ponding notes from the Egyptian Government on the occasion of the exchange of ratifications of the treaty.

I am, &c.

AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN.

Excellency,

Enclosure in No. 7.

Draft Note regarding Capitulations in Egypt.

ARTICLE 9 of the draft treaty which we have been discussing provides as follows:

"His Britannic Majesty undertakes to use all his influence with the Powers possessing capitulatory rights in Egypt to obtain the modification of the capitulatory régime now existing in Egypt so as to make it conform more closely with the spirit of the times and with the present state of Egypt.

It will be useful if I explain to your Excellency the lines on which I think this reform of the capitulatory régime might well proceed, as I shall be prepared to support the efforts of the Egyptian Government to conclude arrangements with the Powers on these lines in the event of the treaty now under discussion between us coming into force.

It was hoped in 1920, when negotiations were in progress between the British and Egyptian Governments, that arrangements might be made for the closing by foreign Powers of their consular courts in Egypt. Draft laws were accordingly prepared in that year extending the existing jurisdiction of the Mixed Tribunals and enabling them to exercise all the jurisdiction now exercised by the consular courts.

I shall be prepared to agree to the utilisation of those draft laws as the basis of the proposed reform of the capitulatory régime if foreign Powers are willing to transfer to the Mixed Tribunals the jurisdiction of their consular courts.

On points of detail many changes will no doubt be required. These must be discussed by experts. There are, however, certain modifications which will, I think, be necessary, in any event, and which I desire to take this opportunity of pointing out to your Excellency.

It may be difficult for some Powers to agree to the transfer to the Mixed Tribunals of all suits relating to the "status personnel " of their nationals. Transfer in the case of these questions should be facultative. Jurisdiction in such matters should remain with the consular authorities unless an agreement is made between the Egyptian Government and the foreign Government concerned for its transfer to the Mixed Tribunals. I anticipate that His Majesty's Government would be prepared to agree to the Mixed Tribunals exercising jurisdiction in these matters in cases where British subjects are concerned.

His Majesty's Government consider it essential that Egyptians charged with the commission of political offences against foreigners should be tried by the Mixed Tribunals. To avoid all difficulty in deciding whether in any particular case the offence is political or not, the law should provide that whenever the procurer général of the Mixed Tribunals has reason to believe that the offence with which an Egyptian is charged is a political offence, it will fall within the jurisdiction of the Mixed Tribunals and be dealt with accordingly.

In the case of pardons or remissions of sentences imposed on foreigners, a small committee should be appointed, on whose advice the King would act in the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. This committee should consist of the Minister of Justice, the Judicial Adviser and a third person. This same committee should advise the King in connexion with the execution of capital sentences imposed on foreigners in Egypt.

Egyptian legislation now requires the assent of the Powers or of the Assembly of the Mixed Tribunals before it becomes binding on the nationals of the capitulatory Powers in Egypt. The powers of the Assembly of the Mixed Tribunals should be extended in this respect and should cover all Egyptian legislation, with the exception of legislation imposing financial burdens on foreigners, and legislation relating to the constitution or jurisdiction of the Mixed Tribunals themselves. The former class should not come into force until the representative of His Britannic Majesty has declared himself satisfied that it does not discriminate inequitably against. foreigners. The latter class would modify what is in reality a conventional arrangement between Egypt and the Powers, and therefore should not come into force until it has been approved by the Powers.

An extension of the criminal jurisdiction of the Mixed Tribunals will necessitate the preparation and promulgation of a new Code of Criminal Procedure. The draft laws prepared in 1920 contain certain provisions of importance on this subject of criminal procedure (articles 10-27 of Law II), and your Excellency will no doubt agree that the new Criminal Code should not diverge from the principles laid down in these articles.

There are certain matters as to which it will be necessary for agreement to be reached between the Egyptian Government and His Britannic Majesty's Government in Great Britain, but I do not think it necessary to do more at the moment than mention these subjects.

The first is the definition of the word "foreigner" for the purposes of the proposed extension of the jurisdiction of the Mixed Courts. I understand from your Excellency that the codes now enforced by the native courts in Egypt subject to the native tribunals all persons in Egypt other than those who by law, usage or treaty are withdrawn from their jurisdiction. I am content to accept this principle provided that it is understood that all foreigners who have enjoyed the benefit of the capitulatory régime in the past will fall under the jurisdiction of the Mixed Tribunals irrespective of

changes of sovereignty effected after the war of 1914-18. On the other hand, the Judicial Adviser will be at the disposal of the Egyptian Government in respect of matters relating to the administration of justice in which any foreigner is concerned, and not merely a foreigner who falls within the jurisdiction of the Mixed Tribunals.

The second is the increase in the personnel of the Mixed Courts which will be necessitated by the proposed extension of their jurisdiction, and, as part of this question, the new functions of the procureur général of the Mixed Tribunals and the staff which will be necessary to enable him to discharge those functions satisfactorily. The Judicial Adviser will, of course, be consulted with regard to the appointment of foreign judges in the Mixed Tribunals and of foreign members of the parquet.

My Lord,

No. 8.

Sir Austen Chamberlain to Lord Lloyd (Cairo).

Foreign Office, February 5, 1928. I THINK it may be useful at the present juncture to set down as succinctly as is compatible with accuracy the general course taken by the negotiations between His Majesty's Government and the Egyptian Prime Minister respecting a Treaty of Alliance, from the date of your receipt of my despatches of the 24th November last.*

2. The former despatch contained the text of a draft treaty upon which Sarwat Pasha and I had agreed, and to which the Dominion Governments had given their assent, while the latter contained the text of a draft note respecting capitulatory reform which, it was proposed, should be addressed to the Egyptian Government on the occasion of the ratification of the main treaty. Your Lordship communicated the first-named despatch to Sarwat Pasha on the evening of the 3rd December, and handed him a copy. His Excellency then expressed himself optimistically as to the treaty's prospects.

