2. The agreement contained in Article 16 of the Convention respecting Conditions of Residence and Business and Jurisdiction, set out in Part II of the Second Schedule to this Order, shall have full force and effect as law, and for the purpose of carrying out the said agreement the following provisions shall have effect: :

(i.) In all cases where, in pursuance of the agreement contained in the said Article 16, Courts established in British territory are to have jurisdiction, His Majesty's Supreme Court of Judicature in England shall be the Court having such jurisdiction, except where the case is one where, apart from this provision, some other Court within His Majesty's Dominions would have jurisdiction:

66

Provided that where, as respects any case jurisdiction as to which is so conferred on His Majesty's Supreme Court of Judicature in England, on application being made to the Supreme Court of Cyprus, or to a Superior Court in any other part of His Majesty's Dominions which may from time to time be authorised for the purpose by an Order in Council under The Treaty of Peace (Turkey) Act, 1924," it is made to appear to that Court that the case could be more conveniently tried in that Court than in His Majesty's Supreme Court of Judicature in England, the Supreme Court of Cyprus, or such other Superior Court as aforesaid, shall have jurisdiction in the matter, subject to the following qualifications, that is to say:

(a.) Where proceedings have been instituted in His Majesty's Supreme Court of Judicature in England, no such application shall be made without the leave of that Court.

(b.) Where the matter is one with respect to which the Supreme Court of Cyprus, or the Superior Court of any other part of His Majesty's Dominions, has not jurisdiction in relation to persons domiciled in Cyprus or that other part, as the case may be, nothing in this Article shall authorise applications to be made to, or confer jurisdiction on, that Supreme Court or Superior Court.

(ii.) The law to be administered in His Majesty's Supreme Court of Judicature in England, or the Supreme Court of Cyprus, or other such Superior Court as aforesaid, in any case where jurisdiction is conferred on the Court by this Article, shall be the law which would have been applicable to the case under Article 90 of The Ottoman Order in Council, 1910.''(4) had the case been tried by a Court established by and acting under that Order.

3. The Interpretation Act, 1889," applies for the interpretation of this Order in like manner as it applies for the interpretation of an Act of Parliament, and as if this Order were an Act of Parliament.

(4) Vol. CIII. page 181.

4. This Order shall apply to India, and shall be deemed to have come into operation as from the date when the Treaty of Peace came into force, that is to say, the 6th day of August, 1924.

5. This Order may be cited as (Turkey) Order, 1924."

"The India Peace Treaty

COLIN SMITH.

[For Schedules, see Schedules to The Treaty of Peace (Turkey) Order, 1924," page 161.]

BRITISH ORDER by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs under Article 2 of "The Ottoman Order in Council, 1924."-London, August 12, 1924.(')

66

WHEREAS by Article 2 of " The Ottoman Order in Council, 1924, (2) it is provided that the Secretary of State may, by an Order published in the "London Gazette," direct that the jurisdiction of any Provincial Court established under the Orders in Council mentioned in the Schedule to the said Order in territory which does not now form part of Turkey shall continue;

And whereas the Provincial Court at Jeddah is a Provincial Court established under the said Orders in Council in territory which does not now form part of Turkey:

Now, therefore, I, James Ramsay MacDonald, His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, do hereby direct that the jurisdiction of the Provincial Court at Jeddah shall continue.

J. RAMSAY MACDONALD.

Foreign Office, August 12, 1924. (1) “London Gazette," August 15, 1924.

(2) Page 155.

DESPATCH to His Majesty's High Commissioner for Egypt and the Sudan respecting the Position of His Majesty's Government in regard to Egypt and the Sudan. -London, October 7, 1924.(1)

My Lord,

Foreign Office, October 7, 1924. IN the course of my conversations with the Egyptian Prime Minister his Excellency explained to me the modifications in the status quo in Egypt on which he felt bound to

(1) Parliamentary Paper, "Egypt, No. 1 (1924)" (Cmd. 2269).

insist. If I have correctly understood him they were as follows:

(a.) The withdrawal of all British forces from Egyptian territory.

