AngloTurkish Convention, May, 1887.

while the forces of both were to be utilized for the purposes of a permanent settlement (r).

On the conclusion of this convention, Sir Henry Drummond Wolff was appointed British High Commissioner. A Commissioner was appointed on behalf of the Sultan; and the two proceeded to Egypt. After satisfying himself as to what-taking into consideration the peculiar features of the Egyptian question, and the policy of Her Majesty's Government, who disclaimed all idea of annexing Egypt, but were anxious to preserve the rights of the Sultan, and the interests of other countries, and, in concert. with Europe, to secure, except as regards the transit of troops in regulated numbers, the territorial inviolability of Egypt-was really required for the permanent safety and prosperity of the country, the British Commissioner returned to Constantinople, in his character of Envoy Extraordinary, and resumed negotiations with a view to the conclusion of an ulterior convention, by which these ends might be secured. Some delay was caused by changes of government in England, and in other ways, but on the 22nd May, 1887, a convention was signed at Constantinople, between Great Britain and Turkey, by which it was agreed that at the expiration of three years from the date of the convention, the British troops should be withdrawn from Egypt, unless the appearance of danger in the interior or from without should render necessary the adjournment of the evacuation, when the British troops were to withdraw immediately after the disappearance of this danger. On the withdrawal of the British troops, Egypt was to enjoy the advantages of the principle of territorial immunity (sûreté territoriale'), and on the ratification of the present convention the Great Powers were to be invited to sign an Act recognising and guaranteeing the inviolability of Egyptian territory; under which Act no Power should have the right, in any circumstance, to land troops on Egyptian territory, except in the event of obstruction in the Suez Canal, when the passage of 1,000 men at one time might be effected by the most rapid means and route. But the Ottoman Government might land troops to repel apprehended invasion, or in case of internal disorder; and a similar right was reserved to the British Government. If at the expiration of the three years stipulated in the convention for the withdrawal of the British troops, one of the Great Mediterranean Powers should not have accepted it, this was to be considered as an appearance of danger from without justifying the postpone

() Sir H. D. Wolff to Lord Salisbury. Parl. Papers, Egypt, No. 66.

ment of evacuation. The adhesion of the signatories of the Berlin Treaty, and subsequently of other Governments having arrangements with the Khediviate, was to be invited (s). The Sultan, under pressure from other Powers, failed to ratify the convention within the stipulated period of one month, or within an extended period allowed by Great Britain, and it consequently fell through (t). The legality of the British occupation was therefore remitted to the convention of 1885.

In July, 1887, in the course of negotiations with reference to the Suez Canal Convention, M. Waddington gave expression to the hope of the French Government that the whole of Egypt might some day be neutralized (u); and this was a solution of the question which would, apparently, have met with the approval of the Powers. But as Great Britain insisted on the reservation of a right of re-occupation in certain contingencies, and of a right of regulated transit for any Great Power in case the canal was blocked, there were obvious difficulties in the way of an arrangement with France, for the latter country, which had a hold on Egyptian affairs through the Mixed Administrations, and whose traditional interest was strengthened by the part taken by Frenchmen in the construction of the Suez Canal, hitherto declined to assent to neutralization except on the condition that Egypt should be a forbidden land to all European troops (x).

Messih v.

Farra.

In a cause, instituted in 1885, decided in the Privy Council in Abd-ul1888, on appeal from Her Majesty's Supreme Consular Court at Constantinople, Egypt was regarded as part of the Ottoman dominions. "Cairo," it was said, "is in no sense British soil; it is the possession of a foreign government, and subject to the sovereignty of the Porte" (y), and in the Order of Council establishing Consular Courts of August 8, 1899, Egypt was expressly mentioned as being included in the "dominions of the Sublime Ottoman Porte" (2). But while no legal act affected the titular sovereignty of the Porte, the course of events had the effect of gradually weakening the tic. The pacification of the Soudan was carried out (1898) without any reference to the Sultan, and its administration, after the overthrow of the Khalifa, was organized on the basis of an agreement made between the British and Egyptian Governments in January, 1899; nor was the Sultan's

(8) Parl. Papers, Egypt, No. 7 (1887).

(t) The Times, 28 June, 1887; 4 July, 1887.

() Parl. Papers, Egypt, No. (1888).

1

(x) Parl. Papers, Egypt, No. 7 (1887).

(y) Abd-ul-Messih v. Farra (1887), 13 App. C. 431, 438, per Lord Watson, delivering the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

(~) London Gazette, Aug. 11, 1899.

co-operation invited in the organization of the army and the various departments of the public service. On the other hand, the attempt made in June, 1893, by the Khedive, Abbas Hilmi, to assert his freedom from foreign control was repressed by Lord Cromer in a manner which emphasised his dependence on the protecting Power, and he was made to understand that no changes in the personnel of the Administration would be permitted without a previous agreement with the Agent of Great Britain, whose very title proclaimed his anomalous position (a).

Before Great Britain entered into the occupation of Egypt she undertook to withdraw from the country as soon as she had placed its finances on a sound basis and had established a satisfactory native administration. But subsequent events showed that the moment for withdrawal must, for the sake of the country, be indefinitely postponed (b). Hence it was necessary to strengthen and regularize the British position in Egypt. This was accomplished by the Anglo-French Agreement of April, 1904, whereby France abandoned her demand for the retirement of Great Britain (c); and other Powers afterwards recognised the occupation. Theoretically, Turkey remained the suzerain, but practically Great Britain become more and more the guiding and controlling power. In accordance with the capitulations, justice in Egypt continued to be administered under European control. All these circumstances contributed to impart to the country an anomalous international status.

