delivrer de ce qui'il sent.' Doubtless it was their wealth that attracted persecution; but the ease with which this persecution was carried to its terrible climax was due to some fatal lack of initiative, whereby the once-powerful order was reduced to that for which the busy world affords no room-an anachronism. ▲ Histoire Cartulaire des Templiers de Provins. L. M. SHORTT. CORRESPONDENCE To the Editor of THE NINEteenth CentuRY AND AFTER. DEAR SIR,-With regard to an article which appeared in your February number (No. 576) by Colonel Elgood, the representatives of the British community have met and decided to ask you to be good enough to publish the statement which I now enclose as a corrective of the false impressions which are most likely to be the outcome to your many readers of Colonel Elgood's article-an article which contains so many references in opposition to facts that it would be entirely against British Empire interests to allow it to pass unanswered. Yours faithfully, F. H. FRASER, Secretary. THE BRITISH UNION IN EGYPT, March 3, 1925. THE EGYPTIAN QUESTION (A REPLY TO LIEUT.-COLONEL P. G. ELGOOD) Colonel Elgood's article, published in your February number, has caused a feeling akin to amazement amongst the British and other communities in Egypt, and the Council of the British Union feel that it cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged. The article teems with inaccuracies and false premises, which would require much space to deal with adequately, and for that reason alone must be ignored here. The essential point of the article is the suggestion that, by taking a slight military risk, a political settlement would be reached. The author does not seem to realise that the withdrawal of garrisons from Cairo and Alexandria would expose foreigners to troubles of the kind that occurred in May 1921, so that this scheme is likely to lead to still greater political complications, this time with Europeans, who will stand no further shirking of our duty towards them. It is therefore preposterous to suggest taking a serious military risk, which would not lead to a real political settlement, but which, on the contrary, would broaden the field of political trouble by involving us inevitably with European Powers. As for the definite suggestion that the Canal could be guarded by a mixed force of British and Egyptian troops, each nation having complete control over its own forces, the recent events in the Sudan should suffice to deter any responsible person from entertaining the idea for a moment. Nor is this all; it is doubtful whether there is another army in the world with so bad a record for mutiny as the Egyptian. No less than nine specific cases can be cited as having occurred in the last fifty years, as under : 1879. On February 18 Nubar Pasha and his Cabinet were mobbed by about 2500 officers and men at the Ministry of Finance. 1881. Arabi Pasha and two others arrested. Troops mutinied, rescued them, and went with their officers to the Palace, whereupon the Khedive Tewfik gave way. 1882. The Mustaphzin, an integral part of the police force of Alexandria, took an active part in the massacre of Europeans on June 8. During the Boer war there was a plot by Egyptian officers in the Sudan, the object of which was to arrest the British officers and take over the Sudan government. The secret having been divulged, the plotters themselves were removed. In 1915 a certain Bimbashi, Mohammed Saleh, who was the most trusted officer of the coastguards, concealed arms, and with these went out with his officers and men (about 200), his camels and supplies, and joined the Senussi enemy, who were at that time attacking the territory he was supposed to be guarding. There were similar cases among the coastguards guarding the Canal on the east. 1919. Egyptian troops sent up with a reconstruction train incited people to destruction-which explains why destruction took place after the train passed. (See diary of an English official in Egypt, 1919, by 'Tawwaf.') Amongst other events, a British officer, while attempting to control the mob, was shot dead by the Royal bodyguard through the Palace railings in Cairo. 1921. Egyptian troops sent to Alexandria to suppress the riots joined mob in murdering Europeans, of whom nearly one hundred were killed, some being burnt with petrol in the street. (See Report of the Military Court of Inquiry in Blue Book, ' Egypt No. 3 (1921).') 1922. King Fuad's Accession Day. Egyptian troops look on and laugh whilst the mob pelt notables coming to pay their respects at the Palace. Five officers court-martialled. 1924. Egyptian Railway Battalion mutiny simultaneously at Khartoum, Port Sudan, and Wady Halfa. 1924. November. Rifaat Bey, Commandant of Egyptian Artillery at Khartoum, incites troops to mutiny. On analysing the above, we find that the Egyptian Army has shown disloyalty to the Khedive Ismail (1879), to the Khedive Tewfik (1881), to the cause of the Allies (1915), to the Protecting Power (1919), to the Liberal-Constitutional Government (1921), to their present King (1922), and to the Government of the Sudan (August and November 1924); that is to say, it has been guilty of every conceivable kind of disloyalty. It is the considered opinion of the British Union that the withdrawal of British troops would constitute a danger of the gravest sort for the whole foreign community, and, were another outrage, similar to that of last November, to take place, what, we ask Colonel Elgood, would be the position of residents were the British Government to think fit to send the Egyptian Government another ultimatum ? The author has apparently failed to learn one of the main lessons of the war, namely, that divided command renders even the best commanders and troops impotent. The Canal cannot be guarded in compartments; it must be guarded as a whole by troops of whose loyalty there can be no question. In this connection it is too readily forgotten that whereas before the war only 5000 British troops were required to keep order in Egypt, yet during the war such was the estimate of commanders on the spot of the reliability of Egyptians, civil and military, that nearly nine times that number of men was immobilised in the country. (For the British Union in Egypt.) NINETEENTH CANCELLED 1925 India and its Languages The Religion of the Undergraduate : (1) By an Oxford Undergraduate (2) By a Cambridge Undergraduate Marx or Christ? . As a Biologist sees it Mayers, Mayings, and Maypoles Rugby Football To-day. Visitors to England in Olden Days Some Writers of the Eighteenth Century |