Saad Zaghlul Pasha: Father of Egyptians

http://pontosworld.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=658&Itemid=87Page 1
of 2
This short article documents the early life of Egyptian nationalist leader, Saad Zaghlul
Pasha who came from a peasant (fellaheen) background to become Minister of Education (19061910), Justice (1910-1912) and was elected Vice President of the new Legislative Assembly
(1914) during the time of the British occupation of Egypt during the period 1882-1922. Zaghlul
went from being a rebel in 1882 to a prominent Egyptian Judge and Lawyer before entering the
world of Egyptian politics. As Minister of Education he instituted a number of reforms that were
designed to raise the literacy levels of young Egyptians.
Saad Zaghlul Pasha: "Father of Egyptians"
By Stavros T. Stavridis, the author of 'The Greek-Turkish War 1919-23
See also: Part 2 and Part 3

"Unless I am much mistaken, a career of great usefulness lies before the present Minister of
Education, Saad Zaghlul Pasha. He possesses all the qualities necessary to serve his country. He
is honest; he is capable; he has the courage of his convictions; he has been abused by many of
the less worthy of his own countrymen. These are high qualifications. He should go far." Lord
Cromer, British Pro-Consul in Egypt, in 1907 in Ronald Storrs, The Memoirs of Sir Ronald
Storrs, Arno Press, New York, 1972, p.52
Introduction
This short article documents the early life of Egyptian nationalist leader, Saad Zaghlul
Pashawho came from a peasant (fellaheen) background to become Minister of Education (19061910), Justice (1910-1912) and was elected Vice President of the new Legislative Assembly
(1914) during the time of the British occupation of Egypt during the period 1882-1922. Zaghlul
went from being a rebel in 1882 to a prominent Egyptian Judge and Lawyer before entering the
world of Egyptian politics. As Minister of Education he instituted a number of reforms that were
designed to raise the literacy levels of young Egyptians. He did not get along too well with
Khedive Abbas Hilmi and British Consul General Lord Kitchener. It is against the latter that he
held a personal grudge that started him on the road into becoming anti-British after World War
1.
The fiery Zaghlul kept quiet during the First World War thus making it easier for Britain to
maintain its control over Egypt.
1. The early years 1870-1906
He was born in Ibiana village, Gharbiya province, in the Nile Delta, either in 1857 or 1860
whose father was a prosperous landowning village headman. His family enjoyed prestige and
political influence in their local community. Zaghlul was a very bright student who entered AlAzhar University in 1870. In 1880 he was appointed assistant to Sheik Muhammad Abdu "in
editing the official gazette" where he took an active interest in law reform. He took part in the El
Arabi rebellion in 1882 and was arrested and incarcerated in Kasr el Nil Barracks. He learnt
French whilst serving on the bench and studied at the French law school in Cairo. Zaghlul was
appointed a judge to the Native Courts of Appeal in 1892 where he served with distinction.

Zaghlul was also concerned about the plight of poor children and was one among the founders of
the Muslim Benevolent Society in 1892. The main purpose of this organization was to set up
schools for poor children "which would serve as an experiment in private education" and would
"give students a modern education whilst emphasizing a Muslim upbringing." Even at this stage,
Zaghlul clearly understood the benefits of education for young Egyptian children.
As a lawyer, he occupied a privileged position in Egyptian society which also opened the door to
a political career. Having come to the attention of Princess Nazli, she made it possible for
Zaghlul to come to the attention of Egyptian Prime Minister, Mustapha Fehmy Pasha (18851908). Zaghlul's marriage to Fehmy's daughter in 1896 paved the way for him to climb the
higher echelons of Egyptian society. Such an elevation also came to the attention of the British
Pro-Consul, Lord Cromer who immediately saw that Zaghlul possessed the administrative
competence to hold a high office. All these political connections led to his appointment as
Minister of Education in 1906. The British Consul-General (1882-1907), Lord Cromer cited the
main reason for Zaghlul's appointment as Minister for Education "was mainly due to a desire to
associate an able man and enlightened Egyptian of this particular section of society with the
work of Egyptian reform." It was important from a British point of view to introduce western
civilization that would greatly assist Egypt's development into becoming a modern nation.
2. Minister of Education and Justice 1906-1912
During his tenure as Education Minister 1906-10, he instituted a number of reforms that were
designed to raise literacy levels of young Egyptians. For example the number of schools in the
cities and particularly in the villages was increased. The latter showed that the great majority of
Egyptians lived in rural communities. Even night school education was expanded. He achieved
in having Arabic replace English as the language of instruction in Egyptian schools and also
increased the number of Egyptian school inspectors.
Douglas Dunlop, an adviser attached to the Egyptian Education Ministry, tried very hard to stop
Arabic as the language of instruction in Egyptian schools but Zaghlul stood his ground and
prevailed. When Zaghlul became Minister of Education, he forced Dunlop to come and see him
and demanded reading all important documents pertaining to his ministerial portfolio. Obviously
Dunlop resented such treatment but acquiesced in the end. He returned to the Education Ministry
after Zaghlul's appointment as Minister of Justice in 1910.
A table reproduced below highlights the number of students attending educational institutions
run by the Ministry of Education for the years 1906-10.

Type
of1906
institution

1907

1908

1909

1910

In
Government
Kuttabs
(Village
Schools)

11014

12369

13365

13545

2978

2788

2747

2766

9045

Institutions for2939

training
Kuttabs
Higher
primary
schools

of

7918

8544

8585

8386

8644

Technical
769
schools
and
classes

859

819

854

1352

Secondary
schools

1380

1910

2113

2243

2197

Professional
colleges

962

1304

1511

1548

1599

When examining the data above, it reveals an overall expansion in education under Zaghlul's
stewardship. Zaghlul also favored the expansion of primary education for girls. The Ministry of
Education also inspected private schools to ensure that they adhered too government regulations.
In 1910 the Ministry audited 3664 private Kuttabs (202,095 students), thirteen private higher
primary schools (3535), nine trades schools (1412), one training school for nurses and midwives
(35) and the Ghizeh Reformatory (715).
Another educational reform introduced by Zaghlul was a training college for Qadis (Judges for
Muslim courts) in 1907. Since there were an insufficient number of them, he worked out a
scheme with the Chief Ulema (Muslim scholar trained in Islam and Islamic Law). The school
had a committee of management "composed of the Sheikh of Al-Azhar as president, the Grand
Mufti of Egypt (a jurist who interprets Muslim religious law and who can issue fatwas (legal
judgments), the head-master, and two members nominated by the Minister of Education in
agreement with the Minister of Justice." It received over 1,000 applications but only 200 students
could be accommodated.
Whilst Zaghlul worked tirelessly to expand educational opportunities for his fellow citizens, he
also had to operate within a tight financial regime imposed by the British. Lord Cromer and his
successors tightly controlled Egyptian finances to ensure that budget surpluses were achieved.
According to the 1907 census only 6% of boys and 2% of girls of school age attended
elementary or industrial education under the direction or supervision of the Ministry of
Education out of a total population of nearly 11,200,000 inhabitants. Taking this figure at face
value, it reveals the prevalence of high illiteracy rates amongst young Egyptians. Paying
moderate fees at government schools would have acted as a disincentive for many poor Egyptian
parents to educate their children. Zaghlul offered a limited number of scholarships to needy
secondary students so that they could complete their high school education. The British educated
a limited number of Egyptians for middle and lower civil service positions "to prevent the
emergence of an indigenous political leadership that might spearhead a nationalist movement."
Another political appointment was when he served as Minister of Justice 1910-12. He came into
that position immediately after the assassination of Egyptian Prime Minister, Boutros Ghali
Pasha in February 1910. In 1909, Khedive Abbas Hilmi approached Ghali and asked him to raise
the renewal of the Suez Canal concession in the General Assembly. Ghali believed that the

Khedive should raise this matter with the British Consul General, Sir Elston Gorst. Ismail Abaza
who led the opposition in the Assembly met Ghali in October 1909 where the former stated that
the Assembly needed to be advised of this development. Gorst concurred that it should be
debated in the Assembly. The renewal meant that the concession would be extended for a further
forty years from 1968 to 2008. A committee established by the Assembly studied the Suez Canal
Concession and presented its findings on March 21, 1910. It found that the General Assembly
could not alter the agreement as the financial accounts would show a great loss for Egypt.
Obviously financial projections were very difficult to measure so far into an uncertain future.
The committee thought that the present generation could materially benefit so long as the
revenues collected could be employed for productive purposes. The Assembly, finally, rejected
the extension of the Suez concession on April 4, 1910. Originally Zaghlul had rejected the Suez
concession but ended up defending it in the Assembly much to the annoyance of the extreme
nationalists.
Zaghlul also took the initiative to create the Bar Association in 1912, thus elevating the status of
the legal profession. As a former Judge and Minister of Justice, he had the experience, status and
high profile to give this new organization the prestige it needed to represent the legal fraternity in
Egypt. In 1897 a young Coptic lawyer named Murqus Fahmi (1870-1955) unsuccessfully tried to
establish a Bar Association. He sought the assistance of Muhammad Farid, the future leader of
the Watani Party, and together they established the Society of Laws. They also drafted a proposal
for an official association and presented their plan to the Minister of Justice, Fuad Ibrahim in
1902 who rejected it. The Egyptian government preferred to deal with lawyers individually
rather than on a collective basis. Prior to 1893 any individual could enter the legal profession
without a law degree but the Egyptian government closed this door. This helped to raise the
education qualifications and improve the training of lawyers in Egypt. Zaghlul wasn't interested
in assuming the presidency of the Bar Association but preferred to use his experience in the
General Assembly. It is here where he could be most effective in applying his vast legal and
ministerial experience for the benefit of his country. The Bar Association held its first official
meeting in November 1912 to elect a president and a committee.
In 1912 Zaghlul came into direct conflict with Khedive Abbas Hilmi when he complained to the
British Consul General, Lord Kitchener over irregularities that were taking place in the Wafq
administration. Zaghlul pointed the figure right at the Khedive. The Khedive asked him to
produce the necessary proof to substantiate his claim but failed to do so. Kitchener forced
Zaghlul to resign as Justice Minister and latter believed that the former had betrayed him. He,
thereafter, held personal grudge against Kitchener.
3. Vice President of the new Legislative Assembly 1914
The Egyptian elections were contested under the new organic and electoral laws proclaimed on
July 23, 1913. This meant the former Legislative Council and General Assembly was combined
into a new Legislative Assembly increasing the membership from 30 to 89 "composed of ... six
Ministers, who are ex officio members; of sixty-six members elected in the second degree, by the
electors-delegate; and of seventeen members nominated by the Government, thus making a total
of eighty-nine members." Under the new system, the election of sixty six members would
guarantee the "representation of the population at about the rate of one representative for every
200,000 inhabitants." Furthermore nominated members would provide representation for
minorities such as the Christian Copts offering them four seats in the new Legislative Assembly.
Others groups such as the Bedouins would have three members, "merchants two; medical men,
two; engineers, one; representatives of general or religious education, two; the municipal
representatives."
However there were some restrictions raising the eligibility age from 30 to 35 years and a "land

