Sudan Archive

Open the original scan

OriginalTranslateMachine translation — not a source document

£56 to £11 million. In 1896, the ministry promised the House of Representatives that it would not repeat such a mistake. If Sudan were added to its possessions, it would double that mistake. This is what led Lord Cromer to make Sudan a company between Egypt and England. England would be the partner, and Egypt would bear the troubles of service and the burdens of expense. Egypt incurred £8 million for the Dakhla campaign alone, and England lent Egypt £798,802, then waived this amount. The Egyptian government began selling what it could sell by order of England. It sold the Khedivial steamers and the army, and transferred all open expenditures in the budget to Sudan's expenses. It sold the land and the land, until the Egyptian press began to headline these sales with "Egypt at Auction." Before this agreement was announced, Lord Cromer gave a speech in Khartoum on January 5th, referring to this Western company. It is Western because if it is said that a company in governance is a partnership, then this company does not balance the two partners, because according to the company law, England has the right to increase its share. If it is said that a company in protection is known, such as the protection of England, America, and Germany over Samoa, then this statement applies to the English government, which considers Egyptian Sudan an open land by force of its armies and by taking over its administration. Monsieur Dianih said, "The issue is not a matter of words and talk. Egypt is under English protection, but Egypt's passive action in Sudan effectively makes it an English possession." If we look at the agreement from a legal perspective, it is undoubtedly an invalid agreement because Egypt was not permitted to enter into such an agreement. Nor could the Khedive sign it, as he was appointed by the Sultan with Sudanese possessions. Nor can England absolve him, as it is bound by covenants and treaties with other countries. Furthermore, neither Egypt nor England has the right to infringe upon the rights of other countries.

Text produced by OCR — report an error