HC Deb 13 March 1882 vol 267 cc763-80
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

rose, in accordance with Notice, to call attention to the ultimate effect of a continuance of the International Tribunals in Egypt on the present footing; and to move— That it is inexpedient to make, or renew on expiry, engagements by which Foreign Governments may have a claim to insist on the enforcement of private debts against natives of Egypt, the transfer of lands, vexatious sanitary regulations, and other demands, in super session of the autonomous legislation and government of the country; excepting only provision for the free use of the Suez Canal as an International commercial waterway. He was unwilling, he said, to touch much on the burning and critical ques- tions which now existed with regard to Egypt. He wished to confine himself mainly to economical and social questions. It was his impression that it might be said, and with some truth and justice, that the troubles which now existed in Egypt were, to a certain extent, raised rather by the upper classes than by the lower classes; but they must take care lest, in the future, circumstances should arise which would cause discontent in the midst of the people of Egypt. He was quite free to admit that the mixed or International Tribunals were a great improvement on many tribunals which had existed in Egypt, and justice was usually done by them. But there were circumstances with regard to the constitution of these tribunals to which it seemed to him, in the interests of the people of Egypt, some attention should be paid. They were, no doubt, good and able tribunals; but it seemed to him that they were the rich man's rather than the poor man's tribunals. They were popular with Europeans who were rich, and who, having debts to enforce, could afford to go to great expense in enforcing them. They were placed only at a few centres of European residence, and they were expensive tribunals, before which a poor man could not afford to appear, although they were international and for the disposal of debt. Owing to their international character they were very large—even cumbrously large. There were 25 Judges of these tribunals in Alexandria alone. Although they were found only in the European centres, they exercised jurisdiction over the whole of Egypt. Good as they were, they were enormously expensive; consequently absolute justice was not being done to the people of Egypt in the matter. They, moreover, possessed very extensive powers in the country, as to which he had great apprehension. They could enforce their decrees against the Natives by the sale of their lands; and it was to be feared that in consequence of the difficulties experienced by the Natives in complying with those decrees, large quantities of the land would gradually fall into the hands of the money-lenders. Then these tribunals were constituted in a peculiar manner, which was almost unique in the history of tribunals, being, in reality, placed above the Government and the Legislature of Egypt, ft was the fact, because the Government of the country was subject to them, that European interference had taken place which had led to the critical position of affairs which was now existing. Our present troubles were the result of control and interference of Europeans in Egypt, and the Control was a direct result of the action of these judicial tribunals. The present situation was, that by the action of these tribunals the enormous debt of some £90,000,000 sterling had been decreed against Egypt, and that was being enforced by the joint action of two of the European Powers. But he most wished to call attention to another effect of these tribunals, which was to establish an enormous private debt, which would have an ultimate political effect, very great, and, he thought, very dangerous. Those who took an interest in such matters knew that there had been numerous financial institutions, both in London and in Paris, established for the purpose of "exploiting" Egypt and lending money to the Natives. Why was it that these financial institutions were formed to lend money to the Egyptians? He imagined that it was not out of benevolence towards the Egyptians. It was because they expected to get a high interest for their money, upon extremely good security. That security was the land of the Egyptians, which was known to be valuable. The Natives had thus entered upon a course of mortgaging their lands, which, it was to be feared, would ultimately fall into the hands of these associations. Finding such facilities afforded them of obtaining money, the Egyptians, in common with other Oriental peoples similarly situated, were living in a sort of fool's paradise. It was pleasant for the time to have accommodating money-lenders; but a day of reckoning would come at last, and we might have not only social and commercial ruin, but a political difficulty in the case of debts due by the Egyptian cultivators. The same state of things existed in India, when the people were encouraged to acquire complete rights of property, although they were as ignorant how to use those rights as children; for they became only too ready to receive loans and accumulate debts. But the day of reckoning eventually arrived, and the result was that great disturbances took place, just as in Russia at the present moment. A Commission was then appointed to inquire into the condition of the Deccan ryots, which led to the disclosure of a very dangerous state of things. Great sympathy was extended by the Government of India and of this country to the ryots of India, who had been deprived of their lands at a price very much below their value. If the present