HC Deb 22 March 1886 vol 303 cc1537-43
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, & c.)

, who had on the Paper the following Notice of Motion:— That the cost of the Troops employed for the defence of Egypt should not be borne by the British taxpayer, but should be a first charge on the Revenues of Egypt, said, he regretted that the Forms of the House would prevent him from moving the Resolution. He gathered from a reply given that evening that some little progress had been made in reducing the numbers of the British Army in Egypt. But only a few weeks ago our military establishment in that country, including camp followers, numbered, he believed, something like 28,000 men. The cost of such a force must amount to at least from £4,500,000 to £5,000,000 per annum. He now found that it was proposed to maintain in Egypt 8,816 British troops, and the cost of these and for the Native assistance which was to be employed was estimated at £1,038,172. But that excluded the cost of arms, accoutrements, barracks, and other stores supplied from this country; also the cost of recruiting, of administration, and of the non-effective forces. He had no hesitation in expressing his belief that the cost of the reduced force, supposing it was really reduced so far as was proposed, would be at least £2,000,000, against the very small sum which we expected to receive from the Egyptian Government. All the statements he had heard inclined him to the belief that every effort was being made to establish an equilibrium in Egypt without regard to doing justice to the people of the country, and still less without regard to the taxpayers of this country. His proposition was that, whoever undertook the defence of Egypt, the cost of the defence ought to be made a first charge on the Revenues of the country, as it was an expense incurred to keep it solvent and as a going concern. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), he noticed, had put down an Amendment to his Motion. He had considerable sympathy with the Amendment, as he agreed with what he believed was the view of the hon. Member, that we had so little business in Egypt that the taxpayers of this country should be made to feel the burden of this occupation in order that we might sooner get out of it. There was only one reason that he could see why an Egyptian Army should not be raised to undertake the defence of the country, and that was that it would cost money, which would reduce the enormous revenue received by the bondholders. Before we departed from Egypt he presumed we must make arrangements for an Egyptian Army which would undertake the defence of the country, and uphold that self-government which Her Majesty's Government always professed themselves desirous to see. He had no hope, however, until we got out of Egypt, that we would get rid of this burden; but he wished to emphasize his proposition that, whoever defended Egypt, it was only right and fair that the ample Revenues of that country should be first called upon to bear the cost.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

, who had given Notice of an Amendment, which, however, he could not move, declaring— That the cost of the British troops employed in the occupation of Egypt should be defrayed out of the English Exchequer, as likewise the cost of all English officials engaged in the administration of that country, said, he hoped that when the Government had been long enough in Office to make up their minds about their policy in Egypt they would afford the House of Commons an opportunity of coming to a final decision with all the facts before it. From this hour the Government ought to be shaping their policy with a view either to the indefinite prolongation of our occupation or to the withdrawal of our troops. The withdrawal itself could not be effected within a month or within a year, and if it were intended that we should withdraw the preparations ought not to be postponed for a single week. Four years ago it was declared by the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) that the English occupation of Egypt would not be prolonged beyond six months, and that every effort was to be made to withdraw them; and still we were no nearer to withdrawal now than we were then. The principle which guided him in putting down the Amendment was that the one motive which would be a strong incitement to the Government to withdraw our troops, and to hon. Members to urge them to do so, was the fact that we were obliged to put our hands into our pockets and to pay heavily as long as our troops remained in Egypt. Unless it could be shown, either that the English occupation had been of immense benefit to the Egyptian people, or, on the other hand, that the war was a righteous war in which the Egyptian people were the aggressors, and that they were suffering the penalty of their aggression, he could not conceive what justification there was for continuing this occupation, still less for making the Egyptian people pay for it. The occupation of Egypt had been a curse to the English nation, and the sole motive for it was the interests of the English bondholders. Long before the bombardment of Alexandria the Prime Minister declared that no consideration would induce him to permit the British power to be used to support the bailiffs of the bondholders; and the right hon. Gentleman laid down the principle that it was not the duty of the Government to compel another nation to pay its debts, but that a man who advanced money to another nation did so at his own risk. He was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman had departed from that principle. The results had been the burning of Alexandria, the destruction of the Egyptian Army, which had no inglorious past, the utter demoralization of Egyptian finance, and the disgraceful transactions involved in the payment of £4,000,000 as Alexandrian indemnities. Before the bombardment of Alexandria in 1881, Egyptian finance showed a balance of £495,000, and afterwards it showed deficits of £185,000 in 1882, £222,000 in 1883, £843,000 in 1884, and £1,200,000 in 1885. It was alleged that Alexandria was burned by Arabi's troops; but the Egyptian people had no Representative on the Commission which made that declaration, and which was composed of men interested in making it. The result was that £4,125,000 had to be paid in indemnities by the Egyptian people, and it was declared by the correspondent of The Times that undoubtedly a considerable number of the claims had been sold to Egyptian capitalists, who had reaped a large profit out of the transaction. One result of our occupation had been the destruction of the Egyptian Army, and another the loss of the Soudan to Egypt, and the loss of hundreds of thou sands of lives in useless warfare. The hon. Member then read extracts from Lord Northbrook's Report to show the extent of Egyptian indebtedness, and said that this was the result of the invasion of Egypt since 1852 by the cormorants of Europe. He was proceeding to explain with some minuteness how loans were financed, when—

