BRITAIN IN EGYPT.

Otago Witness, Issue 3869, 8 May 1928, Page 25

BRITAIN IN EGYPT.

BRITAIN’S NOTE TO EGYPT. FULL TEXT OF WARNING. RUGBY, April 30. In the House of Commons, Sir Austen Chamberlain read the text of the warning, as follows:— “I have the honour to inform you that since the presentation to your Excellency of my Note of April 4 His Brittanie Majesty’s Government in Great Britain has watched with increasing concern the growing evidence of the intention of the Egyptian Government to proceed with certain legislation affecting public security. This legislation, as your Excellency must be fully aware, not merely from the verbal communication which I had the honour to make to you on the 19th instant, but from previous similar communications, made both to your Excellency’s predecessors and to yourself before and after the date of the memorandum which I had the honour to present to His Excellency Sarwat Pasha on March 4 last, is covered by the reservation reaffirmed in my Note of April 4. “ I am now instructed by His Britannic Majesty's Government to request your Excellency, as head of the Egyptian Government, immediately to take steps to prevent the Bill regulating public meetings and demonstrations from becoming law. I am instructed to request your Excellency to give me a categorical assurance in writing that the abovementioned measure will not be proceeded with. “ Should this assurance not reach me before 7 p.m. on May 2 His Britanni Majesty’s Government will consider it a liberty to take such action as the situa tion may seem to it to require.” THE EGYPTIAN CHAMBER. CAIRO, April 30. The Chamber met for a secret session. The Deputies, assembling quietly, received Nahas silently. Members of the Wafd protested against secrecy, and declared that everyone, including the British, should hear the Deputies’ opinion /of the situation. Both Houses agreed to a postponement of the Assemblies Bill. TONE OF PROPOSED BILL. RUGBY, April 30. The general tone of the proposed Bill may be indicated by one or two of its articles. Article 9 states: “ The, following will be liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding one month, or a fine varying from 200 piastres to 3000 piastres— First, any official who makes use of his authority to dissolve or attempt to dissolve a private or a public meeting, except in the two cases foreseen in Article 5; and, secondly, whoever by force or

threats prevents or disperses a private or a public meeting, or attempts to commit one of these acts, as well as any official who renders himself guilty of one of these infractions, apart from the two cases foreseen in Article 5.” Article 5 stipulates that a delegate of the administration or a police officer “ may dissolve a meeting only if a written demand to do so is made to him by the committee organising the meeting; or, in cases of serious disorders, if order is restored, the meeting may be resumed.” Article 8 places the maximum penalty for the promoters of meetings leading to disorder at one week’s imprisonment, or a fine of 100 piastres. It will thus be seen that agitators causing disorder run the risk of extremely light penalties in comparison with those inflicted on police officers who attempt, in pursuance of their duty, to prevent such outbreaks. Since agitators frequently make the foreign communities a target of their demonstrations, and since the police authorities would be so. obviously restricted in the performance of their duties, firm measures to prevent such a Bill becoming law become necessary on the part of the British Government, which remains responsible for the safety of the lives and the property of the foreign communities in Egypt. WARSHIPS FOR EGYPT. LONDON. May 1. Commander Kenworthy asked in the House of Commons: “Are the press statements that warships are going to Egypt accurate?” Sir Austen Chamberlain: “I prefer to confine my statement to what has already been said.” Commander Kenworthy: “Why this ecrecy, seeing that the departures of rarships have been reported in the press?” Mr Saklavala: “Does Sir Austen Chamberlain imply that the public think it wrong to send warships to Egypt?” Sir Austen Chamberlan: “ No. We announced in the Note that if the Eyptian Government failed to give the assurance asked for we reserved the right to take the necessary action. I think it more courteous to remain silent till Egypt has, been given an opportunity to reply.” BRITAIN’S INTERPOSITION. LONDON, May 1. The Earl of Birkenhead, speaking at the Imperial Ladies’ Club dinner, said that British interposition in Egypt saved that country from ruin. No more disinterested interposition was ever made by one country in the affairs of another. Many great friends of the British Empire thought that in our unilateral agreement we went overfar, but they must remember that Egypt stood at a vital arterial point of communications in the British Empire. “We know that foreign communities other than British residents in Egypt rely on us alone for their protection. It is useless postponing the As-

semblies Bill till November, and it is unwise postponing it to any other time, for never can any country with Imperial responsibilities and with obligations to other countries agree to such legislation. BRITAIN DEMANDS WITHDRAWAL. LONDON, May 2. Sir Austen Chamberlain, in the House of Commons, said that Britain had replied to the Egyptian Government's Note, expressing satisfaction at the postponement of the Assemblies Bill, but repeating the warning that it must drop it altogether. SENDING OF WARSHIPS. RUGBY, May 2. Sir Austen Chamberlain read in the House of Commons this afternoon the text of the reply which Lord Lloyd (British High Commissioner) had to-day been instructed to deliver to the Egyptian Prime Minister. The reply concluded: “ His Majesty’s Government can enter into no discussion respecting the declaration of February, 1922. One of the consequences of that instrument was to entail upon his Majesty’s Government the responsibility for the protection of foreign interests in Egypt. It will be clear from the preceding paragraph that his Majesty’s Government is resolved at all times to insist upon the precise discharge of its terms. The declaration embodies conditions subject to which independence was accorded to Egypt, and his Majesty’s Government will not permit it to be either modified or disregarded.” After his statement, Sir Austen Chamberlain was questioned regarding the despatch of British warships to Egypt. He said that in consequence, of what”had passed the Government thought it necessary to give directions for certain ships to sail for Egypt. . He had now given instructions for these orders to be countermanded. ANGLO-EGYPTIAN TREATY. LONDON, May 2. Mr Amery, in answer to a question, said that correspondence with Canada in reference to the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty had not reached the stage when it was possible to make a statement. FOREIGN MINISTER RESIGNS. CAIRO, May 5. The newspapers announce the resignation of Chalii Pasha, Foreign Minister. ~