EGYPT (MILITARY EXPEDITION)— ARMY IN EGYPT.—RESOLUTION. (Hansard, 19 March 1885)

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL,
who had on the Paper the following Motion:—On Army Estimates, to call attention to the suffering and loss which must result from keeping British troops in the Soudan; and to move— 1714 That it is not proper that Her Majesty s soldiers should he exposed to the deadly Summer climate of the Soudan and Upper Egypt, and that Her Majesty's subjects should be taxed to protect Egypt, not for Her Majesty, nor for the Egyptians, but for the bondholders foreign to Egypt, to whom the revenue is assigned, said, he desired to confine himself specially to the second portion of the Motion. He considered that under all the circumstances it was neither right nor proper that the blood of the people of this country should be shed, or that they should be heavily taxed, in order to protect Egypt for the bondholders. Proceeding to discuss the climate of the Soudan and Upper Egypt, he said the locality in which our soldiers were at present was one of the hottest places in the world, and as a consequence they would be much exposed and suffer very greatly indeed. There were several circumstances which were likely to make exposure of English soldiers in the Soudan more fatal than were the risks encountered in the hot climate of Mooltan. The English troops now in the Soudan were very much exhausted, and they were unprepared to stand a terrible trial. The troops which went to Mooltan were under the excitement of active service; but the troops in the Soudan would have to wait a very long time before being engaged in active service. It appeared that already they were suffering from fever, ophthalmia, and other diseases. We did not know what was really the extra cost of our troops in Egypt and the Soudan, because that extra cost was mixed up with the ordinary cost of the Army. The sum of £100,000 or £200,000 was a mere bagatelle, and it only professed to cover what were called the extraordinary expenses. The average cost of a British soldier, all charges included, he estimated at about £180 per man per annum. In India the cost was about £200 per man per annum. A startling statement had been made by the Under Secretary of State for India, which was that the extraordinary expense for each Native soldier employed by the Government in Egypt was at the rate of £66 per month per man. It certainly seemed extraordinary that a White soldier should cost 1–16th of what a Black soldier cost. There were expenses to be incurred in Egypt which had not to be incurred in India. What number of soldiers were we contributing to the protection of Egypt? He found in The Times a tele- 1715 gram from Cairo, which stated that, exclusive of the Expedition at Suakin, we had 6,800 men in Egypt Proper. At £200 per man the cost of this number of soldiers would be £1,360,000. If the total number of troops, exclusive of those at Suakin, were taken at 10,000 men, the Expenditure would exceed. £2,000,000 per annum. The House had been already told that it had been necessary to increase the Army by 15,000 or 16,000 men. It was certain that we were incurring an expenditure of £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 per annum, and it was our being placed in this position which led to our difficulties with Russia. He gathered that the Government had practically bound themselves to the protection of Egypt for the next two years.

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, that the hon. Member was not touching on any subject appropriate to the Motion to go into Committee on the Army Estimates.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
said, he was venturing to submit that the Army Estimates ought to be reduced, because a large part of them was due to the employment of our Forces in Egypt.

