Page images
PDF
EPUB

deposed-Appointment of a Sultan." But the Times in an editorial in the same issue, with characteristic 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 which we publish to-day. It is purely a practical administrative step, dictated by the appearance of Turkey as a belligerent.

The truth is that under the guise of a protectorate Great Britain seized Egypt and swept away every vestige of Egyptian freedom or independence. But the people of Egypt did not realize at that time the full meaning of this action on the part of Great Britain. They were told that this was a step towards their independence. They were practically promised independence. His Majesty King George in a letter to the Sultan, whom he had appointed to rule over Egypt, which letter was widely published throughout Egypt and was published in the London Times of date December 21, 1914, which I have here, 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 are seeking to destroy the independence of Egypt.

Of course the Bitish idea, the idea of the British Government, of independence evidently is to be independent of all other governments except the British Government, but the Egyptian people accepted that word as we have always accepted it. The word "independence" was a word to conjure with with the Egyptians. To them the word was as sacred and is as sacred as it was to our forefathers who fought and struggled for independence from the very power that is now seeking to destroy the independence of Egypt.

Senator KNOX. Governor, what is the population of Egypt?
Mr. FOLK. 13,000,000.

Senator KNOX. How many are Egyptians?

Mr. FOLK. About 10,000,000.

Senator JOHNSON of California. What races are the others?
Mr. FOLK. The races are English, American, Syrian, etc.
Senator JOHNSON of California. A great many British?

Mr. FOLK. A great many British. Of course the seizure of Egypt being announced to be temporarily, as a war measure, it was assumed by the Egyptians to be such. The Egyptian troops fought on the side of the Allies to make, as they believed, the world safe for democracy, and for the right of national self-determination in all people. The CHAIRMAN. They were loyal to Great Britain and the Allies? Mr. FOLK. They were loyal. More than a million strong they fought on the eastern front, and Gen. Allenby, not long ago, in a speech to the Y. M. C. A. at some point in Egypt said that the Egyptian troops were responsible for the allied successes in Palestine and Assyria. When it came to making the terms of peace and the formation of a league of nations, the Egyptian people naturally concluded, since under the league of nations they would be protected and preserved from external aggression, that the protectorate of Great Britain, the alleged purpose of which was to preserve them from external aggression, would be removed. But they were doomed to disappointment. England not only refused to give up Egypt, but England asked the United States and the other nations to indorse and sanction and to glorify the wrongs that she has done and is doing to Egypt.

If there should be a league of nations, to give the nations some remedy, other than war, to settle their disputes and to preserve the right of self-determination in small nations, and to prevent one nation from bleeding another, by what process of reasoning can it be assumed that in the very treaty creating a league of nations for the purposes indicated, there should be a clause recognizing the British holding of them, which is utterly inconsistent with the principles of the league of nations, and is based upon the doctrine of military might not upon the principles of justice and right.

Egypt is a country of immense wealth. She contains more than 350,000 square miles and a population of something like 13,000,000. She has millions of acres of agricultural lands. The valley of the Nile is greater in value per acre and in producing power than the richest farming lands in Illinois or Missouri or Iowa. By the seizure, then, Great Britain has added to her enormous acquisitions an area of 350,000 square miles and 13,000,000 souls.

From her geographical position, Egypt has attracted the attention of the colonizing powers more perhaps than any other country in the world. Lying beneath South Africa and the Mediterranean, as between also the eastern and western worlds, Egypt is not only the key to England's position in her vast project of colonization, but she is moreover an important factor internationally in the affairs of practically every European, Asiatic, and indeed American country. The eyes of the covetous rulers of earth have always been upon Egypt, and for illustration we need go no further back in history than Cæsar and then come up to Napoleon and then to Great Britain.

In 1798 the French under Napoleon invaded Egypt. In 1801 the French were expelled from Egypt by the Egyptian troops, aided by the Turks, and aided also at that time by Great Britain. In 1807 Great Britain herself invaded Egypt and attempted to conquer the country, but the British troops were ejected by the Egyptian army. Egypt continued to be a nominal Turkish province until 1831, when in the war between Turkey and Egypt, Egypt being victorious, there was a settlement brought about by the powers in order to preserve in the balance of power whereby Egypt was given its autonomy and practical independence, subject to the nominal sovereignty of Turkey, and subject to the payment of the tribute that I have mentioned.

