing wheat, it abandoned the profitable production of cotton in order to cultivate wheat, and it put all its provisions at the disposal o f the army o f Salonica, which it victualed to a great extent. “ With a population o f 13,000,000 of inhabitants it has placed 1,200.000 workers at the disposal o f the Entente—a figure recog nized as exact by the English. All this Egypt has done for the Entente. Have we now the right as a recompense for these services to violate the very 147311— 20090 'iig !» 1 t. * 22 principles tliat everyone here Invokes, the principles which have been laid down with precision by President Wilson, when, for instance, lie said, ‘ Peoples ought not be passed on from one sovereignty to another by an- international conference or an arrangement between rivals and adversaries.’ [ ‘ Hear, hear,’ from several benches of the extreme left.] The national aspi rations ought to be respected. The peoples ought to-day be gov erned by their own consent. “ Is it not there, besides an international interest, that Egypt shall not be placed under the domination o f a European power? I have here under my eyes a short extract from a speech o f M. de Freycinet, then prime minister, who on the 27th o f November, 1880, summed up admirably the Egyptian question by saying: '■ ‘ Egypt is a sort of crossing for the Old orld. It is a j u n c t i o n between Europe, Asia, and Africa. It is a highway which permits of the penetration o f the Far East possessions. Besides, he who is master of Egypt is master to a great extent o f the Mediterranean. It is certain that if a great power in stalled itself definitely in Egypt this would be a very heavy blow to French influence in the Mediterranean in such a man ner that, in my estimation, France ought never reconcile her self to the idea that Egypt could definitely fall into the hands of a European power.’ [‘ Hear, hear,’ from the extreme left.] “ This is an undoubted fact. And the question ought not to be examined merely from a material standi>oint, but also from a moral point of view. This Mussulman country into which European civilization penetrates little by little is being driven by us into a corner where violence is its only recourse. This is henceforth its only political issue. We could, however, have made of Egypt a point o f contact between eastern and western civilization. [‘ Hear, hear,’ from the extreme left.] This is ex actly what we are not doing. “ Not only will this country, which came o f its own accord to the Entente, receive no compensation, hut by virtue o f the treaty of peace its hounds will he tightened and its chains made heavier. ** * * * ju yds Chamber, which during such a long time and so very justly complained o f the Bismarekian policy, which had left in the side of France the painful scar o f AlsaceLorraine, it is my desire to declare that it is helping to create at this moment another Alsace-Lorraine. “ 4 M. J ean L onguet . Ten Alsace-Lorraiues.’ *“ M. Goude. Certainly, many Alsace-Lorraiues; but this onc Is particularly characteristic. * * * ’ “ Egypt, which during the whole o f the war and in order to insure the victory o f the Allies, has endured without com plaining the yoke o f English militarism, which lias borne with all the measures o f censure, with all the house searches, trial sentences etc. **4M. J ean L onguet. With the atrocities! 444M. G oude. Atrocities. Yes; that is the word. Egypt will have no more o f that now. It is in full open revolt. You are aware that the president o f the Egyptian Council (Egyptian prime minister), who, however, Is a nominee o f the English and in a certain sense an English official, found the Egyptian people so unanimous against this domination and the pro147311— 20090 2a tectorute that ho resigned. You know that the officials who are specially under English authority, seeing that their written protests were distorted, went out on a general strike in order to emphasize their vote o f independence. You are aware that the workingmen are on strike; that revolts have taken place in the streets, in which all classes and creeds have been united by a common determination to win independence; that crowds have been fired upon; that there have been massacres; and that condemnations have been pronounced.’ “ Here we have a university professor— a fellow— condemned to penal servitude for life for having made a speech in favor of independence. Here, again—to mention one case amongst many others— we have Ibrahim Chalami sent to the gallows for having cried out at the head o f a demonstration, ‘ Liberty, equality, fraternity.’ ^• Haiitiie. They condemn even those who crv “ Long live France. “ ‘ M. G oude. There are thousands o f examples o f this kind. To maintain its protectorate, England has at present 150,000 soldiers, she is obliged to keep soldiers in every village, because amongst university men, notables, commercial men, fella heen, no one will accept this domination at any price and everyone demands independence. Thrilling appeals have been addressed to President Wilson, M. Clemenceau, to the chair man of our peace commission, to the Italian, American, and English Parliaments.’ M. J ean L onguet. They are all deaf.’ “ ‘ M. G ouge. But at all times and everywhere everybody remains deaf except, however, the American Senate, the* com m is s io n o f which has proclaimed that Egypt ought to be as Independent o f English diplomacy as of Turkish diplomacy, and that It must bo left master o f its own destinies.* “ ‘ Monsieur le President o f the Council,’ said the orator ad dressing M. Clemenceau, ‘ not only have you abaudoned Egypt that you know personally, since, I repeat to you, you have spoken very hard words against our friends* the English, from this very tribune when this question was under discus sion, bnt, what is graver still—what seems to me monstrous— is that a peace conference brought together to settle the ques tion of the entire world has, upon the orders o f the English Government, refused to hear the Egyptian delegation, composed, as you well know, o f the president o f the Chamber o f Depu ties o f that country, o f members o f Parliament, o f representa tives o f the intellectual classes, and of Egyptian notables. And by refusing to hear them you have precipitated Egypt into the only path left open to it— the path o f violence» “ I ask you, M. the president of the council, how can E<wnt otherwise get out of the situation in which you have placed it? Yes; by your attitude and your decisions you have decreed for that country violence and revolution. “ Tou said o f Egypt that its inhabitants were pacific and do cile—too docile, perhaps. A heap o f iniquities have indeed l)een necessary to provoke the revolt o f such a peaceable race. “ How is it possible to better such a situation? Is there anv means of doing so? To whom should the Egvptian national rep resentatives apply? They already have tried all the means at their disposal. 14 7 3 11— 20090 24 “ The vice president o f the Chamber of Deputies and several o f his colleagues have been imprisoned simply because they wanted to come to Europe to be heard by a delegation of the peace conference. And never at any single moment has tills conference been willing to listen to them. “ More Ilian that, the Egyptian Army has been utilized during the war to occupy Hedjaz. The Egyptian armies have been equally employed to occupy Soudan and put a stop to the Ger man maneuvers. To-day at the conference o f the peace, the King of Hedjaz is received—a King entirely of English manufacture created in order that England might have an additional vote. And this King, who has just come into existence, who repre sents a country inhabited exclusively by nomadic tribes—this King has been given the right to sign a treaty in which a protec torate has been imposed on the neighboring Egyptian people. “ To this point have you gone in your injustices toward Egypt, and yet, M. le president of the council, when you delivered the speech that I have recalled— on the question o f Egypt and the Anglo-French relations—you concluded by saying: ‘Assuredly i f the end o f the Anglo-French alliance such as it has been de picted to us and such as it would be applied in practice was to organize with our aid the slavery o f the Egyptian people and to reduce them to the position o f an inferior race, I would repudiate it with the greatest energy, and I would say to our pretended allies— to our accomplices, I should call them—that I refund my share o f responsibility in such a reprehensible undertaking. “ Thirty years ago you expressed yourself in this manner. Since then Egypt has progressed; it has come closer and closer to European civilization. And you want to-day to make us share the responsibility for the crime committed against Egypt in the peace treaty. For my part, T will not lend myself to it. Besides, I am certain that the English people repudiating Eng lish bourgeois traditions [applause on some benches o f the ex treme left] and united with the French people, will soon redress the injustice and the crime that you are committing by once more enslaving Egypt. [Applause at extreme left.]” AMERICAN VIEWS. “ President Wilson, in his great address at Mount Vernon, the home o f Washington, on July 4 , 1918, sa id : “ ‘ There can be hut one issue. The settlement must be tiual. There can bo no compromise. No lialf-way decision would be tol erable. No half-way decision is conceivable. These are the ends for which the associated peoples o f ihe world are fighting, and which must be conceded them before there can be i>eaee. * * The settlement o f every question, whether of territory or sover eignty or economic arrangement or o f political relationship upon the basis of the free acceptance of that settlement by the people immediately concerned and not upon the basis of th>' material interest or advantage of any other nation or people which may desire a different settlement for the sake of its own influence or mastery. * * * What we seek is the reign of law based upon the consent o f the governed and sustained by the organized opinion o f mankind.’ [Italics ours.] “ Shall Egypt, without the consent of the Egyptians, be turned over to England for the sake o f England's influence or mastery? 147311— 20000 25 “ In the 14 points advanced by President Wilson we find the fol lowing pertinent* and applicable provisions: Point 14. A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small States alike.' [Italics ours.] Ibis principle applied to Egypt would lead to a conclusion di rectly opposite to the indorsement o f the British seizure o f Egypt and destruction o f Egypt’s independence. ‘‘Applying the principle o f the seventh point to Egypt and only substituting the word ‘ Egypt ’ for ‘ Belgium,’ the seventh point w m iln r o f in • Egypt, the whole world will agree, must be evacuated and restoied without any attempt to limit the sovereignty which she enjoys in common with all other free nations. No other single act will serve as this will serve to restore confidence among the nations^ in the laws which they have themselves set and deter*<n t^G‘ £°vernment of their relations with one another. Without this healing act the whole structure and validity of international hm is forever impaired.’ [Italics ours.] ” THE QUESTION OF EGYPT. [P r o m . th e W a s h in g to n T o st, T h u rsd ay, O c t. 16, 1 9 1 9 .] “ The question of Egypt’s status is brought to the front by Senator O w e n ’ s proposed reservation— interpretative resolu tion— to the peace treaty. The fact that this reservation— resolu tion— is offered by a Democrat, a strong supporter of the Presi dent, increases the weight of the objections which are finding voice in the United States against the snuffing out o f the principle of self-determination of well-defined nationalities. Presi dent \\ "son gained the support o f liberty-loving men throughout the world when he set forth that principle and announced that it would be made effective at Paris. Jn so far as the conference adheied to this principle its work was good and permanent, and \\heie\ei the piinciple was violated there have been disorders ami threats o f war. “ Senator O w e n ’ s proposed reservation (resolution) provides that the Biltish protectorate over Egypt shall be recognized as merely a means through which the nominal suzerainty of Turkey over Egypt shall be transferred to the Egyptian peo ple, and shall not he construed to mean recognition by the United States of British sovereignty over the Egyptian people. “ The story of British ascendancy over Egypt, now apparently to cultiminate in the extinction o f self-government is compara tively brief. The first occupation by British troops was in 1882 and the ostensible object was to suppress a rebellion against the Khedive. The occupation was to be only temporary aceording to Premier Gladstone. He declared that England had given ‘ specific and solemn pledges to the world * that it would not annex Egypt, and he added that these pledges had earned for England the confidence o f Europe. Evidently there was no in tention at that time to absorb Egypt. Yet the troops were not withdrawn, and have never been withdrawn, notwithstanding 147311— 20090 6 26 the persistent efforts of the Egyptian people to recover ihe practical independence they had enjoyed. “ After the World W ar began the British Government re moved the Khedive and appointed another, as a war measure, and announced that Egypt was placed under a British protec torate. The Egyptian people might have been alarmed by this had not King George himself sent a letter to the Egyptians, telling them that the change was but a step toward the com plete independence o f the people, and that the protectorate would endure only during the war period. This reassurance was satisfactory, and the Egyptians joined the Allies heartily, furnishing troops and large numbers of laborers who built the railroads, pipe lines, and other military works in Palestine and elsewhere. “ When the armistice was signed the Egyptians believed the day of their national independence to be at hand. They sent a commission to Paris to attend the peace conference and to ar range for recognition of the independence of Egypt. But the leaders o f this commission were seized by British officers and deported to Malta, where they were placed in a German prison camp. “ From that hour there has been a smoldering volcano o f re volt in Egypt. The people have had several serious clashes with British soldiers In which machine guns have quelled popular uprisings. In the meantime Great Britain has obtained from President Wilson a