- 27 -

and presented to the Council for its approval; because the treatment of these courts must be different from that of the mixed courts, as the intention is that the mixed court should last, God willing, with regard to its major principles. As for the consular courts (1), their continuation is not in line with the new order, and therefore they must be abolished. As it is beneficial to consider the matter, if the laws that the Council approves are made binding on Europeans, then we must impose penalties to prevent those among them who violate them. The courts that impose these penalties must impose them in accordance with the laws that the Council approves. In this situation, there is no objection to the jurisdiction being the same. As for the consular courts, they cannot rule under those laws except with the approval of their governments, and this approval can only be obtained after the ratification of the Parliament or its equivalent, by each of the fifteen concerned states. The situation is thus, except that it entails hardship, difficulty, and other disadvantages, and it is necessary to consider the matter of legislation. There is no escape from the conflict between the local legislative authority and the consular jurisdiction.

Therefore, in my opinion, the question is not whether the consular courts can be preserved, but whether it is possible to provide guarantees to the Europeans residing in Egypt that the courts that replace the consular courts will render fair judgments and administer justice among people at least as well as they do. It remains for me to provide sufficient guarantees, other than...

However, I do not ask for the new Council to be given absolute legislative power, but I reiterate here the restrictions that I proposed to restrict it (2) with, which are:

(1) No judgment shall be passed on any subject of the signatory states to the treaty or on those guaranteed by those states, and his judgment shall be guaranteed in the course of that case before the final decision is made, by a judge of the subjects of those states or by a court at least three-fifths of whose members are subjects of those states (3). (2) If I rule on the validity of these courts by the humanitarian aspect of the treaty, or if they are judged elsewhere. (3) See the report of the Sery, pages 10-11, where I also mentioned other benefits, but they are summarized by entering the realm of the permissible. This is a matter of discussion. (4) There should be a small number of courts, not that these courts should rule only by guardianship and enforcement, but necessarily in this project. Then, if the proportion of jurisdiction is large, then the number of cases or the jurisdiction will be large from the European judiciary. As for me, I am convinced of everything that is attributed to this aspect.