CAB38-17 — Page 191

Page 191

7

should be done without consultation with Sir N. O'Conor, our Ambassador at Constantinople, and Sir Eldon Gorst at Cairo."

The small military post which is now there was already in occupation when Lord Cromer spoke, and he continued :-

If they are there, I would leave them there. It is fortifications that matter. One thing might be done without creating the least bother, that is the improvement of the road, making it fit for motors from Nahkl, so as to be able to put men in rapidly--not by camels. That could be done as a civil affair, and would not be at all a bad thing to do. From the military point of view, it would rather improve the situation.

"A macadamised road would be very expensive; I do not recommend that at all. If it could be improved in such a way as to allow motors to go very rapidly, it would be a distinct military advantage, and it would also do good to the country. I do not see how that would raise any question at all.” MR. CHURCHILL enquired what effect the irruption of 5,000 Turks into Lower Egypt would have. Would not their presence be strongly resented by the people?

SIR JOHN FRENCH said that in his experience there was always more water in these so-called deserts than had previously been supposed.

SIR IAN HAMILTON said that he had not for a moment contemplated large works or garrisons at El Arish or Nalıkl. What he suggested were small forts or blockhouses, strong enough to resist light artillery, which could deny the use of the wells to an enemy. Small garrisons could suffice for this. These wells were probably essential to an enemy advancing in the dry season. In the wet season water could be found in other places as well. He ought to add that it was very doubtful if the internal situation of Egypt in the emergency contemplated would permit of the detachment of any troops from the Army of Occupation at its existing strength for the defence of the frontier.

THE PRIME MINISTER again referred to Lord Cromer's evidence before Lord Morley's Sub-Committee. Asked if he thought there would be any difficulty with other Powers about sending ships into the Canal in time of war, he said:- "My recollection is that there can be no active belligerency in the Canal.

Nothing is specified at all in the Suez Canal Convention as to the defence of the Canal against the Turks. We would have the support of all the Powers of Europe in the case of Turkey getting down to the Canal."

Sir Edward Grey then remarked :-

*-

"The fact is that if the Powers were well-disposed they would not make difficulties; if they were ill-disposed, they might do so in spite of any Convention."

To which Lord Cromer replied: “Quite so.'

""

SIR WILLIAM NICHOLSON suggested an adjournment of the discussion to enable the General Staff further to consider the question.

(Conclusion.)

Discussion adjourned.

7.

HOME DEFENCE: MINUTE BY THE HOME PORTS DEFENCE COMMITTEE COVERING A REVISION OF THE MEMORANDUM BY THE ARMY COUNCIL. (Vide MINUTES OF 108TH MEETING.) (C.I.D. Paper 19-A.)

SIR WILLIAM NICHOLSON drew the attention of the Committee to an alternative draft of Chapter I, paragraph 1, which he had circulated to members.

MR. MCKENNA pointed out that the whole Memorandum was based on the assumption that a hostile force of 70,000 men might effect a landing in this country.

Page 191

Page 191

Page 191