The title of the ruler of Egypt meant sovereign or king, without qualification. The government of Egypt could maintain an army, contract loans and make new political conventions with foreign

powers.

Things continued to run smoothly until the time of the Khedive Ismail in 1863 to 1879. He was an extravagant promoter by nature and was surrounded by European usurers who were ready to lend him money at ruinous interest. In seven years Ismail raised the debt in Egypt from something like 3,000,000 pounds to 94,000,000 odd pounds. This debt was largely contracted through the construction of the Suez Canal. This canal was begun under French auspices, but Great Britain later secured control of it. The French had perusaded Ismail to grant a concession for the building of the Suez Canal. This canal was not to cost Egypt one cent, and Egypt was to get 15 per cent of the revenues. But the French interests could not finance the undertaking and finally they went to Ismail and persuaded him to put

up about $5,000,000 to finance it and then persuaded Ismail to subscribe for $85,000,000 of the stock. Now Ismail had no money, so he gave his due bills, and these due bills were discounted in London. at about 50 cents on the dollar, and these due bills constituted the beginnings of the troubles that Egypt has had. Later the stock of Ismail for which the due bills were given was bought by Great Britain for $20,000,000 through Disraeli, and through the purchase of this stock for $20,000,000 Great Britain secured a voting control of the Suez Canal Corporation, and that is how she secured control of the Suez Canal; and as I will show a little later, the fact of the Suez Canal being there, and the fact of Egypt being the entrance and the highway to India, is the reason why Great Britain refused to get out of Egypt and why Great Britain intends to stay in Egypt under any and all circumstances.

The debt owing to Europeans growing out of the construction of the Suez Canal offered an opportunity or excuse for the interference by England and other nations in the affairs of Egypt, whereby there was a supervision of the revenues by the agents of Great Britain for the ostensible purpose of collecting the debts contracted by Ismail. Great Britain attempted not only financial control but political control as well. Originally there was what was known as dual control, control by France and Great Britain, but France afterwards withdrew.

In September, 1881, a revolution broke out in Cairo which had for its chief object the emancipation of Egypt from European influences.

In May, 1882, a British fleet appeared before Alexandria. In June, 1882, serious disturbances took place in Alexandria and a number of Europeans were killed.

On July 11 and 12, 1882, Alexandria was bombarded by the British fleet and British soldiers began to occupy Egypt. Great Britain solemnly pledged the world that this occupation would only be temporary. Some of these pledges are illustrated by these docu

ments.

Lord Granville, who was Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, on November 4, 1881 (to be found in Egypt No. 1 (1882), pp. 2 and 3), said:

The policy of His Majesty's Government toward Egypt has no other aim than the prosperity of the country, and its full enjoyment of that liberty which it has obtained under successive firmans of the Sultan. * * * It can not be too clearly understood that England desires no partisan ministry in Egypt. In the opinions of His Majesty's Government a partisan ministry founded on the support of a foreign power, or upon the personal influence of a foreign diplomatic agent, is neither calculated to be of service to the country it administers, nor to that in whose interest it is supposed to be maintained.

In a protocol signed by the Ambassador to Turkey for Great Britain, Lord Dufferin, together with the representatives of five other great powers, on June 25, 1882 (to be found in Egypt No. 17 (1882), p. 33), it was provided:

The Government represented by the undersigned engage themselves, in any arrangement which may be made in consequence of their concerted action for the regulation of the affairs of Egypt, not to seek any territorial advantage.

135546-19 42

Sir Charles Dilke, who was under Secretary for Foreign Affairs in the House of Commons, on July 25, 1882, said:

It is the desire of His Majesty's Government, after relieving Egypt from military tyranny, to leave the people to manage their own affairs. *** We believe that it is better for the interests of their country, as well as for the interests of Egypt, that Egypt should be governed by liberal institutions rather than by a despotic rule.

Mr. Gladstone, when he was Prime Minister, said in the House of Commons on August 10, 1882 (reading):

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 are not going to do. It would be absolutely at variance with all the principles and views of Her Majesty's Government, and the pledges they have given to Europe and with the views, I may say, of Europe itself.