conditional recognition of the protectorate over Egypt, and In the peace treaty is a clause requiring Ger many to recognize the protectorate. “ The intentions o f Great Britain toward Egypt are some what confused in the minds of other Governments on account of conflicting statements issued by British authority. When the Egyptian question was before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on September 2, the British Embassy here made pub lic a statement declaring that * the British Government has carefully avoided destroying Egyptian sovereignty,’ and that the British flag in Egypt covered only British military establish ments. But the British foreign ofliee a few days later an nounced that Great Britain had succeeded to the sovereignty o f Turkey over Egypt and had acquired Egypt as spoils o f war, apparently discarding the pledge o f King George and develop ing a new policy o f permanent control over Egypt. “ It may be that unfortunately worded or unauthorized state ments by British officials are at the bottom of the public con fusion. In that case a clear reaffirmation o f Britain’s intention to relinquish the protectorate and restore Egypt to its people as soon as the peace treaty is ratified would remove all appre hension. In the meantime, taking the treaty as It finds it, the Senate will doubtless adopt a reservation on the lines sug gested by Senator O w k n , for it is quite evident that the United States can not consistently subscribe to si general principle of self-determination and independence o f nations and yet concur in the involuntary absorption o f Egypt by Great Britain.” 147311— 20090 27 EGYPTIAN BETRAYAL THE MOST HEINOUS OF THE REACTIONIST WRONGS. [ B y G e o r g e H . S li i b le y .] “ The case o f the people o f Egypt is a betraval the most heinous o f the reactionist wrongs. *' Dn December 21, 1914, five months after the opening of the Avar, the British Liberal Government, after deposing the Egyp tian Khedive and placing in office a Sultan of their own choos ing, spoke as follows to the people of Egypt in the name o f the King o f England: ' I feel convinced that you [the new Sultan] will be able, wdh the cooperation of your ministers and the protectorate of Great Britain, to overcome all influences which are seeking to destroy the independence of Egypt * * (London Times.) And yet the so-called peace conference o f the allied coalition governments has actually refused to the. 13,00Q.000 Egyptians llicit independence under the protection of the league of nations, and the Biitish Reactionist Rovernwent has shot down hundreds of the Egyptians who had the manhood to assert their lawfully established! lights, won in p a r t o f the lives and the sacrifices of wc Americans! EGYPT’S SOVEREIGNTY VIOUTED. [B y H e r b e r t A d a m s G ib b o n s , s o m e tim e fe llo w o f P r in c e to n U n iv e r s it y a u th o r o f th e N ew M a p o f E u ro p e, th e N e w M a p o f A s ia , th e N e w M a p o f A fr ic a , etc ] “ The ‘ interpretative resolutions ’ presented by Senator O w en in the Senate on Tuesday greatly encourage liberal thinkers, who are dissatisfied with the treaty at Versailles not for party or internal but for international reasons. Senator O w e n is a Democrat and a loyal supporter of the administration. He makes it clear that he intends to vote for ratifying the treaty without amendment or reservation. But he feels that the Senate, while unqualifiedly accepting the document from a technical point of view, should not fall to let the world know how the United States stands in regard to many o f its provisions. “ Senator O w en wants the United States to start to work immediately for a change in the league covenant that will give freedom to subject States capable o f self-government. Senator O w en mentions specifically a great wrong done to a sovereign State by the treaty o f Versailles. “ ‘ That the protectorate which Germany recognizes in Great Britain over Egypt,’ reads the Owen resolution, ‘ is understood to be merely a means through which the nominal suzerainty of Turkey over Egypt shall be transformed to the Egyptian people and shall not be construed as a recognition by the United States in Great Britain o f any sovereign rights over the Egyptian peo ple or as depriving the people of Egypt o f any right of selfgovernment.’ “ This resolution is apt to displease British public opinion, and Senator O w e n may be accused of indulging in the old sport o f twisting the lion’s tail. But the accusation Is un founded. I f we allowed our natural sentiments of affection 147311— 20090 for our kinsmen overseas to keep us silent at this time, we should find them getting away with a lot o f booty— and our selves unconsciously or unthinkingly giving sanction to high handed and unjustified acts o f oppression and international robbery. We can not he too strong in our condemnation, for instance, o f the Anglo-Persian treaty, concluded secretly by intimidation and bribery at the very moment we are asked to give our cooperation to a society o f nations which Persia is invited to join. “ The case o f Egypt stands out with remarkable clearness, it is one o f 1lie few moot questions o f the treaty <«f Versailles which has not two sides. The British protectorate over Egypt is an illegal action, not only violating the sovereignty of Egypt, hut also the promises officially made by generations <>i British statesmen. No denial of this fact is possible. Open any history or go to British official correspondence published by the British foreign office, and you will read the repeated assurances given to the Egyptians and to llie other powers that Great Britain did not intend to stay in Egypt and would not establish a proeetorate over Egypt. . “ The excuse for not hearing the representatives of Egypt at the peace conference was that the question o f Egypt did not come within the scope of the conference. If this were valid, why did the treaty of Versailles mention Egypt? And what right had the powers to deal with Egyptian questions at all? But Egypt did enter within the scope of the conference, because it was a country whose status had been changed by the war and during the war. Technically, as well as morally, the Egyptians had as much right to participation in the confer ence as the Arabs of the Hedjaz, and more right to inde pendence. For Egypt was only nominally under the suzerainty o f Turkey. By her declaration of war against Turkey, the bond of. vassalage was broken. Ipso facto Egypt was inde pendent. “ But the British, who were occupying the country, pro c l a i m e d — without taking into their confidence the Egyptian legislative assembly or asking the consent o f Ilm Egyptian people— their protectorate over Egypt. In war wliat is exi»edient is justifiable. Although formally protesting against this violation of pledges given and reiterated, the Egyptians co operated lovally with the British throughout the war, waiting for the jieaee conference to deside upon the legality o f British action. The prime minister, who consented to serve the new regime and who continued in office throughout the war, told me when 1 was in Cairo in 191G that lie was simply waiting until the end c f the war to hold the British to their promises. After the armistice Rushdi Pasha asked to he allowed to go to London to take up the matter of the status o f Egypt with the British. Permission was refused. A rigorous censorship was maintained. The Egyptians were held prisoners in their own country. , , , “ Rushdi Pasha and the entire cabinet resigned. A period of military dictatorship began. When the elected represent a ti\e< o f the Egyptian i>eople asked for passports to proceed to Paris, the British suddenly arrested without warrant or warning the president o f the delegation and three o f its leaders and deported 29 them to Malta. This, led to tlie insurrection put down by ma chine guns and burning of villages. The British used the means of suppressing what they called ‘ rebellion ’ which the world roundly condemned the Germans for in Belgium. Finally, force of Egyptian public opinion compelled the release o f the dele gates and the granting o f passports for Paris. But the Egyptian delegation, after its arrival in Paris, was never heard by the corifei once. The stipulation compelling Germany to recognize the British protectorate was inserted in the treaty o f Versailles in defiance o f the basic principle President Wilson had declared ' ' °V( ( 10 f°*lowed in making peace. A whole nation was robbed sV ^ .f v e n u g .i t y and its international status changed against its vu and, without having been heard, Egypt was Shantung over, again. “ \ wo,dd n°t have my readers think that I am writing without' kno\\ ledge o f the facts. A White Book has just been pub lished h\ the Egyptian delegation, which contains documents setting forth the history o f the past year. The British foreign office does not deny the authenticity of these documents. As foi tiie men deported to Malta, I know them personally. No foreign e l, even a Britisher, who knows Egypt can deny that these men a ie honorable and capable and that they represent flu' Egyptian people. The president of the delegation. Zagloul Pasha, is one of the best loved men in Egypt, a veritable father o f his people, Mohammed Mahmoud Pasha, a graduate of Ox ford, was formerly governor of the Suez Canal. The other members o f the delegation include the Sheik o f the Arabs of the Fayouni, the foremost landowners and lawyers in Egypt, and the librarian of the National Eibrary. They are the cream of the Christian element and the Greek Orthodox and Catholic ele ment. as well as the Mohammedan element. The Egyptians are united, irrespective of creed, in their determination not