On Monday Sir Charles Dilke delivered a speech on Egypt
at the Markham Mutual Improvement Society in Chelsea. Referring to the subject of arbitration, he expressed very grave doubts as to its applicability to our disputes with foreign Powers. Our unpopularity among the nations of the world would dispose against us those to whom questions might be referred. We could not in any case arbitrate about Egypt as France had never made any suggestion of the kind, or indeed for many years addressed us on the subject at all. There was no official dispute between the two countries as regards Egypt. In order to bring the occupation to an end, he would much prefer action of the kind attempted by Lord Salisbury when he negotiated the Drummond-Wolff Con- vention. "He bad always," said Sir Charles Dilke, "taken a strong view of the necessity of holding India, and of having
„good government in Egypt."- On the other hand, he had always been opposed to armed occupation. The necessity of putting down violence was a very different thing from an armed occupation. This strikes us as a singularly confused and misleading statement of the situation. The occupation was the direct, necessary, and inevitable outcome of the sup- pression of disorder, approved by Sir Charles Dilke, while its -continuance is again the direct result of our intervention. Moreover, the pledges we gave were pledges to Europe, not to France, and Europe permits us to remain.
Previous page
