236 Egypt
admission of the Egyptian delegation to the purlieus of
the Paris Peace Conference. For the original objection
to the inclusion of Egypt in the peace settlement no
longer obtained. We had a control of the central work-
ings of the Conference so complete as to let us exclude
Egyptian claims altogether from its councils. By allow-
ing the delegates to waste time with fruitless lobbyings
in Paris, we should have removed from Egypt our worst
enemies and given our friends there a better chance by
depriving Egypt of a real grievance. And, if our sup-
pression of the Wafd was unsound, suspension of the
Assembly was even more so. For by letting the
Assembly meet we should have exposed through
party jealousy both the political weakness of extreme
nationalism and the want of solidarity in the whole move-
ment. In a word, some loyalty, even some lip-service
to the professed principles of peace in respect of Egypt
—some liberality in letting Egypt argue its case before
the packed jury at Paris, might at this period have broken
up the nationalist movement and saved the Protectorate.
As it was, Zaglul, having got his mandate, made far
more effective use of it in Egypt than ever he could have
done in Paris. As head of the Wafd, he addressed well-
argued appeals to President Wilson, Mr. Lloyd George,
M. Clemenceau, and Sr. Orlando. As soon as the Peace
Conference met, the Wafd submitted to it a statement
in which the Egyptian case was fully and quite fairly
set forth. It ended with a protest against the British
prohibition of any Egyptian representation at Paris—a
prohibition all the more arbitrary in that Egypt's neigh-
bours were very differently treated. For example, the
Hedjaz and Abyssinia were officially represented, while
deputations from the most savage and insignificant com-
munities were allowed to appear1.