274 Egypt
precedent of negotiations must be an undertaking from
us to evacuate the Sudan. This last drew statements
from Mr. MacDonald (June 30, July 10) that the Sudan
would not be evacuated. Zaglul, as a protest, resigned,
but returned to office at the King's request. He was then
shot at and wounded (July 12), presumably to frighten
him off further co-operation. It did not, however, do so,
but did show that his intransigence was political rather
than personal.
The Nationalists, instead of keeping the main question
of the British garrison in the forefront of the fight, that
being the reserved point in which they had the best case
and where we might have made the most concessions,
now preferred to concentrate on Egypt's claim to the
Sudan. As this claim was imperialist and not nationalist,
and as they had even less right, though, perhaps, more
reason, to rule the Sudan than we had, their choice
suggests that they were not so much seeking a settle-
ment as keeping up a controversy that served their turn
in party politics. They now organised mutinies among
the Egyptian troops in the Sudan (August 9 and 10).
At Khartum, Atbara, and Port Sudan the railway
battalion and other corps began rioting. At Atbara the
Sudanese troops fired on the Egyptian rioters, and
several were killed. The Sudanese regiments were un-
affected, and the disaffected Egyptians were easily dis-
banded.
Zaglul, having recovered from his wound, came to
London to negotiate with Mr. MacDonald (Sep-
tember 23). But as he was bound by a promise to his
party to make no concession as to the Sudan, the con-
versations came to nothing (October 3). It looked as
though Egypt—that acid test under which the great
Liberal leader had failed—might prove equally damaging