or house tax" qualification. The aim behind this reform was to make the electoral system more
inclusive thus giving Egyptians an opportunity to participate in their domestic political affairs.
During the November-December 1913 election campaign, Zaghlul published his election
program giving voters an indication of his political agenda something which was copied by other
candidates. In Cairo, Zaghlul received 60% of the total vote giving him "an overwhelming
majority over his opponents." An article published in The Times on December 24, 1913 appeared
sanguine about the new Egyptian assembly. It mentioned that "the general tone is higher and the
prospects are favourable, and if the principal members adhere to their intentions the labours of
the Assembly should prove decidedly helpful." The article even asserted that Zaghlul would
behave in a dignified manner. On January 22, 1914 the Khedive officially opened the new
Legislative Assembly by stating that he hoped members would work for the benefit of the nation
and the Assembly and Government would find ways of co-operation and resolve any of their
differences in an amicable way. Egypt had an opportunity to move forward with this new
Legislative Assembly.
Zaghlul was elected second Vice President in the Assembly by 65 votes. This was the first
modern Egyptian election campaign fought "on a platform of greater Egyptianisation of the
administration." In one of the early session of the new Legislative Assembly a controversy
occurred as to "whether in the absence of the President, a Government nominee or an elected
Vice-President should preside over the Assembly." Zaghlul argued that it was more important to
set up a Court of Criminal Appeal rather than haggle over the motion of the Vice-Presidency.' A
majority of the Assembly thought that the Vice-Presidency was a more pressing issue than the
Court of Appeal which made Zaghlul very angry. He "refused to acquiesce and attacked the vote,
raising different objections....Saad Zaghlul left the hall, followed by 27 members, amid much
uproar, which continued outside. The sitting was suspended till this afternoon."
The Times Cairo correspondent thought Zaghlul's behavior was inappropriate for someone of his
political standing and that the new Assembly differed "little from its predecessors and does not
yet realize that the first duty of representative institutions is to respect the decision of the
majority."
Zaghlul was now the undisputed leader of the secularized educated members of the Egyptian
Assembly and also began to show his opposition to the British presence in Egypt. As a politician
he was poised against the notables and aristocrats who were allied to the Khedival Court. The
Assembly was suspended due to the outbreak of the First World War.
4. First World War and retreat into the background.
On December 19, 1914, Britain declared Egypt a protectorate with Prince
Hussein Kamil proclaimed as Sultan replacing his deposed
nephew Khedive Abbas Hilmi who had cast his lot with the Central
Powers: Germany, Austro-Hungary and Ottoman Empire. It must be
remembered that before the war, Egypt was part of the Ottoman Empire
with the Khedive acting as viceroy for his sovereign in Constantinople.
The Capitulations were also suspended for the duration of the war and Sir
Arthur Henry McMahon was appointed British High Commissioner.
Zaghlul kept a low profile for most of the conflict. In 1916, Zaghlul
sought a ministerial position when McMahon was prepared to offer him
the Minister of Wafqs portfolio. However McMahon referred the matter to
Lord Kitchener who vetoed it. Zaghlul became more resentful towards
Kitchener and British rule in general.

During March 1917, the Egyptian government appointed a commission headed by Sir William
Brunyate, a British Judicial and Acting Financial Adviser in Egypt 1916-1919, to eliminate the
capitulations. The capitulations granted Europeans economic privileges and allowed foreign
consuls to adjudicate legal cases of their nationals in their own consular courts in the Ottoman
Empire.
However Egyptian Prime Minister, Nubar Pasha created a Mixed Court system in 1876 that
allowed foreigners and Egyptians to have their civil and commercial cases settled by European
and Egyptian judges. American, British, Italian, Russian, German, French and Austrian judges
served on this body. The Mixed Courts in no way undermined the capitulatory system.
Britain desired to combine the capitulatory and mixed court system which angered foreigners,
mixed court judges and Egyptians. Many thought that Brunyate was trying to Anglicize the
Egyptian legal system and ignoring "the national aspirations of the populace." Harry J.Carman
states that "throughout [Egypt] local committees were formed, public meetings held and a
campaign waged for "freedom."...there were indications that the people were determined and that
the situation was serious." The British government simply ignored the sentiments of the Egyptian
population and regarded "the nationalist movement as a shallow affair headed by a small group
of discontented politicians." It is interesting that Zaghlul along with "nine of his associates were
summoned before the military officials and warned not to take action which might incite disorder
or hinder or embarrass the work of authorities." Zaghlul and his followers issued a mild protest
regarding this incident.
Towards the middle of 1918, Zaghlul began to think of independence for his country from British
rule. An independence movement emerged that was composed of landowners, financiers and
"incipient and commercial entrepreneurs" who represented the core element of a native Egyptian
national landed and commercial middle class. Zaghlul became the leader of this new movement
and founded the Wafd Party that was a well-organized mass political party. He dominated
Egyptian in the post-1918 period until his death in August 1927 where he was dubbed "father of
Egyptians."
- Part 2
The second part of this article will examine Zaghlul's later years which happen to be the most
exciting and colorful during a turbulent period of modern Egyptian history. After World War 1,
he waged a fierce political campaign inside and outside Egypt against the British protectorate by
demanding the complete independence of his country. The British considered him a security
threat and deported him with the intention of defusing an unstable political situation. Many
Egyptians believed that better times would come during his term as Prime Minister in
1924.There were, however, to be disappointed and voted against the Wafd Party during the
elections held in March 1925. Zaghlul was voted President of the Chamber of Deputies, a
position which he held until his death in August 192. He directed the Wafd Party in the
background and used his position as President of the Chamber to support Adly and Sarwat
Pashas becoming Prime Ministers'.
Saad Zaghlul Pasha: "Father of Egyptians"
PART 2
5. The Egyptian revolution of 1919: the arrest of Zaghlul Pasha Pasha
Saad Zaghlul along with two associates Abdel Aziz Fahmy Bey (a lawyer) and Ali Sharawi
Pasha ( a wealthy landowner) met the British High Commissioner, Sir Reginald Wingate in Cairo

on November 13, 1918 advocating Egyptian independence and proposing that an Egyptian
delegation led by him should proceed to London to present its case before the British
Government. Wingate told Zaghlul that he would pass this information onto London for their
consideration. Lord Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary, informed Wingate on November 27
that it would serve no useful purpose for the nationalists to come to London. The British
Government denied Zaghlul's request because it had major political, strategic and economic
interests in the Suez Canal. Zaghlul was prepared to allow Britain to supervise the public debt
and grant them shipping facilities at Suez. Wingate was recalled to London in January 1919 for
consultation leaving Egypt in a state of turmoil.[1]
The Egyptian nationalists were dismayed to learn that Emir Feisal was permitted to present
Syria's case before the Allied (Great Britain, France, and Italy) and Associated Powers (United
States of America) in Paris. This was an affront to the Egyptian nationalists who believed that
they as well had a right to attend the Paris Peace conference to argue the merits of their case. At
the same time, Zaghlul and his followers tried to interfere with the formation of a new ministry.
The Sultan regarded Zaghlul's action as treacherous which imperiled and undermined the
authority of the Sultanate and the former appealed to Sir Milne Cheetham, the Assistant British
High Commissioner, to arrest Zaghlul and his followers. The British arrested Saad Zaghlul,
Ismail Sidky, Mohammed Mahmoud and Hamad-el- Bassal Pashas and deported them to Malta
in early March 1919.
Once this information became known, a wave of demonstrations and strikes swept Cairo,
Alexandria, and other towns resulting in violence against British troops and foreign
communities composed of Greeks, Armenians, Syrians, Jews and Italians who had migrated to
Egypt during the 19th and early 20th century. Telegraph communications between Upper and
Lower Egypt were cut along with railway lines being destroyed. It should be noted the strikes
affected most sectors of the Egyptian economy where striking workers showed solidarity with
the nationalist cause of the Wafd party. The Wafd party was founded by Zaghlul in 1918.[2]
General Edmund Allenby was appointed Special High Commissioner who arrived on March 26,
1919 in Cairo to take charge of the situation. He immediately restored law and order and also
released Zaghlul and his followers from detention in Malta. Once freed Zaghlul proceeded to
Paris to try an address the peace conference.[3]
The release of Zaghlul was greeted "with delirious joy by Egyptians, crowds of whom in gala
dress were careering through the city all day yesterday waving flags and branches cut from the
street trees, shouting "Long Live Zaghlul", Long Live Egypt for the Egyptians," "Vive
l'independence," reported the Times. Zaghlul Pasha was regarded as a national hero by all
sections of Egyptian society who had the audacity to challenge British authority in Egypt. [4]
On April 19 Zaghlul Pasha and his followers arrived in Paris and called themselves the The
Egyptian National Deputation'. They demanded the "complete independence for Egypt" and
"immediate official recognition of Saad Zaglul and Nationalist leaders, as the representatives of
the Egyptian Nation". They were imbued with the Wilsonian concept of self-determination.
Unfortunately Zaghlul failed to get a hearing in Paris but "they devoted all their energies to
obtaining foreign support for their cause, and an emissary was despatched to America to canvass
opinion in the United States". Zaghlul was a determined individual seeking Egyptian
independence from Britain.[5]
6. The denial of self-determination

