The Dominion. MONDAY, JANUARY 5, 1920. DISCORD IN EGYPT

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 85, 5 January 1920, Page 4

The Dominion. MONDAY, JANUARY 5, 1920. DISCORD IN EGYPT

—. The hostile reception accorded in Egypt to the Milncr Mission .supplies late but not unexpected evidence in regard to the serious position that has to be dealt with in that country. A cablegram received a few days ago stated that the_ response to a conciliatory communique. issued by Lord Milker was a disorderly demonstration in the streets of Cairo. It was mentioned also that the Native Press insisted upon the continued boycott of the Mission. This is not an encouraging reception of a Mission appointed to inquire into the causes of the recent outbreak and to draw up recommendations which will assist the British Government in "shaping for tho Protectorate a system ofpn\dent' and ever-enlarging enfranchisement and in meeting "the claims of the Egyptian people to a due and increasing share in the management of tho affairs of Egypt." The state of. affairs disclosed, however, bears du'fc anticipations based upon accounts of the recent development m Egypt of a widespread and clamorous revolt against anv form of lawful authority. "While they emphasise the seriousness of the conditions that have arisen, well-informed observers in touch with Egyptian affairs seem to be agreed that the British Government is by no means free from blame in the matter. It is no doubt an important factor in the situation that a population which submitted abjectly in former years to grinding tyranny and misrule is now putting an extreme, test upon the forbearance of a suzerain Power which is> in the last degree reluctant to resort to measums of ■ forcible repression. Childish is an adjective which applies with literal exactitude to some aspects of the current agitation in Egypt. Schoolboys and students have taken u prominent part in various demonstrations, and have been permittei', in a, fashion only suited to comic onera to break in upon . Etryptiah Ministers and lay down the law not only upon the easing of examinations, but in regard to all sorts of pnlicv questions. Such absurdities illustrate and sustain the contention that a slipshod and dofectivo system of education, described by an authority as the one ctrenfc failure of the British administration in Egypt, is at the root of a good deal of 'the trouble for which Loim Miner's Mission is deputed to find a remedy. On tho other hand, expert commentators, including somn who speak only with contempt of the irresponsible elements in Egyptian Nationalism, agree in declaring that thero are substantial grievances to be remedied in Egypt, and that the British Government has done a great deal by a faulty policy to antagonise those 'Egyptians who .arc most inclined to co-operate loyally with it in building up the prosperity of their country. This, broadly, is the view taken by Sir Valentine Ciiikol in a series of articles recently contributed to the London Time*. His articles are based upon actual observation of events and conditions in Eeypt. awl while ho frankly admits that he is unable to account wholly for some aspects of the situation, notably the estrangement of the fellaheen (tho. peasantry), who have benefited nreatly under the nnlightenerl regime instituted by the late E\RL Cromer, his conclusions upon the whole are elear-cut. Like other commentators, he considers that a serious eause of Egyptian unrest is the failure of the British Government to state in explicit terms the meaning of the Protectorate established in Decemhor, 1914, and the lines upon which it is intended that local self-government in Egypt should develop. As Sin Valentine Chi'hol points out, there is a somewhat striking contrast between tho policy applied to Egypt and to India where war-assistance ancl political reform are concerned. The assistance spontaneously offered by the Princes and people of India was accepted. India was given special representation at tho Imperial War Conferences, and much was thus done to pave the way for political reform. No such treatment was extended to Egypt. When the late Sultan Hussein and his Ministers offered Great Britain the active co-operation of the Egyptian Army, the offer was declined, on the grounds that Britain did not expect Egypt to light against Turkey, and was quite prepared to defend Egyptian territory with British forces. In spite of this refusal, Egypt was ultimately called upon to contribute something like a million of her population for labour and transport corps, which rendered much useful service, but "she was never given the chance of obtaining credit for conscious and voluntary sacrifice." Egyptians in general, Sir Valentine Cuirol further remarks, found yiotlier cause for discontent in the representation at the Peace Conference of the Hedjaz. wliose people the Egyptians regard I as standing on a far lower level of I civilisation and power than themselves. Tu brief, he contends that the British Government has es- [ tranged Egyptians of moderate views by a policy wanting in frankI ness, in reference both to (lie war ! and to the development of local self-government which he and others I regard as the only line of sound progress in Egypt, and that theseconditions have given unexampled scope, for the mischief-making aetivjI tics of irrcsponsibles and of religi-

ous agitators, who wield a move subtle and dangerous influence. The opinion has been widely expressed by those who are in a position to speak with authority that the first thing needed as a step towards restoring settled order in Egypt and allaying discontent is a frank and unambiguous statement by the British Government of the extent to which the Egyptians will be allowed to govern themselves in future. It has been urged by.ex-Egyptian officials of long service (hat the promise of a full measure of local self-gov-ernment under the aegis of Britain would reconcile the moderate elements of the population and go far to allay the widespread discontent upon which political extremists and religious agitators arc now enabled to trade for sinister ends. A num ber of expert commentators have recommended that such a declaration of policy should precede the opening of its inquiry by the Milner Mission. Tt may nerhans be hoped, in spite of the unfriendly reception given by the Cairo populace to Lord Mii-nkk's communique, that h's statement of the objects of the Mission—to reconcile Egyptian aspirations with British foreign interests—will pave the way to an understanding.