LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
FRANCE, ENGLAND, AND EGYPT.
[To IRE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."]
SIR,—You have very properly called attention in recent articles to the serious character of our relations with France,
and you have shown that, in many instances, she has dis- regarded solemn engagements, and thereby inflicted injury on British interests. Yo a therefore recommend that our Government should intimate to that of France that unless she- gives us satisfaction in respect to all the serious questions- which have arisen between us, we must insist on due reparation
being made. Of course this may mean war ; and before the-
Government adopts your advice, the people of this country must take a complete and impartial estimate of the situation. Your statement of the causes which have produced the present state of things may be correct, so far as it goes ; but I submit
that it is incomplete in one important respect. You entirely disregard the fact that France has great cause of complaint against us; and that she, on her side, can fairly charge us- with breach of solemn engagements. I refer, of course, to our continued occupation of. Egypt. As regards our action there, however, you not only ignore this counter-claim, but, in the Spectator of August 3rd, you use language which implies our right to remain in Egypt.
Now I venture to urge that there can be no hope of a better understanding with France unless we are prepared to admit some justice in her complaints as to the non-fulfilment of our numerous and emphatic promises in this respect. What makes your silence as to the French case against us all the more remarkable is the fact that the very hostility and dis- regard of pledges which you describe, arise, in great measure,, from our own conduct. As Chairman of an Association devoted to the promotion of friendly relations between nations, I have, for fifteen years, been in close and constant communication, verbal and written, with the members of similar societies in France. This opportunity of knowing the opinions of our neighbours across the Channel convinces me that our action in Egypt has been the main—I had almost said the exclusive—cause of the constantly growing animosity towards England. I believe that if we had kept our word,. and had concluded the engagements which we had ourselves proposed—including the withdrawal of our troops and the convention for the neutralisation and independence of Egypt —we should have had no serious disputes with France respecting North Africa, West Africa, the Upper Nile, or Siam. The apathy or ignorance or forgetfulness of the English public as to their obligations respecting Egypt, is reprehensible from a moral, and dangerous from a political,. point of view. Perhaps you will allow me, therefore, to remind your readers of some of the chief facts of the case. I cannot believe that any candid and impartial person, after considering them, would deny that France has had some pre- text for her ill-humour and perverse conduct.
After the suppression of Arabi's insurrection and the organisation of the Egyptian Army— which Sir Evelyn Wood declared was then able to stand alone—Lord Hartingtou said, in February, 1883, that " probably in six months the British forces would be withdrawn." In the following month. Lord Dufferin said that "the permanent military occupation
being contrary to the repeated declarations of her Majesty's Government, was not an idea to which he could give the slightest encouragement." In November, orders were given for the evacuation of Cairo; but they were not carried out, in consequence of the Soudan War. In 1884, Lord Granville replied to the French Government that her Majesty's Government "are willing that the withdrawal of the troops shall take place at the beginning of the year 1888; .and would propose to the Powers and to the Porte a scheme fur the neutralisation of Egypt." In August, 1885, the Con- servative Government, on coming into power, sent Sir Henry Wolff to negotiate a convention, declaring that it had" no idea -of annexing Egypt or of establishing a protectorate." This convention was not at first accepted by France, because it stipulated for the return of British troops in case of disorder ; but, later on, this objection was withdrawn, and Lord Lyons informed the French Government that our Government was " anxious to be relieved of the burden which was entailed upon them by the occupation of Egypt." In 1887, the Austrian Government pressed us to end our occupation ; and Sir Drummond Wolff (by authority, no doubt) spoke of " the need of putting an end, as soon as possible, to a position so delicate and dangerous." The above recital consists of extracts from the speech delivered by Sir Charles Dilke in the House of 'Commons on May 1st, 1893.
Yet we still remain in Egypt, in spite of all these promises, and in spite of the readiness of France to enter into an engagement never to occupy that territory. Nor can it be said that her hostility from this cause had not been foreseen. In 1877, the then Prime Minister wrote that "an occupation of Egypt meant farewell to all cordiality of political relations between England and France." It seems to me impossible, on any principle of international law or any ground of moral right, to justify our position. The true power of England rests on her character, her loyalty to her word, and her recognition of the law of duty. We hold Egypt, neither by conquest, nor by the will of its people nor of the Sultan, nor by the consent of the Powers. Our occupation has been shown to be a burden, and one full of danger ; while neutralisation, under the guarantee of the Powers, added to that of the Canal, would secure the highway to the East. The Spectator has always claimed to uphold, in all human affairs, the obligations of the moral law. On that ground, above all others, I appeal to you, Sir, to maintain the noble traditions of your influential journal. In this case, as in every other, the course which is right is also that which is politic.—I am, Sir, &c.,
[Is Mr. Hodgson Pratt right about the Drummond-Wolff convention? Is it not rather the case that when the conven- tion had been agreed to by England, the French at the last moment induced the Sultan not to ratify the convention ?— ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