Self-determination was the driving force behind the Egyptian nationalists push for independence
in early -1919. On April 22, 1919 Robert Lansing, the US Secretary of State, who was attending
the Paris Conference addressed the following telegram to the American Agency in Cairo. It
stated "I have delivered today to Mr Balfour [British Foreign Secretary] following letter. In
answer to your inquiry the President has authorised me to inform you that he recognises the
British protectorate over Egypt which was announced by His Majesty's Government on
December 18, 1914. The President has no objection to this decision being made public as he
understands that it may help in the restoration of order and in the prevention of further bloodshed
in Egypt." [6] The Egyptian nationalists took US President Woodrow Wilson's concept of selfdetermination to heart and were furious when his note appeared in the Cairo press.
The Egyptian nationalists believed that Woodrow Wilson would have been sympathetic to their
case for self-determination. This very concept should have terminated the British Protectorate.
Such high hopes were dashed when the US President supported the British Protectorate which
angered the nationalists. Mahmoud Pasha, a member of the Egyptian
delegation in Paris, stated that Britain should have terminated the
protectorate after "the signing of the armistice." Egypt simply demanded
its independence based on Woodrow Wilson's fourteen points. The
Egyptian nationalists were determined to fight for the independence of
their country.[7]
After Zaghlul's release from detention, there were loud cheers for
America,
Woodrow
Wilson
and
France.
The Washington
Postcorrespondent, William T Ellis captured the Egyptian mood when he
stated that "President Wilson had been the Egyptian idol, their mahdi,
their messiah" but the publication of Wilson's note wasn't well received
by the nationalists. They lost faith in America and felt betrayed thinking that the US was no
different to Britain. Some Egyptians even thought that that it was a British trick or Britain
encouraged America to forestall Egyptian self-government. Egyptians also believed that its
delegation would succeed in convincing the peace conference of the merits of its case. In the
end, the Egyptian delegation failed to present its case in Paris.[8]
The US Diplomatic Agent, Hampson Gary dispatch to the Secretary of State stated that Wilson's
note had "shattered the Egyptian nationalist structure of hopes and aspirations overnight" and
was generally well-received by the local population including the Palace. Wilson's comments
assisted in isolating the nationalists from moderate Egyptian opinion thus giving the Sultan an
opportunity of breaking the political impasse that had paralysed the country. [9] In his dispatch
Gary attached editorials from three major Cairo newspapers regarding Wilson's note. Al
Watan argued that Wilson's note offered a middle course with the restoration of public life being
of paramount importance. It also was important to maintain the friendship of the foreign
residents who greatly contributed to Egypt's needs. This would assist Egypt to find her rightful
position.[10]
Another newspaper Le Bourse Egyptienne mentioned that the US had confidence in the British
Protectorate of Egypt. The US sympathisized with the Egyptian claim for self-government but
preferred it to be under the British Protectorate. Wilson's note was couched in terms that offered
the US the opportunity to safeguard its own interests in Egypt. [11] TheEgyptian Mail indicated
the similarity of ideals between the US and Great Britain and showing the "liberal policy and
governing traditions" which Britain exercised in Egypt. If the nationalists sat down and thought
rationally that British rule of the past 40 years had prepared and trained Egyptians to govern
themselves. On the other hand, the nationalists' incitement of violence did not assist their cause
in Egypt and reflected badly for them on the international stage.[12]

7. The Milner Mission

The British government dispatched a commission of inquiry in late 1919
led by Lord Milner to investigate the causes of the disturbances that had
taken place earlier in that year and to develop a "constitution which under
the Protectorate, will be best calculated to promote its peace and
prosperity, the progressive development of self-governing institutions and
the protection of foreign interests." Lord Milner, (Secretary of State for
Colonies and Chairman), headed the British delegation to Egypt which
also included Sir Rennell Rodd, General Sir John Maxwell, BrigadierGeneral Sir Owen Thomas MP, Sir Cecil JB Hurst (Foreign Office), AT
Loyd (Secretary) and EMB Ingram (Assistant Secretary and Private Secretary to the Chairman).
[13]
There was a vigorous campaign waged against the dispatch of the Milner mission to Egypt.
Zaghlul advocated "boycotting the mission" when a series of strikes and demonstrations gripped
the country. Wahba Pasha warned Cheetham "that a general strike in all classes of employment
must be expected, and that agitation is a serious one which Cabinet will be powerless to resist."
The Egyptian radicals wanted the Milner mission to return empty-handed back to Britain. There
were two important elements that guided their thinking. The three divergent political forces
Zaghlulists, Nationalists and Democrats were all working in unison and the establishment of
many labor syndicates since July 1919 was "a powerful weapon in the hands of Extremists." [14]
In January 1920, Zaghlul stated in Paris that he was prepared to discuss with Milner at anytime
"if the mission were able to declare that it had been authorised by the British Government to
negotiate with himself and his colleagues as the representative body of the nation." Britain was
prepared to receive Zaghlul as representing Egyptian opinion but not as an official representative
of Egypt. Milner returned to London in March to present his findings to the British government.
Through the intervention of Adly Pasha, Zaghlul came to London to meet Milner in June for
discussions regarding the protection of British interests and fulfilling Egyptian aspirations. Adly
Pasha and Hussein Pasha also attended these talks. The discussions were adjourned in the middle
of August so as to give both parties an opportunity to study all the issues raised. Zaghlul returned
to France for the break. [15]
On August 18, 1920 Milner presented a memorandum to the Egyptian delegation outlining the
abolition of the protectorate, Egyptian independence would be recognised, treaty of alliance
between the two nations and safeguarding Britain's special interest in Egypt. This document was
given to Adly Pasha "for communication to Zaghlul Pasha and his associates, four of whom were
designated to return to Egypt to place before their countrymen the terms of the settlement which
the mission was disposed to recommend."[16]The proposals appeared in the British press on
August 24 and in Egyptian newspapers several days later.[17] These four emissaries arrived in
Egypt in early September to place these proposals before their countrymen. They were widely
accepted though some opposition existed in the Association of Egyptians in Europe, some
princes of the Sultan's family and El Ahly newspaper.[18]
Discussions between Milner and the Egyptians resumed in London in early October with former
feeling optimistic that Anglo-Egyptian relations had come along way since the start of 1920. On
November 9, the final meeting between Milner and Zaghlul took place when the whole situation
was reexamined. Whilst many Egyptians supported the proposals as outlined in the August 18
memorandum, there were some points in the memorandum that the Egyptian delegates wanted to

alter. Several new conditions also were added which forced Milner to terminate the discussions.
The only prospect of resuming talks would have been between authorised representatives of the
British and Egyptian governments. Britain believed that progress had been made and publication
of Milner's report would help to calm the situation.
In Egypt, Zaghlul supporters convened a meeting at the Central Zaghlulist Committee in Cairo
on November 13 where 400 people attended. The gathering attended by "princes, professors,
clergy, ex-Ministers, members of the old Legislative Assembly, traders, farmers, magistrates,
engineers, lawyers, doctors, officers of the army, representatives of labour and civil servants"
represented a vast cross-section of Egyptian society. The meeting presided by Prince Yusuf
Kemal passed a resolution "assuring the delegation the support of the whole nation." [19]
In February 1921, Milner's report published as a parliamentary paper was generally well
received by major British newspaper such as the Daily Chronicle, Daily Telegraph, The
Timesand the Manchester Guardian. The two newspapers who criticised it were the Daily
Heraldand Daily Express where the latter described it as a perilous policy' which was full of
danger for the Empire. On the other hand, the former referred to it as a dishonest paper.'[20]
The Tewfik Nessim Cabinet resigned in March 1921 and Adly Pasha became Prime Minister.
Zaghlul was prepared to support Adly so long as he fulfilled his promise of ending the British
protectorate. Otherwise Zaghlul would undermine his government. Zaghlul returned to Egypt
and received popular ovation from his countrymen. In a speech delivered by Zaghlul in
Alexandria on April 4, the Wafd leader commented on the publication of the Milner report. He
declared the supposed Egyptian independence was really nothing more than a "veiled
protectorate." [21]
The British Government invited Zaghlul and official Egyptian delegates nominated by Sultan
Fuad to participate in discussions in London. In a record of conversation with a journalist of
the Egyptian Gazette on April 8, 1921 Zaghlul demanded that he lead the Egyptian delegation.
[22] He laid down ten demands which are reproduced in full below:1. That the delegation shall have complete control of Cabinet, and I am prepared to with Adly, if
he will be guided by me.
2. Milner Report shall not be accepted. It is only a veiled protectorate.
3. Martial law shall be repealed regardless of any legal obligations.
4. Retention of Capitulations, as their abolition only means transfer of all existing rights to
English.
5. That there shall be no Judicial Adviser; any necessary functions can be performed by
Proceurer General.
6. The powers of the Financial Adviser shall be curtailed.
7. That there shall be no British troops except east of Canal.
8. That scheme for reconstruction of Mixed Courts shall [be] opposed, as it interferes with the
rights of other Courts.
9. Release of Abdul Rahman Fahmy and his associates.

