LORD CROMER.
WE are using no conventional language, but the words of sobriety and truth, when we say that no money grant could in any sense be an adequate recognition of the work which Lord Cromer has done for the Empire. That, of course, is not a reason for withholding such a grant, for plenty of justification can be found for it on other grounds. The essential reason, or, as we should say, necessity, for the grant is that in our usual British way we refused for so long to recognise the facts in regard to Egypt. The salary which we paid to the Consul-General in Egypt was possibly just enough when Lord Cromer took up his duties,—when all the world thought that the British occupation would soon come to an end, when the modern part of Cairo was half or a quarter the size it is to-day, and when the cost of living in Egypt was infinitely cheaper than it is now. Had we been a logical people, we should have made Lord Cromer's official salary grow with the growing greatness of the work accomplished by him, and should have increased the pay of the Consul-General at least to that of the Governors of Bombay and Madras,— should have made it commensurate with the position of Viceroyalty possessed in fact, if not in name, by Lord Cromer. In other words, the grant to Lord Cromer is a debt due to him from the British public for having paid him for nearly twenty years a salary considerably below that which his position required. Ourforgetfulnees obliged him to spend a portion of his private income in what was in effect expenditure for public purposes.—Only those who know very little of official entertaining will imagine that the money spent thereon can be regarded as in the nature of expenditure which gives personarpleasure. —That is the economic ground for the £50,000 grant.
The moral ground for feeling and expressing special gratitude to Lord Cromer is, in our opinion, somewhat different from that usually given. Though we are not in the least inclined to underrate the services done by Lord Cromer to the Empire in improving the financial condition of Egypt, in the reconquest of the Soudan, and in the endowing of tile valley of the Nile with its present magnificent system of irrigation, his greatest service is something quite apart from these. It is that he has set an example for all men to follow of the true way in which to deal with subject and, in the political and social sense, inferior races. If our dominion, or, if you will, our influence and control, over the millions of Oriental peoples within the Empire is to be maintained and developed, it will be by approaching the problem of their government in the spirit displayed by Lord Cromer. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman showed a very sound instinct when in his excellent speech on Tuesday night he laid special emphasis upon Lord Cromer's profound sympathy with the Egyptian people, and his determination not to force them into a Western mould :—
"He sought to preserve what was vital and characteristic in their habits, laws, and customs, and, so far from approaching them as an alien or superior, he made it his business to under- stand their character and to study their grievances and their needs as they presented themselves to the actual people, an 1 so by working through mediums familiar to them, and employing, as far as possible, native agents, he hoped to enable them to develop along their own lines, and to meet the civilisation of the West, not as hybrids, but as self-respecting beings in full posses- sion of their own qualities and their own characteristics. When I see, as I sometimes see, Lord Cromer criticised for his want of sympathy with the national spirit, I am disposed to ask whether his wise and patient and understanding administration, and the respect shown by him from the first to the Egyptian race, do not entitle him to be considered as a great nationalist administrator."
There is not a word here which is not fully justified, and we may add that proof of this can be found in the belief which has become almost instinctive among the Egyptian people that Lord Cromer was their friend. and that in the last resort he stood between them and oppression. A correspondent in our columns a few weeks ago gave a striking illustration of this feeling towards Lord Cromer. He related how part of his work was to induce the villagers in the Delta to remove or fill in evil- smelling ponds quite close to their dwellings. Such sanitary work was, needless to say, greatly resented. On one occasion a peasant woman withstood the reformer to his face, and clinched the argument by declaring that she would. appeal against him to "the man Krahmer," who would do her right and protect her from oppression. Nor was this belief in the sympathy of Lord Cromer for the people confined to Egypt. Miss Gertrude Bell in her delightful book, "The Desert and the Sown," tells us how she heard in camps upon Judaean hills or in desert bivouacs tales of what had been done by the great "Cromer," and how her Arab friends expressed their longing that the Syrians and the Bedouin might also find in him a protector from oppression.