state of things were allowed to continue in Egypt, it was a matter of almost absolute certainty that serious disturbances would take place in that country; for these financial associations were pushing and aggressive. As regarded India, the Deccan Ryot Act was passed, by which a considerable amount of protection from the money-lenders was afforded to the ryots; but who had power to overrule these associations and these tribunals in Egypt? It had been held that the Government had not the power, by an Egyptian decree or Egyptian legislation, to overrule the decisions of the tribunals established by the European Concert. If that were so in regard to public debts, his apprehension was that it would be so in regard to private debts. There were a number of other nations, besides France and England, interested; and without the consent of all the Powers who were interested in these arrangements they could not alter the power of these tribunals. As the thing now stood, if the tribunals went on on their present footing the creditors would be entitled to their pound of flesh, and it would be impossible to make any satisfactory arrangement. The reason why he was desirous to call the attention of the House and the Government to the subject, at this moment, was that the agreement under which these tribunals were established was a temporary agreement, that it had expired, and was being renewed year by year. What, he asked, should be the result when it was again renewed? Such arrangements should be made that it would not be possible for any foreign tribunal to override the faction of the Legislature of Egypt, to enforce on the people of Egypt private debts which would have the effect of creating great disturbance and great political danger. As an instance of the difficulty of these international arrangements, he might notice that there was now in Egypt an institution called an International Sanitary Board, at which were represented al-most all the nations of Europe, small and great. The result was that in that Sanitary Board were represented many of the petty European Kingdoms which had practically no interest in Egypt. It was a somewhat dangerous state of things that the gentlemen upon the Sanitary Board were not gentlemen specially appointed for the purpose, but were local gentlemen carrying on the trade and commerce of the country. That Board of 18 members, of whom France and England had only two, had instituted regulations which appeared to the merchants and shipowners of London to be vexatious in the very highest degree; and it was impossible to get rid of those regulations without consulting all those petty Powers. The consequence had been that the traffic of the Suez Canal had within the last few months been seriously interfered with, to the detriment of trade and commerce; and he understood that a very great deal of profit to the local community of the Europeans established in Egypt had resulted from the detention of vessels in the Canal, and the enormous prices which had been paid for tugs and pilots and things of that kind. Therefore, it might happen that the members of the Sanitary Board might find themselves in a position in which their private interests were arrayed on the same side as the public prejudice. There was a strong feeling among the mercantile community here that this should rather be dealt with by an autonomous Government than by one of those complicated tribunals. He wished to avoid the burning political questions which had arisen; but would just say one word on the question of European Control, which, in the hands of the Controllers, had been rapidly becoming a European administration of Egypt. This was said to be a satisfactory state of things; but he confessed he had very considerable doubts upon it, because they found, when they dealt with foreign countries in different parts of the world, that it very often happened that the Natives would rather be ill-governed by their own people than well-governed by foreigners. The late Lord Lawrence once instituted an inquiry into the relative advantages of European and Native rule in India; and it was found that the Natives were not at all clear that the advantages were so decidedly on the side of European rule as one was apt to suppose. And if there could be any doubt on that point in the case of a country like India, how much greater must the doubt be as to Egypt, where the circumstances were very different and very much more dangerous, especially as there was this enormous disadvantage—that they had not one Power trying to do their best for the people of Egypt, but a cumbrous Joint Control, which rendered good administration infinitely more difficult? He was not prepared to say that jobbing had been carried on to a great extent in Egypt; but, looking at the enormous amount of patronage, and remembering how much human nature was given to nepotism, he should not be surprised if there was a considerable degree of truth in the allegation that there was a good deal of nepotism and jobbing in regard to the personnel of the European Administration. Again, there was an uncertainty with respect to the stability of the European Control in Egypt. The Natives of India were accustomed to our rule and believed in its stability; but the case was very different in Egypt, where, owing to its peculiar character, the combined Control which existed to-day might be upset to-morrow by some divergence of view arising between the European Powers. They were sometimes told that under the European Control the Natives had great advantages in respect to taxation; but he was not so sure of that. He was aware the taxes had been regulated, and that new brooms usually swept clean. He