10. The people demand, and I must follow their wishes, that Soudan shall be beyond doubt
Egyptian territory.[23]
All these conditions amounted to Zaghlul leading the delegation and influencing decisions of the
Egyptian Cabinet led by Adly Pasha.
Adly Pasha was prepared to work with Zaghlul but didn't seem too confident about the final
outcome. Meanwhile Zaghlul and Adly's discussions regarding the formation of an official
delegation reached an impasse. Zaghlul wanted the presidency of the delegation something that
displeased Adly Pasha. The Egyptian Prime Minister expressed his views in an article that
appeared in Al Ahram. Some of the issues Adly raised were the abolition of the protectorate, the
composition of the official delegation and termination of censorship and martial law. The issue of
the presidency was something that Adly Pasha directly addressed to Zaghlul in which the Prime
Minister as head of government couldn't be in a subordinate position during negotiations with the
British. As Prime Minister it was his right to officially head the Egyptian delegation. Adly
continued " he did not claim, as did Zaghlul, that president, whoever he might be, should have
the right to control course of negotiations, and to continue them or break them off as he thought
fit. That right belonged to delegation as a whole. If Zaghlul demanded the presidency in order to
have that right, there should be no reason why he should not go alone."[24]
Zaghlul responded in an unfavorable manner on April 25 denouncing Adly
Pasha by stating that his entire idea for the presidency was done out of
patriotic duty and he and his colleagues possessed the experience to
conduct the negotiations. Such comments were insulting and also
undermined the authority of the Adly cabinet. After this exchange, Adly
began to exercise his leadership.[25]
Adly Pasha headed the Egyptian delegation in its deliberations with the
British government which dragged on for several months. On November
11, 1921 the British Foreign Secretary Lord Curzon presented a draft treaty
to Adly Pasha which contained the following clauses:- termination of protectorate, foreign
relations, military dispositions, employment of foreign officers, financial and Judicial
administration, Sudan, tribute loans, retirement and compensation of officials and protection of
minorities. The Egyptians rejected the draft treaty which they considered incompatible with their
future status as an independent nation. Some of their objections included that previous
discussions involved the stationing of British troops in the Canal Zone in order to protect
imperial communications. Now Britain extended its right to station its troops on any part of
Egyptian territory which "destroys every idea of independence and suppresses even internal
sovereignty." The Egyptian Foreign Minister would be required to maintain very close links with
the British High Commissioner and that "all political agreements" would require the consent of
Great Britain.[26]The Anglo-Egyptian draft treaty basically amounted to the continuation of the
British protectorate in another guise.
On December 3, 1921, the British High Commissioner in Egypt, Lord Allenby delivered a note
to Sultan Fuad expressing Britain's disappointment with Adly Pasha's rejection. Allenby
reminded Fuad that Egypt owed its economic prosperity and political development to Britain
who had saved it from administrative and financial chaos in the late 19 th century. Egypt was of
vital importance in Britain's imperial communications with its Indian empire and dominions in
Australia and New Zealand. The positioning of British troops on Egyptian soil could not be
relinquished or reduced. Extreme nationalist leaders did not have the best intentions for Egypt at
heart and "the cult of a fanatical and purely disruptive type of nationalism" would not be
tolerated. Whilst Allenby's note does not mention the word force in his note, however it is

implied in that the British would not have hesitated to use force, if its strategic interests in Egypt
were threatened.[27]
Adly Pasha resigned as Prime Minister and his successor Sarwat Pasha was considered a
moderate and trustworthy by the British. Many Egyptians disliked the proposed Anglo-Egyptian
treaty as tantamount to a continuation of the British protectorate. Allenby believed that the
termination of the protectorate and granting Egypt her independence would greatly assist in
defusing an unstable political situation. The British had to contend with Zaghlul who wanted
complete independence for his country. A proposed meeting organised by Zaghlul in Cairo was
banned by Allenby on security grounds. Allenby was prepared to deport him to an overseas
British possession should he violate the ban.
Zaghlul protested against this decision and considered this as the first instalment of a new
British policy designed to stifle Egyptian opposition to the proposed draft treaty. Under martial
law regulations operating in Egypt at that time, Allenby prohibited Zaghlul from "all further
participation...in politics. His press is also being warned against further agitation." Even his
prominent colleagues Atif Barakat Bey, Fathalla Barakat Pasha, Mustafa-el-Nahas Bey, Sinnot
Hanna Bey, Amin Ezz-el-Arab Effendi, Gaafar Fakhry Bey and William Makram Obeid Effendi
"were ordered to their homes under police supervision, and to refrain from political
activities."[28] The deportation of Zaghlul and his followers will be explained in greater detail
below.
In February 1922, Britain recognised Egypt as a sovereign nation, terminated the protectorate
and that martial law would be rescinded but retained certain reserved powers. These reserved
powers included: securing and protecting imperial communications in Egypt, defending Egypt
from foreign aggression, protecting foreign interests and minorities and the Sudan. The Colonial
Secretary informed the British Dominions of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa
regarding the termination of the protectorate of Egypt. [29]
In early March, Sarwat Pasha became Prime Minister which included the following cabinet
appointments in Ismail Sidky Pasha , Minister of Finance, Ibrahim Fathi Pasha , Minister of War,
Gafar Ali , (Minister of Wakfs), Mustafa Maher Pasha, (Minister of Education), Mohamed
Choukri Pasha, (Minister of Agriculture), Hussein Wassef Pasha, (Minister of Public Works) and
Wassef Semeika Bey , (Minister of Communications). Sarwat's political program involved the
establishment of a democratic constitution, ministerial responsibility, parliamentary control and
terminating martial law. Fuad's title changed from Sultan to King with Egypt becoming a
constitutional monarchy. It should be noted that Sarwat resigned as Prime Minister in November
1922 as his working relationship with King Fuad was never an easy one. His draft constitution
and Egyptian representation at the Lausanne conference caused problems for him.[30]
8. The deportation of Zaghlul December 1921- March 1923
The British considered Zaghlul a dangerous opponent who was in a position to whip up
extreme nationalist fervor against them. Allenby thought the deportation of the Wafd leader and
his associates would defuse a rather dangerous political situation. The Colonial Office had "no
objections [in Allenby] sending Zaghlul and his principal associates by first available ship to
Ceylon" where the British Governor was duly informed.[31]
There were strong objections from the Indian government and Ceylon Governor that Zaghlul's
deportation to Ceylon might allow him to communicate with Indian extremists. Zaghlul and his
associates Atif Barakat Bey, Fathalla Barakat Pasha, Mustafa-el-Nahas Bey, Sinnot Hanna Bey
and William Makram Obeid Effendi arrived in Aden on January 5, 1922 until a ship transferred

them to the Seychelles in the Indian Ocean. On March 7, HMS Clematis sailed with Zaghlul and
Nanas for the Seychelles with the others remaining behind in Aden. Zaghlul thought "that the
climate of the Seychelles could be dangerous for his health."[32]
Al-Ahram took the opportunity to inform its readers of the location of the Seychelles and the
British deportation was based that the islands "are indubitably blessed with a salubrious climate,
which is why the British have selected it as the place for their soldiers in South Africa to
recuperate should they fall ill." The British constructed "many large and luxurious buildings"
during the First World War. After his arrival, Zaghlul wrote a letter to his friends giving a
different picture of the island paradise. He stated "the terrain is tortuous, the houses are small,
clustered in a disorganised jumble lacking all imaginable conveniences for comfort. The range of
food is limited. Sheep are non-existent and cattle are few. Poultry abounds and fish even more
so. Fruit is sparse and vegetables sparser. There is only one doctor on the island, a surgeon by
profession but he serves as a general practitioner as well. There is only one licensed pharmacy,
although it is the doctor who generally prepares the medications. Certain essential
pharmaceutical staples, such as aspirin are virtually impossible to find."[33]
Such information would have raised concerns about the state of Zaghlul's health with his friends
in Egypt.
Zaghlul left the Seychelles on August 18th passed through the Suez Canal on August
28th -29th and finally arrived in Gibraltar on September 3, 1922 where the British authorities
provided a residence for him. His health had shown some improvement with his transfer to
Gibraltar. The British High Commissioner, Lord Allenby informed Madame Zaghlul that she was
free to visit her husband in Gibraltar without any restrictions placed in her way. Zaghlulists
worked for his release and other five deportees for their return to Egypt. Many Egyptians sent
telegrams to Zaghlul "enquiring as to his health and praying for his return." Finally Madame
Zaghlul sailed from Port Said on October 9 to be with her husband in Gibraltar.[34]
After settling into his new surroundings in Gibraltar, Zaghlul petitioned the Governor of
the colony against his detention for which he considered illegal, since no charges filed had been
against him. His case was heard in London by the judicial committee of the Privy Council in late
January 1923 with Mr Upjohn and James Wylie representing the petitioner. On January 25 AlAhram commented that "it is difficult for an Egyptian from a fully sovereign and independent
nation to comprehend how its most important nationalist leader can be detained by a foreign
authority which plays no part in his nation's system of government and has no business being
there." Even British newspapers such as New Statesman, Glasgow Heraldand Daily
News supported the release of Zaghlul on grounds that it would help to calm the tense political
situation existing in Egypt. [35]
On March 29, 1923, a letter signed by 97 British MPs appeared in the Times newspaper
calling upon the government to change its policy towards Egypt. The signatories were critical of
Lord Allenby for having "no new policy" and that his administration caused too many problems.
They urged the British government to adopt a new policy, one that was unpopular whereas the
other improved Britain's image in Egypt. The former measure involved revoking "the declaration
of independence approved last year by the vote of House of Commons; to make Egypt a part of
the British Empire; to suppress by military force any resistance; and to hold the Egyptian people
in subjection until such time as they acquiesce in the position sufficiently to have some measure
of self-measure." The MPs would oppose such a policy showing Britain not honoring its
promises. On the other hand, a positive plan of action would be the return of Zaghlul to Egypt. If
Zaghlul died in exile, then the Egyptian people would blame Britain for his death.[36]