This anomalous position came to an end during the Great War of 1914-1915. On December 17, 1914, the following official announcement was made: "His Britannic Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs gives notice that, in view of the state of war arising out of the action of Turkey, Egypt is placed under the protection of His Majesty, and will henceforth constitute a British Protectorate. The suzerainty of Turkey over Egypt is thus terminated, and His Majesty's Government will adopt all measures necessary for the defence of Egypt and the protection of its inhabitants and interests. The King has been pleased to approve the appointment of Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Arthur H. McMahon to be His Majesty's High Commissioner for Egypt."

(a) For a French view of the then English occupation, see J. Cocheris, Situation de l'Egypte et du Soudan juridique et politique (Paris, 1903).

(b) Cf. the debate in the House of

Commons, Aug. 10, 1882, Hansard, 3rd series, vol. cclxxiii.; Lord Salisbury's speech at the Mansion House, Nov. 9, 1898.

(c) See infra, Appendix D.

On the day following this announcement the French Government notified their recognition of the British Protectorate over Egypt, and the British Government notified their adherence to the Franco-Moorish Treaty of March 30, 1912 (d).

At the same time the following notice was issued by the British authorities: "In view of the action of His Highness Abbas Hilmi Pasha, lately Khedive of Egypt, who has adhered to the King's enemies, His Majesty's Government have seen fit to depose him from the Khediviate, and that high dignity has been offered, with the title of Sultan of Egypt, to His Highness Prince Hussein Kamel Pasha, eldest living Prince of the family of Mehemet Ali, and has been accepted by him." In a communication from the Acting High Commissioner in Egypt to Prince Hussein, it was pointed out (after reciting the circumstances in which Turkey joined Germany against Great Britain) that the British Government regarded themselves as trustees for the inhabitants of Egypt, that they would defend its territory against all aggression, that with the disappearance of Ottoman suzerainty would also vanish the limitations that had before been imposed on the number and organization of the new Sultan's army and on his power to grant distinctions of honour, that foreign relationships would be conducted through His Majesty's representative in Cairo, that in internal administration the governed would as far as possible be associated in the task of government, individual liberty would be secured, education promoted, religious convictions respected, and that the anomalous system of capitulations would be revised at the end of the war.

Cuba.

Since the treaty of June 12, 1901, by which Cuba was made Position of over to the Cuban people, it has occupied a position with respect to the United States which seems to bring it within the category of international Protectorates. It may manage its own internal and external affairs, but it is precluded from entering into any such treaty with a foreign Power as may endanger its independence; and it undertakes to contract no debt for which the current revenue will not suffice, and to concede to the United States the right of intervention to preserve Cuban independence, to maintain a government adequate for the protection of life, property and individual liberty, and the right to use its harbours as naval stations (e). In 1906, when a revolution broke out on the island

(d) See further, Phillipson, International Law and the Great War (London, 1915), chap. xvi.

(e) Annual Register, 1901; fiftysixth Congress, c. 803; Statutes at Large, vol. xxxi. p. 897. Cf. Moore, Digest, vol. vi. § 910.

Tributary and vassal States.

Former

relations

between the
Ottoman

Porte and the
Barbary
States.

and the then President resigned his office, the United States intervened, entered into military occupation of the country, appointed a provisional governor, and removed various abuses. As soon as the administration of the newly-elected President was firmly established, the American governor and troops were withdrawn (1909). There is little doubt that the United States will take over the island if its self-government should prove a failure. Already in 1906 President Roosevelt issued a warning to that effect (f). As conditions are at present, there does not appear to be unanimity of opinion as to the precise international status of the republic of Cuba. Some hold that it is a fully sovereign State (g), others that it is a semi-sovereign State (h).

Tributary States, and States having a feudal relation to each other, are still considered as sovereign, so far as their sovereignty is not affected by this relation. Thus, it is evident that the tribute, formerly paid by the principal maritime Powers of Europe to the Barbary States, did not at all affect the sovereignty and independence of the former. So also the King of Naples had been a nominal vassal of the Papal See, ever since the eleventh century; but this feudal dependence, abolished in 1818, was never considered as impairing the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Naples (i).

The political relations between the Ottoman Porte and the Barbary States were of a very anomalous character. Their occasional obedience to the commands of the Sultan, accompanied with the irregular payment of tribute, did not prevent them from being considered by the Christian Powers of Europe and America as independent States, with whom the international relations of war and peace were maintained, on the same footing as with other Mohammedan sovereignties. During the Middle Ages, and especially in the time of the Crusades, they were considered as pirates-"Bugia ed Algieri, infami nidi di corsari," as Tasso calls them. But they have long since acquired the character of lawful powers, possessing all those attributes which distinguish a lawful State from a mere association of robbers (k). "The Algerines, Tripolitans, Tunisians, and those of Salee," says

(f) Foreign Relations of the United States, 1906, Part I. p. xlv.

(g) Cf. E. J. Benton, International Law and Diplomacy of the SpanishAmerican War (Baltimore, 1908),

pp. 290-291.

(h) Cf. A. Whitcomb, La situation

internationale de Cuba (Paris, 1905), chap. v.

(i) R. Ward, Hist. of the Law of Nations (London, 1795), vol. ii. p. 69. (k) Sir L. Jenkins, Works, vol. ii.

P. 791. The Helena (1801), 4 C.

Rob. 5.