to be bartered from one sovereignty to another like cattle.” * * * On November 0, 1018, Secretary of State Lansing published the following to the world: ‘“ From the Secretary of State to the Minister of Switzerland, in charge of German interests in the United States. “ ‘ D e p ar t m e n t of S tate , **‘ November 5, 1918. “ ‘ S i r : 1 have the honor to request you to transmit the fol lowing communication to the German Government: “ ‘ In my note of October 23, 1018, I advised you that the President had transmitted his correspondence with the German authorities to the Governments with which the Government of the United States is associated as a belligerent, with the sug gestion that, if tiiose Governments were disposed to effect peace upon the terms and principles indicated, their military advisers and the military advisers o f the United States be asked to sub mit to the Governments associated against Germany the neces sary terms of such armistice as would fully protect the interests of the peoples involved and insure to the associated Govern ments the unrestricted power to safeguard and enforce the de tails of the peace to which the German Government had agreed provided they deemed such an armistice possible from the mill’ tary point o f view. 147311— 20090 30 “ ; The President is now in receipt o f a memorandum of ob servations by the allied Governments on this correspondence, which is as follow s: “ '" T h e allied Governments have given careful consideration to the correspondence which 1ms passed between the President o f the United States and the German Government. Subject to the qualifications which follow, they declare their willingness to make peace with the Government o f Germany on the terms o f peace laid down in the President’s address to Congress of January, 1918, and the principles o f settlement enunciated in liis subsequent addresses. They must point out, however, that clause 2, relating to what is usually described as the freedom o f the seas, is open to various interpretations, some of which they could not accept. They must, therefore, reserve to themsehres complete freedom on this subject when they enter the pence conference. “ ‘ “ Further, in the conditions of peace laid down in his ad dress to Congress o f January 8, 1918, the President declared that invaded territories must be restored as well as evacuated and freed, and the allied Governments feel that no doubt ought to be allowed to exist as to what this provision implies. By it they understand that compensation will be made by Germany for all damage done to the civilian population of the Allies and their property by the aggression of Germany by land, by sea, and from the air.” “ ‘ I am Instructed by the President to sqy that he is in agree ment with the interpretation set forth In the last paragraph o f the memorandum above quoted. I am further instructed by the President to request you to notify the German Government that Marshal Foch has been authorized by the Government of the United States and the Allied Governments to receive prop erly accredited representatives of the German Government, and to communicate to them the terms o f the armistice. “ ‘ Accept, sir, with renewed assurances o f my highest con sideration. ‘“ (Signed) K obkkt L a n sin g .’ “ Among other things the President, on January 8, 191 s, in his address to Congress sa id : “ ‘ We entered this war because violations of right had occurred which touched us to the quick and made the life of our own people impossible unless they were corrected and the world secured once for all against their recurrence. What we demand in this war, therefore, is nothing peculiar to ourselves. It is that the world be made fit and safe to live in ; and par ticularly that it be made safe for every peace-loving nation which, like our own, wishes to live its own life, determine its own institutions, be assured of justice and fair dealing by the other peoples of the world as against force and selfish aggres sion. All the peoples o f the world are in effect partners in this interest, and for our own part we see very clearly that tmless justice be done to others it will not be done to us. The pro gram o f the world’s peace, therefore, is our program; and that program, the only possible program, as we sett it, is tins: “ ‘ I. Oi*en covenants o f iteace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings, o f any 147311— 20000 31 kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view. “ ‘ II. Absolute freedom o f navigation upon the seas, outside territorial waters, alike in peace and in war, except as the seas may be closed In whole or in part by international action for the enforcement of international covenants. III. The removal, so far as possible, o f all economic bar riers and the establishment of an equality o f trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance. “ ‘ IV. Adequate guarantees given and taken that national armaments will be reduced to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety. " n iee5 ° l,en' inil_1(l(1d. and absolutely impartial adjust ment ol all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of Hie pi in tuple iliat in determining all such questions o f sover eignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the Government whose title is to be determined. “ ‘ \ I. The evacuation o f all Russian territory and such a settlement of all questions affecting Russia as will secure the best and freest cooperation o f the other nations o f the world in obtaining for her an unhampered and unembarrassed oppor tunity for the independent determination of her own jiolitical development and national policy and assure her of a sincere welcome into the society of free nations under institutions o f her own choosing; and, more than a welcome, assistance also of every kind that she may need and may herself desire. The treatment accorded Russia by her sister nations in the months to come will be the acid test o f their good will, of their com prehension of her needs as distinguished from their own inter ests, and of their intelligent and unselfish sympathy. “ ‘ VII. Belgium, the whole world will agree, must be evacu ated and restored, without any attempt to limit the sovereignty which she enjoys in common with all other free nations. No other single act will serve as this will serve to restore confi dence among the nations in the laws which thev have them selves set and determined for the government of their rela tions with one another. Without this healing act the whole structure and validity of international law is forever impaired. VIII. All french territory should be freed ami the invaded portions restored, and the wrong done to France by Prussia in 1871 in the matter o f Alsace-Lorraine, which has unsettled the peace o f the world for nearly 50 years, should he righted in order that peace may once more he made secure in the interest of all. “ ‘ 1l x - £ readjustment o f the frontiers o f Italv should he effected along clearly recognizable lines o f nationaiitv. ‘“ X The peoples of Austria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to see safeguarded and assured, should he accorded the freest opportunity o f autonomous development “ ‘ X I; Roumania, Serbia, and Montenegro should be evacuated • occupied territories restored; Serbia accorded free and secure access to the sea; and the relations o f the several Balkan States to one another determined by friendly counsel alon~ historically established lines o f allegiance and nationaiitv* and 147311—20090 *’ U international guarantees o f the political anil economic iu'tle-' pendence and territorial integrity of the several Balkan States should he entered into. ‘•‘ X II. The Turkish portions o f the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, hut the other nation alities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security o f life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity o f autonomous development, and the Dardanelles should be "permanently opened as a free passage to the ships and commerce o f all nations under international guarantees. “ ‘ X III. An independent Polish State should be erected which should include the territories inhabited by indisputably Polish populations, which should be assured a free and secure access to the sea, and whose political and economic independence and ter ritory integrity should be guaranteed by international covenant. « ‘ X IV A general association o f nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guaranties of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small States alike.’ ” [Letter from K in g G eorg e to th e S u lta n o f E g y p t, published in L o n d o n T im es D ece m b e r 21, 1914.] « * * * i feel convinced that you will In' able, with the cooperation o f your ministers and o f the protectorate of Great Britain, to overcome all influences which are seeking to destroy the independence o f Egypt * * 1C ab legram t o M a h m ou d P a sh a , S h oreh a m t o llm a n P a sh a .] H o te l, fro m M ahm oud « In an interview with Cairo newspapers on the 22d instant Rushdi Pasha— who was prime minister when the Khedive was dethroned by England and a Sultan appointed, and continued throughout the war as prime minister o f Egypt and resigned toward the end of May last— declared that he never consented to the “ protectorate ” of Great Britain over Egypt, except that it was temporary and a war measure, and that it would disap pear when the Allies’ victory was complete, lie asked England to hear him and to hear the Egyptian nation duly represented bv the Egyptian delegation. He adds that Egypt’s aid to Eng land during the war was immense, and that 1,200,000 Egyptians served on the allied side.’’ 147311— 20090 _