The American Consul in Cairo, D Morton Howell had an interview with Allenby
regarding Zaghlul and Egyptian Prime Minister, Yehia Ibrahim Pasha. On the subject of Zaghlul,
Allenby stated that the Wafd leader had been released because of his medical condition than on
political grounds. "So long as he held control here in Egypt; Zaghlul would not be permitted to
return to Egypt", Allenby said. Allenby had confidence in Yehia to proclaim the constitution and
to pass the Act of Indemnity which also would terminate martial law. By the end of March 1923,
Zaghlul was given an unconditional release from detention and returned to Egypt in September
where he received a hero's welcome in Alexandria and Cairo. His speeches reported in
the Egyptian Gazette, Egyptian Mail and Watan were well received by the Egyptian public.[37]

REFERENCES
[1] BDFA Series G Vol.1., pp.86-7& 152-3. Great Britain, Command Paper, Cmd1131, Report of
the Special Mission to Egypt, Egypt no.1, 1921, HMSO, London, pp.13-4; Peace leaders
rest...Egyptian delegates in Paris Demand National Independence', Washington Post, March 24,
1919, p.1; British put down revolt in Egypt by Nationalists. Deportations of Three leaders
announced in Parliament by the Government', New York Times, March 19, 1919, p.1; Valentine
Chirol, The Egyptian Question, Journal of the British Institute of International Affairs, Vol.1,
no.2, (March, 1922), pp.61-2
[2] BDFA Series G Vol.1, pp.211-4 &218; Cmd1131, Report of the Special Mission to Egypt,
Egypt no.1, 1921 p.14 ; David Fromkin, A peace to end all peace, Penguin Books, London,1989,
pp.418-20; More refugees reach Cairo', The Times, April 4, 1919, p.11; British put down revolt
in Egypt by Nationalists. Deportations of Three leaders announced in Parliament by the
Government', New York Times, March 19, 1919, p.1; Peers and interned aliens', The Times,
March 25, 1919, p.16; Marius Deeb, The socioeconomic role of the local Foreign minorities in
modern Egypt, 1805-1961, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol.9, no.1 (Jan 1978),
pp.9-11; Zachary Lockman, British policy towards Egyptian labor activism, 18821936, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol.20, no.3 , (Aug., 1988), p.272; Joel
Beinin, Formation of the Egyptian working class, MERIP Reports, no.94, (Feb., 1981), pp.19-20
[3]BDFA Series G Vol.1, pp.214-5 ; L.Fromkin, op cit., p. 420; Aims of Egypt's independent
Party', Christian Science Monitor, May 1, 1919, p.9; Gen.Allenby intervenes. Rising in hand.
Military measures effective', The Times, April 4, 1919, p.11; Frees Egyptian Leaders. Gen
Allenby will permit 4 chief agitators to return', Washington Post, April 11, 1919, p.1; Release of
Zaghlul Pasha', The Times, April 11, 1919, p.12
[4]BDFA Series G Vol.1, p.220; Fromkin, op cit., p.420; Wild Scenes at Cairo...Nationalists sail
for Europe', The Times, April 14, 1919, p.11;
[5]Cmd1131, Report of the Special Mission to Egypt, Egypt no.1, 1921,p.15 ; Lord Curzon on
Egyptian unrest', Christian Science Monitor, July 9, 1919, p.7; For a discussion on the concept of
self-determination see Allen Lynch, Woodrow Wilson and the principle of national selfdetermination', Review of International Studies, 28 (2002), pp.419-36
[6] Egypt internal 883.00/119 Lansing (American Mission) to State Department, April 22, 1919
[7] Egypt internal 883.00/151; Tells why Egypt wants freedom', Chicago Daily Tribune, July
23, 1919, p.8

[8] The text of the Woodrow Wilson's note is in The Department of State, Papers relating to the
Foreign relations of the United States 1919 Vol,.2, United States Government Printing Office,
Washington DC, 1934, p.204; This note also was published in the New York Times , April 26,
1919, p.4 &
Washington Post, June, 25, &26 1919, pp.4 &5
[9] Egypt internal 883.00/203 Hampson Gary , American Diplomatic Agency and ConsularGeneral, Cairo Egypt to Secretary of State , Washington , April 26, 1919
[10] Egypt internal 883.00/203 including Al Watan editorial, April 1919
[11] Egypt internal 883.00/203 including Le Bourse Egyptienne editorial, April 24,1919
[12] Egypt internal 883.00/203 including The Egyptian Mail editorial, April 24, 1919
[13] Cmd1131, Report of the Special Mission to Egypt, Egypt no.1, 1921
[14] BDFA Series G Vol.1,pp.330-1; Egypt internal 883.00/215 enclosures Strikes based on
conditions non-economic', Egyptian Mail, November 1, 1919; Egypt's pressing need',Egyptian
Gazette, November 4, 1919; Renewed disorder in Egypt' & Anti-Milner campaign',The Times,
October 30, 1919, p.11; Milner Mission Boycott. Nationalist Manifesto', The Times, December
15, 1919, p.13
[15] BDFA Series G Vol.2 December 1919-December 1921,pp.101 &222
[16] BDFA Series G Vol.2 December 1919-December 1921,p.101; Cmd1131, Report of the
Special Mission to Egypt, Egypt no.1, 1921,pp.24-6
[17] BDFA Series G Vol.2 December 1919-December 1921, p.102; New era for Egypt. Points of
Agreement discussed. Future of Sudan', The Times, August 24, 1920, p.10; An independent
Egypt. Terms of the new Agreement. Garrison on the Suez. Security for British Interests',
Manchester Guardian, August 24, 1920, p.7
[18] BDFA Series G Vol.2 December 1919-December 1921,p.103
[19] BDFA Series G Vol.2 December 1919-December 1921, pp.103-4; Zaghlul Pasha's
Reservations. Delegates leaving London. Effect on moderate opinion', The Times, November 11,
1920, p.13
[20] Egypt internal , 883.00/336 John W.Davis, American Consulate General, London to
Secretary of State, March 2, 1921 with enclosures from British newspapers - Daily
Chronicle,Daily Telegraph, Daily Express, Daily Herald and The Times ; Egypt's future. Milner
Report parts', The Times, February 19, 1921, p.10; Egypt for the Egyptians. The Milner Plan for
a lasting settlement...', Manchester Guardian, February 19, 1921, p.9
[21] BDFA Series G Vol.2 December 1919-December 1921,p.365
[22] Ibid., p.365
[23] BDFA Series G Vol.2 December 1919-December 1921, p.366; Hopeful outlook in Egypt.
Zaghlul's views. Concessions by both parties', The Times, April 15, 1921, p.9

[24] BDFA Series G Vol.2 December 1919-December 1921,pp.367 &391-2

[25]BDFA Series G Vol.2 December 1919-December 1921, p.392; New crisis in Egypt.
Zaghlul's move. Cabinet in danger', The Times, April 27, 1921, p.11
[26] Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, Cmd1555, Papers respecting negotiations with the
Egyptian delegation, Egypt no.4, 1921, pp.1-6 & 8-10; British relations with Egypt. A
breakdown. Retention of Garrisons. Native objection to Control' &Future British policy in
Egypt. Sequel in negotiation. Official declaration. The delegations reply to the treaty
offer', Manchester Guardian, November 21, &December 5, 1921, pp.7 &8
[27] Cmd1555, Papers respecting negotiations with the Egyptian delegation, Egypt no.4,
1921,pp.10-14; Lord Allenby's letter. Martial law to go after Indemnity Act', Manchester
Guardian, December 5, 1921, p.8
[28] Great Britain, Parliamentary Paper, Cmd1592, Papers respecting negotiations with the
Egyptian delegation, Egypt no.1, 1922(in continuation of Cmd1555) HMSO, London, 1922,
pp.7-14; Egypt Internal 883.00/387 American Diplomatic Agency and Consulate-General, Cairo,
to Secretary of State, Washington, December 31, 1921 with enclosures of newspaper articles:
Egypt's political crisis...Zaghloul's attempt to stir up trouble', Egyptian Gazette, December 22,
1921; Egypt's political crisis. Military authorities' precautionary action. Rustification of
Zaghloul and his partisans..', Egyptian Gazette, December 23, 1921
[29] Egyptian internal 883.00/410 American Diplomatic Agency and Consulate-General, Cairo
to Secretary of State, March 6, 1922 including Official Egyptian Journal , February 28,1922
containing the official British declaration of Egyptian independence; Cmd1592,Papers
respecting negotiations with the Egyptian delegation, Egypt no.1, 1922, pp.31-2
[30] Egyptian internal 883.00/410 American Diplomatic Agency and Consulate-General, Cairo
to Secretary of State, March 6, 1922; BDFA Series G Vol.8 December 1925-May 1927,pp.42-3
[31] BDFA Series G Vol.3 May 1921-December 1921,pp.397-8
[32] BDFA Series G Vol.4 December 1921-December 1922, pp.14-5; Egypt internal883.00/393
American Consulate, Aden, Arabia to Secretary of State, Washington, January 10,1922;
883.00/411 American Consulate, Aden, Arabia to Secretary of State, Washington, March 7,1922;
Clamour for Idol's return', Al Ahram Weekly, 2-8 March 2000, issue no.471
inhttp://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2000/471/chrncls.htm (accessed on September 12, 2007). This
article was written by Dr Yunan Labib Rizk, the head of Al-Ahram history studies centre.
[33] Clamour for Idol's return', Al Ahram Weekly, 2-8 March 2000, issue no.471
inhttp://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2000/471/chrncls.htm
[34] BDFA Series G Vol.4 December 1921-December 1922, pp.306-8, 314 &331
[35] Judicial Committee of the Privy Council', The Times, January 24, 1923, p.5; Clamour for
Idol's
return',
Al
Ahram
Weekly,
2-8
March
2000,
issue
no.471
inhttp://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2000/471/chrncls.htm
[36] British policy in Egypt. M.P.S' Call to the Government. The failure of nominal
independence', The Times, March 29, 1923, p,.13

