Egyptian Sudan 76 that they do not respect its provisions? And what we believe is that the 1899 agreement does not bind Egypt for the following reasons: The reason that led to the conclusion of this agreement was the interest in preventing the implementation of concessions in Sudan and protecting Egypt, even in this rain of Egyptian lands, from the impact of the concession system on its sovereignty. This agreement was therefore concluded for the benefit of Egypt, not for the benefit of England, and in reality, England had no special interest in this agreement at that time because it was ruling Egypt itself. What need did it have to conclude an agreement with Egypt that would entrust it with the administration of Sudan? Was it it was facing resistance from the Egyptian government that it did not want, or did it manage to force the Egyptian government to evacuate Sudan against its will, or did it ask the Egyptian government, regardless of any agreement - and we have a precedent in the case of Gordon - to hand over the rule of Sudan to a governor, even if he were English, chosen by England, and with the authority now granted to the Governor-General? A question that can only be answered with "no". The famous Granville telegram gave English advice the color of an order, and placed the Egyptian government in a dilemma: either submission, or resignation. As if no one prevents anyone who conspires with another for his own interest from relinquishing that interest, so too Egypt is not legally prevented from relinquishing the 1899 agreement if it agrees to bear the concession system in Sudan or any system that replaces it. And this Lord Cromer explicitly admits that the purpose of the agreement was solely to save Egypt in Sudan from the obstacles of concessions. Then he added another purpose to this purpose, which he considered paramount, which was to guarantee the administration