3. Some days later, a parliamentary question was put down in which I was asked when I proposed to make a statement regarding the results of my conversations with Sarwat Pasha. I requested you to inform Sarwat Pasha that I appreciated his wish to ascertain as definitely as possible the degree of support upon which he could count, but to point out, on the other hand, that it was difficult to ascertain with any certainty the attitude of individuals or parties towards it without the fact of the existence of the treaty leaking out. and more or less incorrect versions of it becoming public. This, in my view, would be neither dignified nor calculated to enhance the prospect of the treaty's acceptance. So far as His Majesty's Government were concerned, it would be convenient if the treaty were signed in the course of the following week and published simultaneously here and in Egypt on about the 20th December. I asked you to ascertain Sarwat Pasha's views upon this proposal.

* Nos. 6 and 7.

4. On your communicating with Sarwat Pasha in the above sense, his Excellency showed some surprise that so immediate action on his part should be suggested. He began by saying that his intention was to divulge the contents of the treaty and supplementary notes to his Cabinet colleagues and to the President of the Wafd separately as soon as they had been translated into Arabic. On being asked whether, in the event of the opinions thus elicited being favourable, he would be in a position to sign the treaty shortly, he qualified his previous statement by saying that he felt unable to lay the documents before his colleagues until he had discussed with you certain important issues which had not been cleared up in London. The issues in question were as follows:

(1.) A more precise understanding as to the future position of British officers in the Egyptian army after the coming into force of the treaty.

(2.) Points connected with the allocation of the waters of the Nile.

(3.) Points connected with the reform in the capitulatory system referred to in article 9 of the treaty and the draft note. on the subject attached to it.

I would observe in this connexion that I do not propose, in the course of the present despatch, to deal in any detail with the discussions upon the subsidiary questions of capitulatory reform and the allocation of the Nile waters, but to confine myself to negotiations. regarding the treaty itself.

5. In reporting Sarwat Pasha's attitude, you observed that his difficulties were very real and that undue haste on our part might not only drive him to take a false step, for which the blame might fall upon His Majesty's Government, but might also be interpreted as excessive anxiety to secure a treaty in our own interests. With this estimate I was in agreement.

On receiving your account of the conversation with Sarwat Pasha just referred to, I asked you to point out to him that, while I did not wish to press immediate signature and publication upon him unduly, I begged him, for his part, to realise the importance, from more than one point of view, of avoiding unnecessary delay, and to add that I should be grateful for a full and frank statement of his views as to the course which he considered events should take, and as to the dates on which he thought it likely that he would be in a position to sign and to publish the treaty.

7. On the 14th December you had an interview with Sarwat Pasha, at which his Excellency, after discussing questions arising from the draft note respecting the Capitulations, adverted to Annex II (c) of the draft treaty, which deals with the presence of European officials in the Egyptian Government police forces. His Excellency argued that when agreement had been reached, regarding capitulatory reform, the Egyptian Government would be free, under the clause in question, to dispense with all foreign officials in the police and public security departments other than

those required by the procureur général, the total number of which latter he defined as seven, to cover Cairo, Alexandria and Port Said. 8. Two days after the conversation just described, Sarwat Pasha again visited you with a view to bringing it to a conclusion. His Excellency did not, however, confine himself to the three subjects he had originally raised (see paragraph 4 above), but, taking the treaty clause by clause, sought your concurrence in interpretations he put forward of their meanings. You rightly felt considerable doubt as to the propriety of this procedure in a case where an agreed text had already been decided upon, and refrained from expressing any opinion on the points raised by Sarwat Pasha, merely taking careful note of them for reference to His Majesty's Government. The issues thus raised by Sarwat Pasha included article 2, article 4, article 6 and article 8 of the treaty, as well as Annex I (a).

9. You took advantage of this discussion to convey to Sarwat Pasha my views respecting the treaty's signature and publication (see paragraph 6 above). His Excellency, in reply, stated that he contemplated communicating the text of the treaty to his colleagues, and to the leader of the Wafd, during the first week of January. In agreement with the King, he proposed this date in view of the approaching visit of the King of Afghanistan. Some delay, his Excellency urged, was in any case inevitable in order that he might learn the views of His Majesty's Government on the various interpretations which he had just put forward. These, he said, represented the conclusion of his general observations on the treaty, and he awaited the answer of His Majesty's Government. With regard to signature and publication, he anticipated that about a week must elapse after communication of the text to his colleagues before he could induce them to sign, or recognise his inability to do so. In the meantime, he repeated, he had not shown the text to his colleagues or to anyone else.

10. After careful consideration of the various points raised by Sarwat Pasha, and of your observations on them, I requested you to convey a message to his Excellency in the following terms :

"Lord Lloyd has communicated to me your Excellency's comments and enquiries in connexion with the treaty, and the subsidiary note on capitulatory reform.

"Your Excellency will recollect that in the memorandum commenting on the first British counter-draft of the treaty, handed to Mr. Selby in Paris in August last, strong emphasis was laid on the importance of Great Britain relying less upon a cut and dried scheme of safeguards than upon the sentiment of mutual confidence which the alliance would generate. This argument carried considerable weight with me, and, as your Excellency will admit, is reflected in the final text of the treaty. But now to suggest that His Majesty's Government should define in advance what would be their interpretation, in hypothetical circumstances, of particular provisions of the treaty, seems to me to be in conflict with the principle which your