[37] Egypt internal 883.00/460 J Morton Howell, Legation of the United States of America,
Cairo to Secretary of State, Washington , April 18, 1923; 883.00/469 enclosing clippings from
the Egyptian Gazette, Egyptian Mail and Watan , September 18-21, 1923; Clamour for Idol's
return',
Al
Ahram
Weekly,
2-8
March
2000,
issue
no.471
inhttp://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2000/471/chrncls.htm
In January 1924 Zaghlul and his Wafd Party won the election under the new constitution gaining
a majority both in the Chamber of Deputies and Senate. He accepted King Fuad's invitation to
form a new ministry. An article published in The Times on January 29 mentions the names of
Zaghlul's cabinet and his nationalist program. In his acceptance letter addressed to the King
which is reproduced in full below. Zaghlul states:

Saad Zaghlul Pasha: "Father of Egyptians"

PART 3
By Stavros T. Stavridis, the author of 'The Greek-Turkish War 1919-23'
In January 1924 Zaghlul and his Wafd Party won the election under the new constitution gaining
a majority both in the Chamber of Deputies and Senate. He accepted King Fuad's invitation to
form a new ministry. An article published in The Times on January 29 mentions the names of
Zaghlul's cabinet and his nationalist program. In his acceptance letter addressed to the King
which is reproduced in full below. Zaghlul states:
The majority gained in the elections and the mandate given me by the nation makes it my duty
not to refuse responsibility for the government. Therefore I agree to form a Ministry provided
this acceptance does not imply recognition of any situation against which the Wafd has
protested. The elections have clearly shown the nation's unanimity and attachment to the
principles of the Wafd and the necessity for the country's enjoying its rights of real independence
in Egypt and Sudan, with due respect to all foreign rights not conflicting with that
independence.The nation has shown a strong desire for the pardoning of political prisoners,
likewise its rejection of the many agreements and laws recently promulgated which restricted the
rights of the country and the liberty of its people, and also its dissatisfaction with the state of the
country's administration and finances. It will be my duty of the new Ministry to find means to
realize the people's aspirations, remove the causes of grievances, and fix the blame on those
responsible. This task cannot be accomplished except by Parliament, and the Ministry will do all
that is possible to hasten Parliament's assembling. For a long time Government has been
regarded by the nation as an enemy, not its mandatory, and has always been mistrusted. Now the
duty of the new Ministry is to remove that mistrust and replace it by confidence in the
Government.[1]

The Wafdist leader had received a mandate from the electorate to

implement his political program and to ensure Sudan's incorporation into
Egypt. Zaghlul determined to use parliament as the forum where electors
could feel confident that their wishes and expectations were being
fulfilled.

The American Consul Howell believed Zaghlul was a strong leader who possessed the
experience and patriotism to improve his country's position, especially in resolving outstanding
issues with Britain. The Egyptian Mail of February 22 published an article titled Egypt and
Britain' which captured the confident mood for Egypt's future under Zaghlul's leadership.
However the future of Sudan was considered the key issue by the Egyptian Mail.[2]
On March 15, King Fuad opened the new parliament with Zaghlul receiving a warm ovation
from his parliamentary colleagues after delivering his opening speech. The new British Labor
Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald sent a congratulatory telegram to Zaghlul hoping the two
nations would work closely in resolving their outstanding issues.[3]
In late April, Ramsay MacDonald issued an invitation to Zaghlul to come to London to discuss
their unresolved issues. These were "(a) the security of the communications of the British Empire
in Egypt; (b) the defense of Egypt against all foreign aggression or interference, direct or
indirect; (c) the protection pf foreign interests in Egypt and protection of minorities "; (d) the
Sudan." [4]
Zaghlul insisted that Sudan be incorporated into Egypt which obviously annoyed the British.
The Times newspaper printed the following headlines Egypt and the Sudan. Zaghlul Pasha's
Plans', Zaghlul and the Sudan. "Complete evacuation by Great Britain", Zaghlul Pasha and the
Sudan. "Rights of Egypt", and "Egypt and the Sudan. Widespread Depression', on June 10, 24,
25 and 28 respectively regarding Sudan. In its editorial of June 27, the Times was very critical of
Zaghlul's position over Sudan and that he "may as well abandon his mission" to London. Even
Lord Parmoor (a British Labor Peer), was quoted as saying in the House of Lords that Britain
had no intention of abandoning Sudan.[5]
When the British statement was received in Cairo, Zaghlul and his followers could not
believe the attitude adopted by the Labor Party. Zaghlul thought that Labor would have shown
greater sympathy towards Egyptian aspirations over Sudan than the conservatives. Al Siassa,
an anti-Zaghlulist newspaper, argued that Zaghlul's "lack of stability is at the bottom responsible
for the present development, and claims that he must not be allowed to try to evade responsibility
by abandoning office." He was urged to find a solution to this difficult issue. In the meantime, a
ministerial crisis ensued over Sudan raising the possibility of Zaghlul's resignation. Zaghlul told
the Chamber of Deputies that he would not cede Sudan under any circumstance and his
declaration had been received with great enthusiasm by the opposition. They urged him to
continue with the policy that would result in Egyptian independence and that he should continue
to lead the government. King Fuad refused to accept Zaghlul's resignation as premier minister.[6]
A failed assassination attempt on July 13 shook Zaghlul who went to Europe for recuperation.
Abdel Latif Khalik, an Egyptian medical student, "who had returned from Germany on July 2 nd,
fired a revolver at Zaghloul when the latter was about to board the train." Zaghlul received a
superficial wound, spent a few days in hospital before returning home. The Egyptian police
arrested a large number of individuals suspected of being involved in the failed assassination. It
was a relief for many Egyptians that the Prime Minister and national hero had escaped death.
Zaghlul was the only Egyptian leader who could stand up to the British. His meeting with
MacDonald in London would show whether he had the mettle to accomplish his stated goals of
Egyptian independence and Sudan's integration. [7]
The Macdonald- Zaghlul negotiations took place in London during October 1924 to
settle outstanding issues. There was a hope in the Egyptian and British camps that some
compromise would be reached between two leaders. Such expectations, however, did not
materialise as Zaghlul demanded the withdrawal of all British troops and British influence from

Egypt something which MacDonald found unacceptable. MacDonald reminded Zaghlul of the
importance the Suez Canal figured in British imperial communications in Egypt and that the
stationing of British troops in no way impinged upon Egyptian independence.
Sudan also was one of Zaghlul's demands but MacDonald took the opportunity to remind him of
statements that he made in the Egyptian Parliament earlier regarding this territory and the
Egyptian army being commanded by a foreign officer. Such official statements would place "Sir
Lee Stack, as Sirdar but all British officers attached to the Egyptian army, in a difficult position."
Britain had undertaken the responsibility to provide good governance, sound financial
management, public order and security for the Sudanese and that Egypt would receive "her share
of the Nile water and the satisfaction of any financial claims which she may have against the
Sudan Government." MacDonald outlined his differences with Zaghlul in a memorandum to
Lord Allenby in Cairo.[8]
The talks finally were abandoned because Zaghlul's case was regarded as an ultimatum by
Britain and his attitude did not assist the Egyptian cause. Whilst Zaghlul was a proud and
respected nationalist leader, nonetheless, his rigidity, indecisiveness and refusal to compromise
wrecked the discussions with MacDonald.

