EGYPT'S RUIN.*
IrlIE paper wrapper on the outside of this book bears a state- ment which might lead innocent readers to suppose that they were offered here an impartial record of the financial history of Egypt expressed in the austere terms appropriate to such a work. The statement says :—" This book gives an account to date of the financial troubles of Egypt, including those of recent years, and a full history of the Suez Canal Convention Scheme. It is documented throughout, and indexed, so as to serve for ready reference on the Egyptian -question." What we have really found in the book is the most unfair, perverse, unscrupulous, and misleading farrago that the imagination can conceive. We use the word " un- scrupulous " conventionally, remembering that there is a class of educated people who see everything differently from other men, -who have a kink in their minds, and are capable of twisting with apparent sincerity the most simple and straight- forward actions into the most Machiavellian intrigues ; remem- bering, too, that it would be quite futile to apply to the motives of such persons the ordinary standards of judgment. We cannot say whether Mr. Rothstein belongs to this company or not If he does, it would be necessary only to warn the reader against attaching the least value to his ridiculous conclusions. It would be unnecessary to say anything special in condemnation of the morality of -his methods. With Mr.
• Egypt's Rain: a Pinancial and Administrative Record. By Theodore Both. 'stein. With an Introduction by Wilfrid Seawen Blunt. London ; A. C. Mehl. rfis. net.] Wilfrid Blunt, who contributes a preface to the book, it is certainly otherwise. He has been told so often what passes the limits of excusable criticism that when he trans- gresses once more he must expect to be judged by ordinary standards. We do not hesitate to say that of all this dis- graceful book his part is the most disgraceful. On reading a work of this kind one is always doubtful whether it is worth while to review it at all—whether a review will not do more harm than good—but on the whole the gravity with which the nonsense is set forth has decided us to call attention to a few of the inaccuracies lest they should be accepted for want of being challenged.
There is a remark on p. 100 which is so curiously characteristic of Mr. Rothstein's mind that we find it linger- ing in the memory as a sort of key to the whole work. He says that on the day on which the remains of Ismail Pasha were landed at Alexandria in 1895, the opera Aida was given at the Opera House in Cairo—the very opera which Ismail had caused to be produced for the first time at the rejoicings when the Suez Canal was opened—and he suggests that if this was not a mere coincidence, it was "a demonstration of power and insolence by the Occupation." Englishmen who remember the names and characters of those whom they have sent to govern Egypt will appreciate the state of mind of an author who can harbour the thought that their countrymen—not, we are glad to learn from the preface, his countrymen—would be capable of the incredible vulgarity and cruelty of causing to be played in the presence of the exiled Khedive's dead body the music which was associated with the days of his greatness. A man who can believe that could believe anything. If one bears in mind that clue to the author's character, one will not be unduly surprised at anything else in the book.
Mr. Blunt speaks of the "financial drain laid upon Egypt, in English interests, in the Soudan." This is of course a gross misrepresentation. One hears Socialists speak of the "drain" on India, meaning the interest paid on money lent to India for works of public utility. That is had enough, but to speak of a drain on Egypt, which has gained safety and riches by the orderly government of the Soudan, is a double misstatement. If this cannot be exceeded, it is at least equalled by Mr. Blunt's monstrous assertion that "our position in Egypt benefits a few score British employes and capitalists (chiefly Jews), a few bankers, contractors, and company promoters, but no one else."
We can take only a few points almost at random to illus- trate Mr. Rothstein's method. It will be remembered that when the Goschen-Joubert loan scheme was being considered, the Moufettish, Ismail Sadyk, who hotly opposed the accept- ance of the scheme, was assassinated. Mr. Rothstein says :— "No one who has taken the trouble to wade through contemporary evidence, both official and unofficial, can get away from the impression that the murder was committed, if not by the direct instigation of the financiers, at least in response to their pressure." There is of course not a scrap of evidence in support of this infamous charge. The European financiers were headed by men of standing and proved honour. Mr. Rothstein is as indulgent to Ismail Pasha, when it suits his purpose, as he is unjust to Englishmen and Frenchmen. In order to prove that Egypt was capable of doing for herself all that Great Britain has done for her, he gives a rosy picture of Egyptian progress and civilisation when Ismail's power was at its height. No one denies that Ismail was a man of large ideas and much ingenuity—that is as clear as the fact that he ruined Egypt by his preposterous extravagance—but it is outrageous to give him the credit of suppressing the slave trade, and to quote Sir Samuel Baker in praise of Ismairs character. Ismail sent Baker on a wild-goose chase after slave-traders; while professing to wish an end of the trade, be was all the time doing what he could in secret to allow its continuance. When he found British honesty and tenacity too much for him, he brought injurious charges against Baker. Mr. Rothstein says that the fellaheen were oppressed and beaten in order that the coupons of the bondholders might be paid. This is a mere perversion of facts. So long as the British administration of Egypt was incomplete there was oppression and beating, but the Controllers did their best to stop it. When the Powers quite rightly refused to allow Ismail to make an arbitrary reduction in the rate of interest, they did so because they knew very well that if this alone were done
the bondholders would suffer, while the peasantry would still be exposed to the same extortions as before.