had no doubt that had been well regulated; but he was not so sure that the taxation had really been diminished, seeing that an enormous revenue was raised from the people, more than double that which was required for the administration of the country, and more than half of it was paid away to foreigners. He thought they must all feel that there was a danger to ourselves and our neighbours in this system of Joint Control. It was said there was nothing so dangerous as two friends travelling together, as they were almost certain to quarrel before they reached the end of their journey. He thought this country and France had undertaken a somewhat hazardous Egyptian tour together. He hoped the newspapers were right in their interpretation of the action of the Government of France, it having been announced that morning that the French Controller had been withdrawn, and the inference being that the French proposed to interfere as little as possible; and he trusted the Government of this country would do the same. He hoped the Government would regard interference as at best a necessary evil, and that it would be only temporary, and as little as possible. He particularly urged that great social and political evil was likely to result if the great private debts to which he had referred were allowed to be superadded to the public Debt of Egypt which already existed. It might be that the Government of France was at present peaceable and reasonable; but another man of heroic mould, like Gambetta, might by-and-bye prevail on France to pursue a different policy. Other nations might demand a share in that policy; indeed, they had a share already in the international tribunals, and the difficulties might increase. When we interfered with foreign countries, we said it was for the benefit of the Natives; but there was a good deal of hypocrisy in that. It was the interest of the moneylenders of this country and of France that had prevailed in the case of Egypt, not the interest of the Natives. Now, he should like to see Egypt as autonomous as possible. He did not see why the Egyptians—an acute, peaceable, and moderate people—should not be allowed to govern themselves. It might be that they would have a revolution now and again. Why should they not have an occasional revolution, as other States had? He did not see why they should not. We had had a great many revolutions before we attained our present state of peace and quiet, and he did not see why they should not have a trial of autonomy on one condition, that being that the freedom of the Suez Canal, as a great international highway, should be maintained. But was it the case that there had been any anarchy in Egypt which interfered with the international interests of Europe in that Canal? On the contrary, had that Canal not been made for the benefit of Europe, very much with Egyptian money and altogether with Egyptian labour? The lives of thousands of Egyptians had been sacrificed in making it, and, as far as the Egyptians were concerned, we had enjoyed perfect freedom of commerce through that Canal up to the present. He believed that every international agreement was an evil, it might be a necessary evil; but on the single point of the Suez Canal he was free to confess that the object of maintaining it as an international concert was so great that some international system for that purpose should be maintained. There was an international system with regard to the Danish Sound, and another with respect to the navigation of the Danube. But as far as we were concerned, if things came to the worst, we had got a great highway to India round the Cape. He begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

MR. CROPPER

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is inexpedient to make, or renew on expiry, engagements by which Foreign Governments may have a claim to insist on the enforcement of private debts against natives of Egypt, the transfer of lands, vexatious sanitary regulations, and other demands, in super session of the autonomous legislation and government of the country; excepting only provision for the free use of the Suez Canal as an International commercial waterway,"—(Sir George Campbell,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. M'COAN

said, that, although he apprehended this discussion was likely to be rather academical than practical, he would like to say a few words on the other side of the question. The speech of the hon. Member opposite (Sir George Campbell) would be regarded in Egypt as an attack upon the international tribunals; and as he (Mr. M'Coan) knew something of the manner in which those Courts had worked in Egypt up to the present time, he wished to say that they had been the one reform in the history of the East during the present generation, which commanded universal approval in Egypt. They were, in fact, almost the only effective and successful reform which had been achieved by European influence in that country. In the administration of justice they had reated nothing less than a revolution. Seven years ago, before these Courts were established, such a thing as justice was unknown in Egypt, and more especially in the cases where Europeans were interested. The prosecution of a claim against an Egyptian Native by an European plaintiff was formerly managed through the foreign Consulates, and the process almost invariably led to great corruption. The late Khedive carried on a long negotiation with a view to reform these abuses, with the result that these institutions were established, composed of nominees of the principal Powers, presumably the best men their respective Foreign Offices could recommend. And, although there were varying shades of ability and learning in the Judges thus selected, the Courts as a whole had given great satisfaction, and the men composing them had discharged their duties with honour, integrity, and efficiency. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of it as a ground of offence that they made the Natives pay their just debts. However much he (Mr. M'Coan) might wonder at such a fact being made ground of complaint, he could say, that whenever judgment was so given against Native defendants, it was invariably just. The result was that these tribunals were popular even with the Natives themselves; and the scale of fees being exceedingly moderate, justice could generally be had for a few piastres. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy had further complained that they were above the Government; but that in his (Mr. M'Coan's) opinion was one of their greatest merits. They were thus able to do justice as it had never been done before between the Khedive and the humblest plaintiff or defendant. Hon. Members could hardly realize how little authority the so-called Egyptian Legislature really possessed. Its Members were ignorant peasants, most of whom had been bastinadoed at one time or other for non-payment of their taxes. It was true that a large proportion of the Judges of the international tribunals were Natives; but secure in their position, and with the example of their European Colleagues before their eyes, they had become, as a rule, equally fearless and upright. If any improvement in the condition of the people of Egypt were needed it would be best effected, he believed, not by curtailing, but by extending the power of those tribunals and bringing all classes, both Native and foreign, under their jurisdiction.

Mr. GOSCHEN

said, that the speech of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had touched upon three special subjects, the question of Control, the question of the national movement, and the question of international tribunals. He (Mr. Goschen) did not intend to discuss the advantages or disadvantages of the Control, or to venture upon the exceedingly delicate ground of the political situation in Egypt. That situation seemed to him to present every kind of difficulty, and, knowing, as he did, the attention paid in. the East to everything said in that House—for hon. Members could scarcely exaggerate the interest with which their debates were followed at Constantinople and at Cairo—he trusted they would be exceedingly careful in the remarks they might make upon that subject. Before expressing any opinion, he thought they would do well to wait till they had Papers before them, showing what information was in the hands of the Government; for, with their present information, it would not be safe for them to express any opinion whatever as to the attitude of one party or the other in Egypt. There were many inaccurate statements appearing in the newspapers, among many, no doubt, that were accurate, and it was at present impossible for them to discover the truth. In the letters he himself received from Cairo there were the most contradictory views expressed as to the character both of Arabi Bey and Mahmoud Pasha, and of the "National movement," so that it would be unwise on their part if they were prematurely to pronounce against the possibility of there being a National movement in Egypt. He hoped, therefore, they would reserve their opinion till they had more light, and that the opinions expressed by the hon. Gentleman (Sir George Campbell) would not be understood in Egypt as being the opinion of the House of Commons. With regard to the international tribunals, he should have thought that, if there was one institution in the East introduced from the West which had proved more than any other a success in the eyes of Europeans and Natives, that institution was the international tribunals in Egypt. The objection, however, taken to them by the hon. Gentleman was in reality that they were too strong and too efficient. To abolish the international tribunals would be to strike at the very basis and foundation of civilization—namely, the pure administration of justice. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member as to the possible dangers of the land of Egypt being absorbed by foreign moneylenders; but considered that the hon. Member had committed himself to rather an extravagant mode of giving vent to his opinions when he wished to re-introduce Turkish or Arabian in the place of European tribunals, in order to frighten capital away. The hon. Member had spoken as if the introduction of European capital into Egypt was almost a curse, and as if the good administration of justice was an civil because it encouraged capital. He (Mr. Goschen) trusted the Government would not assent to the Resolution; but that when the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs came to speak, he would state that the maintenance of international tribunals was a matter of great importance not only to England, or to the European Powers and capitalists, but that it was essentially of value as teaching the Egyptians and Mohammedans generally the value of pure and incorruptible justice. The selection of the Judges and the probity of their conduct had generally been praised; and, notwithstanding the many failures which had been encountered in the endeavour to regulate the affairs of Egypt, and the jealousies which naturally existed between different nationalities, these tribunals had worked together in such a manner as to command the esteem of the whole community—he might almost say without exception—in Egypt. He hoped that Her Majesty's Government would agree that the international Courts ought to be maintained, and he considered that a great debt of gratitude was due to Nubar Pasha for the force and for the courage with which he had introduced those institutions into Egypt.