10. Zaghlul's return to Egypt and Sir Lee Stack's assassination, November 1924
Zaghlul returned home at the end of October empty-handed to a disappointed Egyptian public
and his reputation began to decline as Egyptians started to realise that his administration had not
improved things. On November 19, the assassination of the Governor General of Sudan and
Sirdar of the Egyptian army, Sir Lee Stack was a fatal blow for Zaghlul. The Sirdar died two
days later in hospital. Zaghlul was incensed over this tragic episode when he stated "I believe
that those who committed this appalling evil aimed only to disrupt the peace and security of this
country." He encouraged his fellow citizens to come forward with any relevant information that
might assist the authorities to apprehend the assailants. Over the coming months a number of
individuals were arrested and tried for this crime.[9]
Lord Allenby issued an ultimatum to Zaghlul that included "(a) Apology. (b) Pursuit and condign
punishment of criminals. (c) 500,000 fine. (e)The withdrawal of Egyptian army from Sudan. (f)
Abandonment of 300,000 feddan limit in Gezira. (g) Agreement with His Majesty's Government
on certain points touching foreign interests." Zaghlul rejected the British demand for the
immediate withdrawal of Egyptian troops and officers from Sudan. British forces occupied the
Alexandria Customs House in response to Zaghlul's non-acceptance of the British Government's
demand "on certain points touching foreign interests."
On November 24, Ghali Pasha declared the government's official response to Allenby's
ultimatum when it issued an apology, denied responsibility for Stack's assassination, promised to
pay 500,000, offered to suppress demonstrations and that investigations into the crime were
already yielding good results. Later in that day, Zaghlul resigned paving the way for Ziwar Pasha
to become Egypt's next Prime Minister who promised "to restore good relations with Great
Britain." The new Egyptian Government accepted "the British conditions in regard to the
position of foreigners and the Royal Marines are being withdrawn from the Customs House at
Alexandria." [10]
King Fuad signed an edict that dissolved Parliament in December 1924 paving the way for new
elections to be staged on February 24, 1925. The Times described Ziwar as a sincere individual

who it appears had support among educated Egyptians and foreign communities who believed he
had "only done his duty in advising King Fuad to dissolve Parliament and appeal to the
electorate."[11]
With the election campaign underway, Zaghlul took a swipe at Ziwar by
claiming "that the Cabinet has flouted the Constitution by dissolving
Parliament and by its method of treating the new electoral law." In the
beginning the Wafd party thought of boycotting the elections but decided
against it in order to protect the constitution. Zaghlul urged his supporters
"let the Ministry know that, inspite of all its efforts, you know your duty.
Egypt will be in great danger if traitors are elected."[12] It would appear
Zaghlul distrusted Ziwar's political motives and the Wafd was the only party
that represented the aspirations of ordinary Egyptians. The forthcoming
elections would give Zaghlul the opportunity to test his party's strength
against his opponents.
The primary elections were held February 24, 1925 and a second one took place in March with
both sides claiming victory. The three anti-Zaghlulist parties - Constitutional Liberals, Ittihad and
Independents formed the new Cabinet with Ziwar Pasha accepting King Fuad's offer to become
Prime Minister. This election saw a complete reversal in the fortunes of the Wafd who lost 80
seats from 1924 indicating a widespread anti-Zaghlul sentiment in many parts of Egypt. There
were some defections from the Wafd helping the opposition parties win office. On March
23, King Fuad opened the new parliament and in a secret vote Zaghlul easily defeated Sarwat
for the presidency of the Chamber by forty votes.[13]

11. Zaghlul's last political endeavor

In early December 1925, a new electoral law was proclaimed revising the qualifications
for voters. These included:
All males over 30 years of age have the vote, but those between 25 and 30 only have a vote if
they pay land tax of E1 annually; or house tax of E12 annually; or rent cultivable land paying
E2 annually in tax; or hold a matriculation certificate.
Primary electors are grouped in 20's, instead of 30's as formerly for choosing secondary electors,
while further groups in the case of senatorial elections each consist of five secondary electors for
the Lower Chamber.
Deputies must be 30 years of age and literate, and must be resident in the constituency for which
they stand.
There is no plural voting.[14]
It is interesting to note that all males over 30 years of age could vote without restriction whereas
those between 25-30 years faced property or educational qualifications in order to vote. Women
were excluded from voting.
After their 1925 electoral success, squabbles developed between Liberals and Ittihadists
with the former withdrawing and forming an "unnatural alliance with the Wafd, to which the

Nationalists also joined themselves." This situation made it difficult for Ziwar Pasha to continue
as Prime Minister which effectively assured a Wafdist electoral victory. For the first time,
Egyptians would be participating in a "system of direct voting and universal suffrage " thus
eliminating " the two degree system in which groups of 30 electors chose each an elector
delegate and these electors delegate of each constituency in turn elected a Deputy, the voting for
latter being consequently on a relatively restricted scale and area." Ziwar Pasha was very brave
to implement such an important electoral reform despite opposition within his own political
ranks.[15]
Against the backdrop of a Wafd electoral victory, a number of Egyptians-Ahmed Maher Pasha,
Addel Halim Bey, Mahmoud Nekrashi Effendi, Dr.Hassan Kamel Shishini,Mahmoud Osman
Mustafa Effendi, El Hag Ahmed Gadollah and Mohamed Fahmy Aly Effendi were acquitted of
the murders and attempted murders of British soldiers and officials and anti-Zaghlulists. The first
four were charged for their involvement "in the murders of Aldred Brown (February 1922),
Bimbashi Cave (May 1922), Hasan Abdel Razek Pashas and Ismail Zuhdi Bey (November 1922)
and in the attempted murders of Colonel A.F.M Piggott and T.W.Brown (August 1922)." El Hag
Ahmed Gadollah and Mohamed Fahmy Aly Effendi were accused of the slaying of Dr Newby
Robson with former being sentenced to death. [16]
On May 30, 1926 Zaghlul's meeting with the new British High Commissioner, Lord Lloyd was
arranged by Dr Nimr, editor of Al Mokottam, who acted as an intermediary. The High
Commissioner demanded a number of conditions from Zaghlul in order to establish his ministry.
These included: "(1) To accept the Declaration of February 28, 1922; (2) That no reference was
to be made in the Parliament to the Sudan Question or to the Jarabub settlement which would be
adverse to the settlement agreed by the representatives of the two Governments, Egyptian and
Italian; (3) that he become personally and officially responsible for the maintenance of good
order and proper respect to the King." Zaghlul rejected the first two demands and stated that he
could not be held responsible for the action of others. Originally Zaghlul stated that he would not
form a cabinet but suddenly changed his mind. The about-face possibly came about through
"some articles in the Unionist Press ...taunting him" and "the acquittal of Maher Pasha and
Nekrashi in the political murder trial." Even his meeting with Lord Lloyd also would have made
him rethink his attitude towards the premiership, as he disliked being dictated too.[17]
Judge JF Kershaw, the President of the Assize Court, handed his resignation to the Minister of
Justice over the acquittal of those tried in the political murder trial. He dissented in the final
verdict where the evidence clearly showed a "grave miscarriage of justice" had been carried out.
The Times correspondent in Cairo believed that Kershaw's decision was "courageous and selfsacrificing gesture [that] will do more than anything else to convince Egyptians of the injustice
of the acquittal." An American Consular report from Alexandria mentioned that some British
Judges of the Mixed Courts "themselves feel that Judge Kershaw made a mistake" in resigning
his position. On the other hand, the Egyptian press was damning over Kershaw's resignation.
The Ittihad raised the question of "how many judges would be left on the Egyptian bench, if all
who disagreed with their colleagues resigned." Kawkab-esh-Shark andBalagh censured
"Kershaw of complicity with the Residency in a plot to condemn certain individuals, regardless
of proof."[18]
Britain delivered a note to the Egyptian government refusing to accept the innocence of the four
acquitted and "reserves full liberty to take such steps as the future may show to be necessary to
fulfil its obligation to ensure the safety of foreigners in Egypt." [19]
On June 7, 1926 Ziwar Pasha tendered his resignation to King Fuad feeling satisfied that his
introduction of universal suffrage and improvement in Anglo-Egyptian relations were his

contribution to Egyptian political life. Adly Pasha was invited by the King to form the next
Cabinet which had the support of the Zaghlul and the Parliament. The new Cabinet included
three Liberals-Adly, Sarwat and Mahmoud Pashas, Abul Seud was an independent with
remainder being Wafdists. On June 10, the King opened the new parliament with his speech from
the throne outlining the political agenda of the new Cabinet. It was important "to strengthen the
parliamentary regime and compel everyone to respect the constitution." Furthermore the
government had the responsibility to improve the nation's finances and ensure a better utilisation
of its resources. In the international arena, Egypt would be seeking to further improve its
relations with Britain and would apply to become a member of the League of Nations. Sudan
was considered a part of Egypt. Zaghlul was elected President of the Chamber which allowed
him to remain influential over the Wafd Party.[20]
Adly Pasha resigned as Prime Minister on April18, 1927 due to the "Chamber's refusal
of a vote of thanks" which seemed trivial to say the least. This decision took the Chamber by
complete surprise and Sarwat Pasha was destined to become the next Prime Minister. Nevile
Henderson, the Acting British High Commissioner in Cairo, outlined five features that emerged
from the sitting of the third Egyptian parliament in a dispatch to the British Foreign Secretary Sir
Austen Chamberlain. His dispatch described Zaghlul Pasha completely dominating the Chamber,
no effective opposition existed in the Chamber, Anglo-Egyptian issues were simply ignored,
hostility was shown towards the King and "the tendency of the Chamber to encroach upon the
executive functions of the government."[21]
The new Prime Minister faced a Cabinet crisis over his refusal to reinstate the Omda (Mayor) of
Deirut when fifteen Senators and Deputies had originally approached him to overturn Adly
Pasha's decision. In fact, Sarwat agreed with his predecessor's decision and considered the action
of the delegation as usurping the executive authority of the government. Sarwat called a meeting
of the Cabinet and told them that he contemplated resigning as Prime Minister. In the meantime,
Sarwat communicated with the Palace and Zaghlul to inform them of his intended decision.
Zaghlul implored Sarwat to postpone his decision until he arrived in Cairo. On arriving in Cairo
from his country house, Zaghlul had a meeting with Sarwat and told the latter that he would
support him in the Chamber. Zaghlul's action allowed Sarwat to withdraw his threat of
resignation and thus ending the Cabinet crisis. [22]