And again, Lord Dufferin, in a dispatch dated December 19, 1882, to be found in 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 we have not the least intention of preserving the authority which has thus reverted to us.

And Lord Granville, on December 29, 1882, found in Egypt No. 2 (1882), page 23, said—and this was an official dispatch:

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 withdrawal will probably be effected from time to time as the security of the country will allow it, and that Her Majesty's Government hope that the time will be very short during which the full number of the present force will be maintained.

And Lord Dufferin's dispatch of February 6, 1883, Egypt No. 6 (1883), pages 41 to 43, said:

The territory of the Khedive has been recognized as lying outside the sphere of European warfare and international jealousies.

The Valley of the Nile could not be administered from London. An attempt upon our part to engage in such an undertaking would at once render us objects of hatred and suspicion to its inhabitants. Cairo would become a focus of foreign intrigue and conspiracy against us, and we should soon find ourselves forced either to abandon our pretensions under discreditable conditions or embark upon the experiment of a complete acquisition of the country.

And Mr. Gladstone in the House of Commons on August 6, 1883, being Prime Minister at that time, said: The other powers of Europe *

*

*

are well aware of the general intentions entertained by the British Government, intentions which may be subject, of course, to due consideration of that state of circumstances, but conceived and held to be in the nature not only of information, but a pledge or engagement.

And on the 9th of August Mr. Gladstone said:

The uncertainty there may be in some portion of the public mind has reference to those desires which tend toward the permanent occupation of Egypt and its incorporation in this Empire. This is a consummation to which we are resolutely opposed, and which we will have nothing to do with bringing about. We are against this doctrine of annexation; we are against everything that resembles or approaches it; and we are against all language that tends to bring about its expectation. We are against it on the ground of the interests of England; we are against it on the ground of our duty to Egypt, we are against it on the ground of the specific and solemn manner and under the most critical circumstances. pledges which have earned for us the confidence of Europe at large during the course of difficult and delicate operations, and which, if one pledge can be more solemn and sacred than another, special sacredness in this case binds us to observe.

And Lord Granville's dispatch on June 16, 1884 (to be found in Egypt No. 23 (1884), p. 13), stated:

*

Her Majesty's Government are willing that the withdrawal of the troops shall take place at the beginning of the year 1888, provided that the powers are then of opinion that such withdrawal can take place without risk to peace and order.

Lord Derby in the House of Lords, February 26, 1885, said:

From the first we have steadily kept in view the fact that our occupation was tempoporarily and provisional only * We do not propose to keep Egypt perma

nently

*

[ocr errors]

*

*

On that point we are pledged to this country and to Europe; and

if a contrary policy is adopted it will not be by us.

Lord Salisbury, in the House of Lords, June 10, 1887, said:

It was not open to us to assume the protectorate of Egypt, because Her Majesty's Government have again and again pledged themselves that they would 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.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

And Lord Salisbury, in the House of Lords, August 12, 1889, said: When my noble friend asks us to convert ourselves from guardians into * and to declare our stay in Egypt permanent proprietors * 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 which 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.

*
*

*

that the

Mr. Gladstone again on May 1, 1893, said, in his fourth ministry: I can not do otherwise than express my general concurrence 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 honor is either to deny that we are under engagements which preclude the idea of an indefinite occupation, or so to construe that indefinite occupation as to hamper the engagements that we are under by collateral considerations.

*

*

*

**

The text of the Anglo-French agreement of April 8, 1904, provides [reading]:

The Government of His Majesty declares that it has no intention of altering the political status of Egypt.

The French Government was objecting to the occupation of Egypt by Great Britain, and finally France and Great Britain made a secret treaty whereby Great Britain was to be permitted to do certain things in Egypt without interference by France, and France was to be permitted to do certain things in Morocco without interference by Great Britain.

Senator JOHNSON of California. About what was the date of thatthe year?

Mr. FOLK. 1904. I have the clause right here in Lord Cromer's report of March 3, 1907, Egypt No. 1 (1907), page 2:

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 I of the Anglo-French agreement of the 8th of April, 1904, the British Government have explicitly declared that they have no intention of altering the political status of Egypt.

« EelmineJätka »