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he did not think that, after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), there was much left to be said on the part of Her Majesty's Government, who were, moreover, very anxious that some progress should be made in Supply that night. He agreed with much that had fallen from the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan), who had done great service to the House in the way in which he dealt with international tribunals, and also with what had fallen from his right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon. His hon. Friend the Mem- ber for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had warned the House against the dangers that would arise in the event of these international tribunals not being put an end to. But the abuses of the old system had been clearly pointed out by the present Lord Derby in a despatch written in 1868, and that despatch so admirably contrasted the state of things prevailing before the existence of these tribunals, and foreshadowed so excellently the state of things existing now, that he could not do better than refer hon. Gentlemen interested in the subject to it. Lord Derby, at that time, pointed out that the system then existing had become a great abuse, as the whole authority of local tribunals had been usurped by the extra-territorial jurisdiction; and his suggestions were marvellously accurate as to the effect which tribunals similar to those now existing would have on the people and the country. His hon. Friend had not proved any portion of his case. In the first place, he had asserted that there was great danger that the whole of the land in Egypt would pass into the hands of the foreign moneylenders; but, in the course of a long speech, he had failed to show any reasonable ground for that apprehension. For his own part, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) ventured, upon the best authority, to deny that there was any reason to expect that such would be the case. Looking at the whole of the speech of his hon. Friend, he felt it necessary to ask what he was driving at, because, if the international tribunals were merely to be got rid of, the whole of those abuses against which Lord Derby had protested would be revived. It must be remembered, moreover, that throughout the whole of his speech his hon. Friend did not put forward any alternative scheme in place of that which was now being worked with success in Egypt. The quinquennial period for which the Courts were established in the first instance expired at the beginning of this year, and a renewal for one year had been agreed upon. In the interval, inquiry was being made, and an exchange of views was taking place between the Powers and the Egyptian Government as to the results of the system up to the present time, and as to the conditions under which it might be renewed. His hon. Friend seemed to be unacquainted with the history of the establishment of these mixed tribunals, the services they had rendered in a greater degree probably to the Native than to the foreigner, and the absence of an independent judicial system in Egypt outside these Courts. The immediate result of a lapse of existing arrangements would be a revival of all the old Capitular prerogatives of 17 different Consular jurisdictions, and of the system of enforcing foreign claims by diplomatic pressure, abuses which, before 1876, were exercised to the enormous detriment of Egyptian interests, and were surrendered most reluctantly by certain of the Powers, mainly by the insistence of the British Government. The idea of Nubar Pasha, the author of the reform, was to apply it to the Native population as well as for foreigners; but he was unable to carry his point in this respect. He intended, side by side with the international tribunals, to establish Native Courts affiliated to the former, presided over by a certain number of competent Judges selected by the Egyptian Government in foreign countries. He desired gradually to accustom the people to the notion of independent judicial procedure, and felt that he could only do it by having recourse to foreign assistance in the first instance, with the ultimate expectation of arriving at a purely Egyptian institution. Only half his scheme was, however, adopted, and the policy of all well wishers of Egypt should be to complete it, and not to undo what had been effected. His hon. Friend seemed to think that the tribunals were unpopular with the Natives; but all the evidence went to show that the exact opposite was the case. The Government were informed on all sides that the Courts were just as popular with the Natives as with Europeans; and he might state also that there was a very strong Native movement in Egypt in favour of placing the whole of the cases between Native and Native under the control of these tribunals. There had been undoubtedly in the speech of his hon. Friend a great begging of the question, because he had argued that there were great defects in the present system, and that he was prepared to return to the old system, the vice of which he admitted, rather than continue to bear the evils of which he complained, and of the existence of which evils he had given no proof whatever. No ques- tion as to any one of these Courts had ever been raised by the Native population in Egypt, or by the Egyptian Government. Another proof of the confidence these tribunals inspired was to be found in the