Rebellion and Independence 249
British administration was thoroughly overhauled at the
top, and the leading posts filled with active and able men.
It looked as though the Protectorate had taken a new
lease of life. But yet it was clear that there was no real
life in it. Some attempt had to be made some time to
restore real co-operation, and the first attempt that was
made gave a telling opportunity to the boycott.
It had been generally recognised by us that a work-
ing relationship must be restored between English and
Egyptians as soon as the strikes were over. The High
Commissioner had made use of the lull for leave, and
had made use of his leave to get a sop that might bring
his Cerberus to hand. But it was wrongly assumed at
home that the rebellion was over. Consequently, his
proclamation (November 10, 1919) declared that our
policy in Egypt was *' to preserve autonomy under
British protection and to develop the system of self-
government under Egyptian rule ; to establish a con-
stitutional system in which, under British guidance, as
far as may be necessary, the Sultan, his Ministers, and
the elected representatives of the people may . . . co-
operate in the management of Egyptian affairs ;J> and,
finally, "to send to Egypt a Mission to work out the
details of a Constitution, and, in consultation with the
Sultan's Ministers and representative Egyptians, to
undertake the preliminary work/' In plain English, the
Protectorate and the subordination of Egyptians was to
be maintained as the basis of a new Constitution which,
it was recognised, could only be imposed with the co-
operation and consent of Egypt.
Zaglul in Paris, and his Nationalist supporters in
Cairo, saw at once the opportunity that was offered
them by the sending of a Mission which depended for
its success on co-operation, yet made no real concession