(b.) The withdrawal of the financial and judicial advisers. (c.) The disappearance of all British control over the Egyptian Government, notably in connection with foreign relations, which Zaghlul Pasha claimed were hampered by the notification of His Majesty's Government to foreign Powers on the 15th March, 1922, (2) that they would regard as an unfriendly act any attempt at interference in the affairs of Egypt by another Power.

(d.) The abandonment by His Majesty's Government of their claim to protect foreigners and minorities in Egypt.

(e.) The abandonment by His Majesty's Government of their claim to share in any way in protecting the Suez Canal.

As regards the Sudan, I drew attention to certain statements which his Excellency had made as President of the Council of Ministers before the Egyptian Parliament during the course of the summer. On the 17th May, according to my information, Zaghlul Pasha stated that the fact that a foreign officer was Commander-in-chief of the Egyptian army and the retention in that army of British officers were inconsistent with the dignity of independent Egypt. The expression of such sentiments in an official pronouncement by the responsible head of the Egyptian Government has obviously placed not only Sir Lee Stack as Sirdar, but all British officers attached to the Egyptian army, in a difficult position. I also had in mind that, in June, Zaghlul Pasha was reported to have claimed for Egypt complete rights of ownership over the Sudan and characterised the British Government as usurpers.

His Excellency observed that in making the above statements he was merely voicing the opinion not only of the Egyptian Parliament, but of the Egyptian nation, and I gathered that he still adhered to that position. Such statements, however, must inevitably have affected the minds of Egyptians employed in the Sudan, and of the Sudanese personnel of the Egyptian army. They have indeed made it appear that loyalty to the Egyptian Government is something different from and inconsistent with loyalty to the existing administration of the Sudan. As a result, not only has there been an entire change in the spirit of Anglo-Egyptian co-operation which has in the past prevailed in the Sudan, but also Egyptian subjects serving under the Sudan Government have been encouraged to regard themselves as pro pagandists of the Egyptian Government's views, with results

(2) Vol. CXVI, page 84.

that if persisted in, in the absence of any agreement render their presence in the Sudan under the existing a source of danger to public order.

I promised in the course of our first conversation
perfectly frank with his Excellency. Then and subseq
I left him under no illusion as to the position whic
Majesty's Government are compelled to take up in r
to Egypt and the Sudan. Your Lordship will recall
when His Majesty's Government withdrew the British
tectorate over Egypt in 1922, they reserved certain ma
for eventual settlement by agreement. Though I have

no means abandoned hope that on further consideration
basis of an agreement acceptable to both countries can
found, the attitude adopted by Zaghlul Pasha has rende
such agreement impossible for the present. I raised i
question of the Canal straight away because its security
of vital interest to us both in peace and in war. It is
less true to-day than in 1922 that the security of the con
munications of the British Empire in Egypt remain a vit
British interest and that absolute certainty that the Sue
Canal will remain open in peace as well as in war for the
free passage of British ships is the foundation on which the
entire defensive strategy of the British Empire rests. The
1888 Convention for the free navigation of the Canal was an
instrument devised to secure that object. Its ineffective-
ness for this purpose was demonstrated in 1914, when Great
Britain herself had to take steps to ensure that the Canal
would remain open. No British Government in the light
of that experience can divest itself wholly, even in favour
of an ally, of its interest in guarding such a vital link in
British communications. Such a security must be a feature
of any agreement come to between our two Governments,
and I see no reason why accommodation is impossible, given
good will.

The effective co-operation of Great Britain and Egypt in protecting those communications might in my view have been ensured by the conclusion of a treaty of close alliance, The presence of a British force in Egypt provided for by such a treaty freely entered into by both parties on an equal footing would in no way be incompatible with Egyptian independence, whilst it would be an indication of the specially close and intimate relations between the two countries and their determination to co-operate in a matter of vital concern to both. It is not the wish of His Majesty's Government that this force should in any way interfere with the functions of the Egyptian Government or encroach upon Egyptian sovereignty and I emphatically said so. It. is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to assume any responsibility for the actions or conduct of the Egyptian