fact that property was now registered in their land offices, in preference to the Native land offices, to the amount of about £8,000,000. The sole charge which had been made against the Courts by his hon. Friend, which, however, was unsupported by any evidence, was that they served too much as debt-collecting machines for the money-lenders, and that their procedure facilitated the forced sale of land; but at least two-thirds of the business of the tribunals had nothing to do with the money-lenders, by whom was meant the class which lent money on the security of land. It was a class which had always existed in Egypt, where there was heavy taxation and an improvident people. The effect of the Courts had been, by the greater security they afforded, to invite capital into the country and to lower the rate of interest. Money used to be advanced by petty usurers at the rate of 4 per cent a-month. It was now lent at 9 per cent per annum by large financial establishments. Debts used to be collected through the intervention, first of the Cadi, who sold his justice, and next through the Mudir, or Provincial Governor, who alone could execute the sentences, and whose services were equally venal. If the peasant could not or would not pay, he was imprisoned and flogged. That had been abolished, and debts were now collected by a tribunal according to law. There was no imprisonment for debt, and, it was needless to add, no flogging. In cases of mere debt collection, the mixed tribunals exempted from seizure goods and chattels which were necessary to the maintenance and occupation of the debtor. No such rule existed formerly. As regarded land questions, the Courts had worked good. For instance, by a series of decisions, they had laid down the principle of undivided or family ownership, which obtained under Mahomedan law, and had never recognized a mortgage placed on the family land by its head as binding the property, unless the head of the family had obtained the consent of all whom he represented. Very frequently the money-lender had thus lost what he thought a good security, and he began now to recognize the superior value of a title registered at the land office even as against possession and apparent ownership. The procedure of these Courts was extremely simple and within the reach of everyone, and such reforms as were really needed they might hope to be accomplished before the existence of the Courts was renewed for a further term of years. The popularity of the Courts was shown by the amount of work they did, and the increase had been extraordinarily rapid. The three tribunals of First Instance had given judgment on an average on 5,000 cases every year. The Court of Appeal had decided an average of 300 cases annually. The work done had steadily increased, as was shown by the following statement from the Court of Appeal:—In 1875–6 there was 87 cases decided; in 1876–7, 213; in 1877–8, 327; in 1878–9, 388; and in 1879–80, 405. It was to be regretted that the third tribunal at Mansourah had recently been suppressed. There was always much to be done, and it was especially useful from its position in the heart of the Delta to the Natives of Egypt, who now for their cases had to come either to Alexandria, which was practically outside Egypt proper, or on to Cairo, which was away on the confines of the desert. The mixed tribunal more than paid their own expenses by the judicial receipts; but the fees of Court were too high, and the Court of Appeal was now preparing a new tariff, which would reduce the fees 50 per cent in all smaller cases where the fellaheen were most concerned. The tribunals and the Appeal Court were all in arrears with their work. This arose from the large number of Judges required to sit in every case, from the limited jurisdiction of the summary justice or small causes Court, and from the cumbrous procedure. His hon. Friend had also said a few words about the Sanitary Board and the Board of Control. With regard to the question of Control, he should follow the advice of his right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), and say nothing on the subject at present. He not only thought it was dangerous to speak on the subject, but he also thought it was unnecessary, because in that respect, as in others, he would say that the Introducer of the Motion brought forward no evidence whatever to sup- port his contentions. His hon. Friend spoke of the Sanitary Board; but the same remark applied to that as to the remainder of his speech—namely, that he did not say what he proposed the Government should do. On the proper occasion he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) could speak at length on that subject. The action of the Board was, no doubt, vexatious in the highest degree, and they had placed serious obstacles in the way of the commerce of all countries, and especially upon the large commerce of England. That Board, however, was not within the reach of the Government. The Government could, however, protest and take certain steps to induce the Board to see things as Her Majesty's Government saw them. He could assure the House the matter was receiving the most constant attention at the hands of the Government. His hon. Friend asked them to pronounce in favour of autonomous government in Egypt, a country which, until now, had possessed very little autonomous government. He did not think there were any grounds shown which ought to induce the House to adopt so sweeping a Motion, or to retrace the steps which had been taken in the establishment of the international tribunals, which formed one of the best institutions in the Eastern world. He must, therefore, meet it with a negative.