12. The death of Zaghlul, August 23, 1927

On the evening of August 23, 1927 Zaghlul died of unknown causes at the House of the
Nation' in Cairo having recuperated from complications in the right lung following his recent
illness. From his bedside with his wife in attendance and four doctors, he told her "I am
finished." He then lapsed into a coma from which he never recovered. His nephew Fathalla
Barakat Pasha officially informed the Chief of the King's Cabinet, Mohamed Nessim Pasha who
immediately was driven to the House of the Nation.' There was a steady stream of visitors to
pay their respects to Madame Zaghlul.[23]
Before Zaghlul was buried, the Minister of War Gafar Wali Pasha presented the following brief
address:
Saad is dead: what a misfortune! The lofty principles which he spent his life in spreading
in this country have taken root in this good nation. The great man who had departed to-day
departs only in body; his soul remains alive in his principles and teachings which we keep in our
hearts. As individuals, we shall all vanish, but the nation, thanks to the efforts of the man who
leaves us, and thanks to his sincerity, will remain free and last forever.[24]

This brief speech was a fitting tribute to an individual who was admired and respected by both
friends and foes alike. Whilst his political opponents may have chided him, they recognised his
patriotism and loyalty to Egypt.
Whatever thoughts the British press may have had on Zaghlul, their obituaries were
laudable of this man who challenged British authority in Egypt. In its obituary of August 24, The
Times regarded Zaghlul as an astute debater who had the ability to inspire his audience with his
oratical skills. On the other hand, he could be extreme and inflame the passions of his followers.
"[Zaghlul] missed a great opportunity to establish Anglo-Egyptian relations on a sure and
friendly basis. But whatever his faults or foibles he proved himself a political leader of rare
energy. From being a mere humble fellah, he rose to be the leader of a nation which had only
recently awakened in any strong sense of nationhood. That was in itself a remarkable
achievement",The Times stated.[25]
The Manchester Guardian did not consider Zaghlul a fanatic or a snob. He was the individual
who "never swerved from his purpose "and "Englishmen have reason to lament his death
because a friendly, honourable, and charming opponent of a policy their Government has fitfully
pursued is gone." The obituary concluded that "to Egyptians the loss is irreparable."[26]
In conclusion, Zaghlul Pasha rose from a peasant background to become Prime Minister
in January 1924. The assassination of Sir Lee Stack irreparably damaged his premiership making
him to appear a weak leader in the eyes of his compatriots. British demands for compensation
compounded his problems.
Zaghlul was a charismatic leader who possessed the oratorical skills to sway and inspire ordinary
Egyptians to support the Wafd party and who dominated Egyptian politics for more than twenty
years. He proved a thorn in the side of the British who twice deported him to Malta and
Seychelles in 1919 and 1921 respectively. He was a fierce nationalist who wanted complete and
not nominal independence for Egypt. On the negative side, he was rigid, uncompromising and
inflexible when negotiating with his political opponents and the British.
There is no doubt that Zaghlul was a devoted patriot who always had best intentions for his
country at heart. Whilst he failed to remove the British from Egypt, his actions laid the
foundation for the rise of the Colonels in 1952.

REFERENCES
[1] Zaghlul's Cabinet.Nationalist Programme', The Times, January 29, 1924, p.11
[2] Egypt internal 883.00/483 J Morton Howell to Secretary of State, February 24, 1924
including Egyptian Mail, February 22, 1924
[3] Egypt internal 883.00/485 J Morton Howell to Secretary of State, March 29, 1924; Mr
McDonald's Message', The Times, March 17, 1924, p.12; MacDonald sends greetings', New
York Times, March 16, 1924. p.7; Fuad opens Egypt's first parliament. British King and Premier
wire congratulations; Cairo Celebrates', Washington Post, March 16, 1924, p.1

[4] Egypt internal 883.00/489 March 29, 1924; 883.00/492 July 3, 1924
[5] The Times, June 27, 1924, p.5 (editorial)
[6] Egypt internal 883.00/492 July 3, 1924; Egypt and the Sudan. Widespread Depression', &
The Sudan. Egyptian Cabinet Crisis. Resignation of Zaghlul', The Times, June 28 &30, 1924,
pp.12 &14
[7] Egypt internal 883.00/493 July 21, 1924
[8] BDFA Series G Vol.8 December 1925-May 1927,p.48; Great Britain, Command Paper,Cmd
2269, 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,, Egypt no.1, (1924),
HMSO, London, 1924 pp.2-4; Anglo-Egyptian Conversations. Cause of Breakdown. Zaghlul's
impossible demands', The Times, October 8, 1924, p.141
[9] Egypt internal 883.00/502-503 November 19 &21, 1924; Al-Ahram Weekly On-line, October
12-18, 2000, issue no.503
[10] BDFA Series G Vol.8 December 1925-May 1927, pp.49-50; Egypt internal883.00/504,507508 &514 November 22,24 &25, December 5, 1924; The Egyptian Settlement. Customs House
released, resignations from the Cabinet', The Times, December 2, 1924, p.14
[11] Dissolution in Egypt. Election in February', & The Egyptian Election campaign. Rival
Addresses', The Times, December 24 & 27, 1924, p.9
[12] The Egyptian election. Zaghlulist manifesto', The Times, December 29, 1924, p.9
[13] BDFA Series G Vol.8 December 1925-May 1927, p.51; The Egyptian Election. Opposition
to Zaghlul'; The Egyptian Elections. Zaghlulist Party reduced'; The Egyptian Coalition. Parties
in New Cabinet',The Times, March 12, 13 &16 1925, pp.15, 14, & 14
[14] Egypt internal 883.9111/4, December 5, 1925 with enclosures of news clippings;
883.00/568. December 11, 1925; New Electoral law for Egypt', The Times, December 9, 1925,
p.13
[15] Egypt internal 883.00/594 London to Secretary of State, Washington, June 1, 1926 with
enclosures Daily Telegraph, May 26, 1926; General Election in Egypt. A new departure', The
Times, May 22, 1926, p.12
[16] Political murders in Egypt. Former Ministers to be tried'; Political murders in Egypt.
Seven men on trial'; The Egyptian Murders. Six men acquitted', & Zaghlul Pasha's Position. An
interview with Lord Lloyd., Difficult Situation', The Times, January 7, March 30, May 26, &31
1926 pp.11, 13, 14 & 14; August 24, 1927, p.12
[17] Egypt internal 883.00/596, June 7, 1926; Zaghlul Pasha's Position. An interview with Lord
Lloyd., Difficult Situation', The Times, May 31 1926 p.14
[18] Egypt internal 883.00/600 July 5, 1926; BDFA Series G Vol.8 December 1925-May
1927,p.84; Cairo Murder Trial. British Note to Egypt. Judge's resignation', The Times, June 3,
1926, p.16 &August 24, 1927, p.12

[19] Cairo Murder Trial. British Note to Egypt. Judge's resignation', The Times, June 3, 1926,
p.16
[20] The Egyptian Crisis. Cabinet formed by Adly Pasha'; New Egyptian
Cabinet.Preponderance of Wafd Party. Ziwar Pasha's Career' & The Egyptian Parliament. King
Fuad's speech. Claims in the Sudan affirmed', The Times, June 7, 8 &11, 1926, pp.14,16 &14
[21] National Archives of Australia [NAA], Canberra ACT, Series A981 item no. EGY 11 Part.1
Egypt internal situation 1 1923-31, Mr Henderson (Ramleh) to Sir Austen Chamberlain,
September 8, 1927
[22] Cabinet Trouble in Egypt. Zaghlul called to Cairo', & Egyptian Political Crisis ended.
Relations with Great Britain', The Times, May 19 &20, 1927, pp.13 &13
[23] Egypt internal 883.9111/90 , Bulkeley Ramleh, August 29, 1927 with enclosures ofEgyptian
Mail, August 24, 1927 & Egyptian Gazette, August 25, 1927; 883.03/8 August 27, 1927
[24] Egypt internal883.03/8 August 27, 1927
[25] The Times, August 24, 1927, p.12
[26] Manchester Guardian, August 24, 1927, p.12

The Greek-Turkish War 1919-23

By Stavros T.Stavridis
This book describes different facets of the Greek-Turkish conflict through the eyes of two
Melbourne newspapers: The Age and Argus. There were times when the Melbourne press
favored the Greek and opposed the Turks. It also outlines the role that the Australian press played
in the development of Australian nationalism and identity.
The Melbourne press covered the Greek-Turkish conflict for three important reasons. Firstly,
Australian forces had played a major part in the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East
in the 1914-18 War. Secondly, the Greek-Turkish War involved the clash of two opposing armies:
the Greek army of occupation at Smyrna (Izmir) and the Turkish Nationalist movement led by
Mustapha Kemal Pasha (later known as Ataturk). Australia had no direct involvement in the
actual conflict but the Colonial Office did provide the Australian Government through the
Governor Generals office, with some information on the events unfolding in Asia Minor.
Throughout the period 1919-23, Australia was trying to chart an independent foreign policy

within the framework of the British Empire. The Imperial Conferences was the only forum
where the Dominions could question Britain on foreign and Imperial policy issues. The
Australian Prime Minister W. M. Hughes wanted the Dominions to have some input into the
foreign policy formulation of the British Empire. The Chanak crisis of September 1922 nearly
brought Australia into direct conflict with the Kemalists following the defeat of the Greek army.
Stavros T Stavridis is a historical researcher at the National Centre for Hellenic Studies and
Research, Latrobe University, Bundoora, Australia. He holds an MA in Greek/Australian
history from RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia. He has written extensively on Greek,
Armenians and Assyrians and conflict in Asia Minor covering the period 1890-1923.