It is difficult to put into words the principles upon which Lord Cromer has acted towards the native races under his control. His is rather a spirit to be imitated than expressed. Perhaps the best single phrase to illustrate that spirit is to be found in "the sympathy of comprehen- sion." Lord Cromer possesses in an eminent degree this quality in regard to the Oriental races. He understands not merely what they want, but how they think, and how, therefore, they arrive at their wants, and he desires, and has always desired, to fulfil those wants in a way which will be satisfactory to an Oriental,—a very different thing, be it remembered, from the way which is satisfactory to a European. But though Lord. Cromer possesses in so high a degree the sympathy of comprehension, be has never had any sentimental illusions in regard to the natives. He is not one of those who are able to persuade themselves that the Oriental is only a dark-coloured white man, and that, after all, there is no difference between him and the European, or between East and West. He never failed to realise the tremendous consequences pro- duced, not merely by rake, but by religion and by thousands of years of social and political development on lines not parallel to, but divergent from, those of the European polity. Lord Cromer, in a word, has always believed in the superiority, intellectual and moral, and therefore political, of the Anglo.Saxon. It is difficult, indeed, to imagine how any sane man faced with the facts could believe otherwise. If such superiority did not exist, and if the Western and the Eastern were really equal, why do we find ourselves in the position which we do find ourselves in both in Egypt and in India ? In neither case has our superiority been derived from the sword. The amount of bloodshed and the number of combatants engaged in all the British battles in India in a hundred and fifty years only rises to what must be described as the most paltry of totals, and the same is true of Egypt. Remember, too, that the time handicap has been against the white, not the dark man. The East possessed a com- plete civilisation when our fathers worshipped stocks and stones and painted themselves with woad. But if Lord Cromer has shown himself a believer in the superiority of the British race, and has in effect based our right of control on that superiority, he has never for one moment fallen into the belief that such superiority ought to be or can be maintained by the methods of the tyrant. On the contrary, he has proved. both by precept and example that the superiority on which in the last resort the British Empire rests can only be manifested by showing ourselves to be in reality superior, and by displaying a willingness to follow a lofty ideal in the work of government. Not only has he always insisted that the benefit of the governed—i.e., the benefit of Egypt, not the benefit of the -United Kingdom—must be con- sidered as the essential point, but he has also insisted that in our dealings with the natives our superiority must be asserted by a self-respecting, dignified, and sympathetic bearing towards all classes. In this context we may mention a, remarkable pamphlet lately printed for private circulation at the Government Press in Cairo, entitled "To See with Others' Eyes." It is an essay written by an Englishman, a high Egyptian official, who has been connected with Egypt during the greater part of Lord Cromer's administration. We wish that this essay—which we trust the author will soon give to a wider public—could be read by those foolish persons who imagine that the desire of every British official in Egypt when he sees a native is to fly at him with kicks and curses, or who fancy that because it was necessary to do justice, and stern justice, to the brutal ruffians who murdered British officers at Densbawi and plundered. their bodies, Englishmen in Egypt gener- ally believe that the proper way to govern natives is to terrorise them. The writer of the essay urges upon the young Englishmen who enter the public service in Egypt the necessity of showing kindness and sympathy to the Egyptians, and. of not drawing an indictment against a whole people, or believing that because some Egyptians are cowardly and untruthful intriguers, there- fore the native population as a whole is to be considered to possess those vices. Though we do not agree with certain things in the essay, and though we think that the writer does not state quite definitely enough the superiority of the British race, the fault here is, we admit, on the right side. The facts against the belief in equality between the Oriental and the Anglo-Saxon, judging not by individuals but by the whole, are so strong that we are not in the least afraid of their ever being forgotten in Egypt or in India. As we bare said above, if the races were really equal in moral, why has not the Oriental developed institutions like, or superior to, our own ?—a question certainly not unfair considering the fact that be has had three times the amount of time in which to do it. This, however, is a minor matter. Whether we think them inferior or equal, we are entirely at one with the writer of the essay in holding that our superiority is to be shown by treating the natives with the utmost kindness, consideration, and justice. The more we believe that we have the giant's strength, the more clear is it that it is "tyrannous to use it like a giant." If the Englishman maintains true dignity, true self- respect, and a true sense of justice, he will never go wrong with the natives, and the question of equality can be left to settle itself. What our young administrators have to learn is, in effect, how to inspire the true sense of superiority. That will be not by violence when they are opposed, or by showing contempt for those who differ from them, but by doing the very opposite of what the native himself does when he is angry or excited. If for no other reason than that it is not a conspicuous native virtue, self-control should be the cardinal virtue practised by the Briton.
It must not be supposed that because the Englishman who has written the little work with which we are dealing gives such useful warning and advice to his younger colleagues, he therefore suggests that they are in any great or special need of it, or that the British, of all men of the white race, require such advice. The exact opposite is, of course, the truth, as no doubt he would be the first to acknowledge. We may not be perfect in our dealings with natives, but without question we treat them far better than the Frenchman, the German, or even the American does. Again, it must not be supposed that the writer of the pamphlet advocates an unwise assimilation of Europeans and natives. To quote his own words, "I do not advocate unnecessary intercourse with them. Only that that which is necessary and right in the execution of our duty should be characterised by kindness." He ends by dwelling upon the importance of acquiring the power to put oneself in another's place and "to see with others' eyes." Until we have attained to that, he tells us, we have not mounted far up the ladder which leads to success in governing. The qualities that he preaches, he is quite right in declaring, imply no want of strength or character. "Firmness is the twin brother of gentleness, determination and patience go hand in hand, and a clear recognition of the defects of a people is compatible with love of them." These, indeed, are Imperial qualities, and worthy those whom "fate and. the ocean and some fostering star" have made a democracy which rules not only itself but others.
Previous page