MR. O'DONNELL

, in supporting the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), said, that the discussion seemed to have travelled wide of its terms. He did not understand that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy denied the advantages of the international tribunals, but that he drew attention to the fact that it was inexpedient to make a new expiry engagement by which foreign Governments might have the claim to insist upon enforcement of all private debts against Natives of Egypt and the transfer of lands. He could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), that the loans and capital were identical. It depended on the application of the loan whether it became capital or not. The essence of the objection of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy was that a large portion of the loans would not prove reproductive, and that a crisis would sooner or later arrive similar to that which occurred in the Deccan, and that, therefore, there ought to be moans established of effecting a compromise between the money-lenders and the fellaheen, so as to prevent the occurrence of like evils. Usurious speculators were now finding in Egypt an opportunity of placing loans to an immense amount amongst a primitive population, and on terms that would be found not less crushing, considering the wide extent of the borrowing, than that which had been before experienced. Farm after farm would be sure to come into the hands of European creditors, and unless an equitable arrangement was made a revolt would be the consequence. He admitted that the international tribunals were a great improvement upon the existing system, and that they gave judgments that were technically just; but there was a point in Egypt, as in Ireland, where it might be necessary to interfere with contracts in connection with the tribunals. As regarded the European Control, the National party at present in Egypt did not declare that such Control was useless. It recognized that within a large sphere it was most useful. But that party objected to the exaggerated salaries paid to Europeans, and to the endless multiplication of those officials. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had said that there had been no complaint by the Egyptian people or Government. But it was only during the last few months that the people had any voice in the matter, and the Egyptian Government had been entirely in the hands of the international tribunals. Those who were conversant with the matter could testify to the hate and detestation that was universally felt throughout the Egyptian population against the swarm of highly-paid European officials. He hoped that improvements would be made in the constitution of the international tribunals, and that some provision would be made for equitable as well as strictly legal provisions, for really what was wanted was a Court of Equity in dealing with the question raised by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy. The hon. Member had complained that the Egyptian National Government was composed of mere fell a heen—bastinadoed fellaheen; but it was a very illogical conclusion to come to, that because these men had suffered from oppression they would do nothing to lessen the oppression of others.

SIR GEORGE ELLIOT

said, that he had only recently returned from a visit to Egypt; in fact, during the last 15 years he had annually visited that country. In that period he had travelled the whole length and breadth of the land. During the last six or seven years the improvement in the condition of the people had become most apparent, indeed so striking that no one could have possibly failed to notice it. With respect to that improvement, he believed that nothing had exercised a more beneficial influence than the international tribunals which formed the subject of the hon. Member's (Sir George Campbell's) Motion. They had worked admirably, and the rich pasha was treated with no more favour than the poorest fellah. He hoped their influence would extend throughout the whole country; but he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), that there was great need of caution and for a conciliatory spirit towards those with whom we did not altogether agree. He hoped nothing would induce Her Majesty's Government to relax the position which they had taken in Egypt, because our influence had been of the greatest benefit to the people. He thought the less said about the National party and Arabi Bey the better, and he hoped that no language would be used in that House which would give offence to any body of people in Egypt. With regard to the Control, it might be admitted that a large number of Europeans were employed, and that the salaries were high; but he did not believe that the Control cost the country more than £50,000 or £60,000 a-year. He thought that the evil was of no great magnitude, and would remedy itself. There was a growing opinion in favour of the greater employment of Native Egyptians, who were very steady and trustworthy; and wherever a Native could be substituted for a European in the service that had been done. He hoped there would be as little interference as possible with the Control, which had worked well with the country.

Question put, and agreed to.

Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," again proposed.