On p.118 Mr. Rothstein says that when Lord Cromer wrote: "The absence of effective control is clearly shown in the number of fresh employes engaged in 1880,1891, and 1882," he "discreetly forgot" to mention that these fresh employees were all Europeans. This is precisely what they were not. It is notorious that the immediate effect of the Arabi Rebellion was to increase greatly the number of useless native employees. On p. 129 it is insinuated that the Controllers were responsible for the reports that there was a scheme for the assassination of Arabi. Of course this is untrue. There never was any scheme except in the craven imagination of the man himself. On p. 174 it is said that "Sir Auckland Colvin and Sir Edward Malet continued their efforts to bring about intervention." Nothing could be further from the truth. It is a notorious fact that Sir Edward Malet did all he possibly could to prevent intervention. On p. 196 it is stated that the Khedive organised the massacre of Christians at Alexandria. There is not a shadow of evidence that this was so. The telegram on pp. 197-98, on which the statement is based, although put in inverted commas, has, we believe, never been seen by any one. So far as we know, it merely rests on gossip. But it is characteristic of this book that it should be cited as indisputable evidence. On p. 206 it is insinuated that Great Britain did not want to come to terms with the Turks, but that Freycinet forced them into a Con- ference. This is the exact opposite of the truth. The French were throughout very reluctant to negotiate with Turkey. The statement on p. 218 that an endeavour was made to bribe Arabi into retiring from Egypt is, we believe, quite untrue. So also is the statement on p. 234—it was freely made by the French Press at the time—that Sir Garnet Wolseley's victories were due to "English gold sovereigns." On p. 257 it is said that the financial difficulties of Egypt were "mainly due to the new burdens which England had thrown on the Egyptian Treasury." This, again, is untrue. What Mr. Rothstein should have said was that owing to the bombard- ment of Alexandria and the utter confusion brought about by the Arabi regime, several millions had to be added to the floating Debt. On p. 263 the reader may note the statement that the policy of selling the domains and Daira lands was "barbarous." Mr. Rothstein speaks elsewhere several times of the iniquity of confiscating the lands belonging to the Khedive and his family. These lands had all been stolen from the peasantry, and though it was impossible to give the properties back to their rightful owners, the next best thing was done; they were sold (and still are being sold) in small lots to the peasantry. It was a very wise policy, and has been fully justified. On p. 265 there is a reference to the million which Lord Cromer secured in 1885. The expenditure of this money, as is well known, began the regeneration of agri- cultural Egypt; but the author suggests that this money was not spent on canals, but was used for "balancing the budget " I On pp. 275-76 the corvie system is defended on the ground that it is "no more slavery than the military systems at present in vogue on the Continent of Europe." Well, we thank heaven that that iniquitous system was abolished by Englishmen, however much Mr. Rothstein may gloss over its essential barbarism. We are amazed at the callousness with which British Socialists can allow themselves to recommend the creation of an Egyptian Government which would indubitably hand back the fellaheen to their former state of misery. On p. 322 Lord Cromer is accused of trying to impose the English language on the Egyptian people. Does Mr. Rothstein not know, what, we fancy, must have been revealed to all others, that Lord Cromer was continually pressed by Egyptians to have English taught in the elemen- tary schools and persistently refused ? We need pick out no more absurdities. It would be an almost endless task to expose them all. But it seemed to us a bare duty to do our best to prevent such a work being regarded seriously by those who happen to be unacquainted with the history of Egypt.
Previous page