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, that the hon. Member would not be in Order in pursuing that line of argument.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
said, that he would confine himself as closely as he could to the argument embodied in the Amendment which he had placed on the Paper, and which he presumed was in Order, or it would not have been allowed to be printed there. It was apparent on the face of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday that Egypt had been surrendered by Her Majesty's Government to the bondholders, to be treated as a sequestrated country, and that consequently neither the people of this country nor the people of Egypt had any direct interest in those finances which were to be protected by our troops. He admitted there were certain common European interests in Egypt apart from the interest of the bondholders, and apart from the interest of the people of Egypt; but what he said was that it was not a question peculiar to England. It was a question of common European interest, and why should we pay for all? Why should we pay for the interest of European nations, and not for ourselves alone? It seemed to him that was in reality a price we paid for 1716 the privilege of going to Egypt. We went to Egypt at the expense of the lives, of the blood, and money of the people of this country; and it seemed to him that the Government had practically told other nations that this country would protect their interests at the expense of British taxpayers if those nations would allow them to occupy Egypt. Not only were they not called upon to offer this protection, but no one was grateful to them for it. On the contrary, nearly every European nation was more or less hostile to this country for the course we had adopted in Egypt, and at least one European nation—Russia—had taken advantage of our entanglement. He could not hope to carry his Amendment, but he ventured to submit it by way of protest.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON
said, he hoped the House would excuse him if he did not follow the hon. Gentleman at any length in the speech he had just made. He must say that he had had very considerable difficulty in following the arguments of his hon. Friend, who seemed to have altogether mixed up in his mind the Estimates which they were about to discuss in Committee and the Supplementary Estimates which it was proposed subsequently to ask the House to agree to. The hon. Gentleman had not only mixed up the Estimates on the Table, which contained nothing whatever relating to the Soudan, but he had also mixed up the question of the Financial Arrangement which had been lately concluded by Her Majesty's Government. A good portion of the hon. Member's speech referred to the object for which Lord Wolseley's Force was now at Korti, and he expressed the opinion that it was not with the view of an ultimate advance to Khartoum, but for the protection of Egypt. He (the Marquess of 1717 Hartington) denied that; but even if it were so the House was not called upon that evening to express an opinion upon it, because the Estimates on the Table did not contain any item of expenditure relating to the occupation of the Province of Dongola or of the Upper Nile. All the operations there would be made the subject of debate on the Vote of Credit, and it could hardly be in Order to discuss them now. He understood the hon. Member to protest against any expenditure on the British garrisons in Egypt being charged to the British ratepayer; and he also understood him to contend that the whole cost in respect of that garrison would be very much larger than what was expected. As to the first point, it seemed to him to be one that could not be conveniently discussed on that occasion. There would shortly be an opportunity of discussing the whole question of Egyptian finance, when the arrangement of the International Agreement was brought before the House. The question then to be discussed was whether the Financial Arrangement was equitable to Egypt, to the bondholders, and to the ratepayers of this country; and whether the Revenues of Egypt were capable of defraying the whole of the expenditure on the British garrison. It would also be considered whether a larger sacrifice in respect of the charge to be made on the Egyptian Revenues on account of the British garrisons ought to be called for from the bondholders. The hon. Member, in his calculations with respect to the cost that would be involved by the British occupation of Egypt, seemed not to have taken into account the difference between men being engaged in active military operations where a very large amount of transport was involved, and the case where men were simply in garrison. The hon. Member spoke of the addition of 15,000 men; but they were not tonight discussing anything about 15,000 men. The addition of 15,000 men, if that was the number they proposed to add, would be for the distinct purpose of carrying on the military operations in the Soudan with the object announced to the House. The Army was not increased last year or the year before on account of the occupation of Egypt; it was not proposed to be increased this year on account of the occupation of 1718 Egypt. Therefore, it was absurd to argue that the whole cost of 6,000 men was the proper charge to be made against the Egyptian Revenue. The finances of Egypt could be discussed when they were regularly brought before the House; and he trusted the House would not be disposed to wander from the proper and very important subject they had to discuss in connection with the Estimates that evening. He perfectly understood that the hon. Member, and a few others who had from the first been opposed to the occupation of Egypt by British troops in any form, should take this opportunity, among others, of making their protest; but he did not think his hon. Friend himself desired that the House should now take up its time in reviewing the whole subject of Egyptian finance.

§ MR.LABOUCHERE
inferred from the remarks of the noble Marquess that there was nothing in the present Estimates connected either with the Soudan or with our occupation of Egypt.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON
said, the hon. Member misunderstood him. He would explain, when they were allowed to go into Committee, the way in which the Estimates related to the occupation of Egypt; but he might say that they had no reference to the operations in the Soudan.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
said, he understood that his hon. Friend wished simply to protest against the expenditure of money in Egypt, and he had struck out of his Amendment any reference to the Soudan, so that he was not only in Order, but justified in objecting to this expenditure. It appeared that there was something in the Estimates which related to the garrison in Egypt, and the contention was that the cost of that garrison ought to be borne by Egypt, and not by this country. That was a fair contention, and it was only reasonable that his hon. Friend, and those who thought with him, should raise the question. Under the circumstances, however, he would suggest that his hon. Friend should ask the leave of the House to withdraw his Amendment; or, if the House declined to grant that leave, that he should not go to a division, but in Committee move a reduction of the Vote.