The Press Monday, November 24, 1924. The Egyptian Outrage.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18238, 24 November 1924, Page 8

The Press Monday, November 24, 1924. The Egyptian Outrage.

The news of Egypt to-day is as good as it can be in such an outrageous situation. A Xote demanding immediate and full satisfaction has been delivered to the Premier, and —it will gratify everybody to know —this peremptory diplomatic demand has been reinforced by the only kind of argument the Egyptian extremist can understand: battleships and regiments of soldiers. It is noteworthy that King George's message goes further than sympathy with the Army, with the dead Sirdar's relatives, and with those other Englishmen, from Lord Allenby down, particularly associated with him in Egyptian administration. "We could almost say, allowance being mado for Constitutional usage, that it is a threat; and most of our readers will bo glad that it is nothing Icbs. "Whatever anyone's view may be of the presence in Egypt of British troops, no one, unless "liberty" has made him politically mad, will wish the King or his Ministers to remain inactive when the commander of those forces is foully murdered. And the murder was not merely the murder of an individual. It was not Sir Lee Stack who was assassinated, but the representative of the British Empire. The assassins intended and hoped, as those behind them intended . and hoped, that the crime would shake the dp termination of the British to remain in any capacity at all in Egypt. And there will not be many in any part of the world who will doubt that those behind the assassins are either ■ the creatures or the creators of nationalism—that" they represent, however hard it may be to prove it, the same group as the Premier himself. But it does not immediately matter whom they represent. The Government mhst accept'the responsibility for them; and discharge it'in such a way as to leave British prestige unimpaired. It seems to be the case that the British Government has demanded such satisfaction as r will rob extremism of its charms for many months to come, and it certainly is the case that nothing less will satisfy the British nation.

Unfortunately, very little light can be thrown on the relations between London and Cairo during the last few months! Outside the inner circle very little is known. Zaghlul went to London eight or ten weeks ago and had several private conferences with Mr Ramsay Mac Donald, but nothing was reported after any of them except that " much progress was (or was ■ not) " made." It is generally understood that negotiations went ahead satisfactorily while there was nothing of vital importance under consideration, hut that a change came abruptly as soon as Zaghlul discovered that Labour is very nearly the. same thing in the Foreign Office as the Liberals and the Unionists. The moment it was made clear that British troops would remain in Cairo the Conversations endod. Although Mr MacDonald made it clear that there Was no idea of maintaining the Army of Occupation, and that tlio British Government asked for no more than sufficient troops to guard the Canal—in sufficiently good positions to be secure against surprise or siege—Zaghlul refused all compromise and there was nothing further to bo said. It is believed that the control of the Sudaai, which Egypt (demands and .Britain flatly refpses, was not even discussed, and if this is the truth it means that Zaghlul took his mandate from tho extremists rather than from those who know that "No British soldier on "Egypt's soil" is not practical politics. For the Sudan is a far bigger, deeper and more urgent question than the presence of the British garrison, and if Zaghlul did not discuss it the reason was that he was compelled to take the vainer question, first. It was his obedience to the extremists that broke off the London Conversations, and it was his real or pretended sympathy with them that murdered Sir Lee Stack. He may be sincere in his protestations of horror now that .the crime has been committed, and he may be merely afraid of the consequences. We shall never really know. What we do know is that the man who encourages movements which he cannot control is either stupid or evil—and an .equal menace to society in either ease.