MR. SPEAKER

said, he would point out to the hon. Member for East Mayo that the financing of Egyptian loans had no bearing on the Votes to be taken in Committee.

MR. DILLON

said, that since the English entered Egypt the burdens of the people had advanced by leaps and by bounds, and the deficit was greater than ever. It was a delusion to suppose that the Egyptian people could pay for the Army of Occupation. He did not say it would lead to Egyptian bankruptcy, for that was certain under any circumstances; but it would hasten it. The Revenues of Egypt depend upon three things—cotton, wheat, and beans. Egypt was naturally a rich country, and if not loaded by debt it could easily pay its way. But cotton had fallen.

MR. SPEAKER

said, that the remarks of the hon. Member were not in accordance with the Rules of the House.

MR. DILLON

said, in conclusion, he would merely contend that England, and not Egypt, should pay for the Army of Occupation. If we did tax the Egyptian bondholders, he would be glad to see them made to pay; but, failing that, England should pay. The debts had been incurred for no benefits to be conferred on the Egyptians. He remembered being much struck with the remark made by an old fellah after Telel-Kebir—"It is pretty much as before; the English are in Cairo; the usurers are in the villages. God is great."

SIR ROBERT FOWLER (London)

said, he had some sympathy with the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) that the cost of the British troops in Egypt should be defrayed out of the British Exchequer. If England was occupying Egypt for Imperial purposes, it might be contended the expense ought to be thrown upon the Imperial Exchequer, and not on the Egyptians, who were already a highly-taxed people. But his principal object in rising was to represent to the Government the consideration that if we withdrew our troops from Egypt, the friends of England in Egypt, and those who had placed confidence in us there, would be left in an awkward, difficult, and dangerous position. That had been strongly represented to him when he was in Cairo in January, 1885. He hoped the Government would not overlook their responsibility in this matter, and would not withdraw the forces.

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRYCE) (Aberdeen, S.)

said, he had listened with attention to the speeches of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), and the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir Robert Fowler); but he would be out of Order, he feared, if he were to follow them in the observations they had made. The only question before the House was as to who should pay for the British troops in Egypt. The two speeches of the hon. Members for Kirkcaldy and for East Mayo proceeded from a common point of view; but they had stated opposite facts and arrived at contradictory conclusions. His hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy said that Egypt had been benefited. [Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL dissented.] Well, his hon. Friend said that Egypt could pay. The hon. Member for East Mayo said that Egypt had been injured by the occupation, and could not and ought not to pay. The Government, on their part, adopted a middle course. They believed Egypt ought to pay something; but that there were good reasons why she should not pay the whole cost of occupation. The facts, so far as they related to this point, were very simple. When our occupation began in 1882 the Egyptian Government were informed that a charge was to be made on Egypt of the extraordinary expenses entailed upon England by the occupation—not of the ordinary expenses, because our troops would have to be maintained somewhere, if not in Egypt. The sum of £4 8s. a-month was suggested as the extra expense for each soldier. Last year, when the Convention was being settled by which a deduction was to be made in the interest paid to bondholders, the serious condition of Egyptian finance made a great impression, and it was felt that England must deal leniently, and not ask Egypt to pay more than the disordered state of her finances would allow, and an arrangement was accordingly made that the maximum charge should not exceed £200,000 a-year. That was the existing arrangement. Those charges had, of course, been larger than were contemplated, owing to the invasions from the Southern Frontier of Egypt, which necessitated a larger force than they expected. The arrangements for frontier defence were of an indefinite character, and the Government were bound to have regard to the Southern Frontier, which, of course, involved extra expense. The hon. Member for East Mayo said that Egypt ought to pay nothing. But it could not be denied that if Egypt was exposed to dangers from which she was saved by the Army of Occupation she was to that extent benefited; and certainly that Army preserved her from the inroads of the wild warriors of the South. Then the people of Egypt had also been undoubtedly benefited in other ways during the last two or three years—e. g., by the presence of English Administrators. [Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL: No.] He had ex- cellent authority for that statement, which the hon. Member would be quite willing to recognize. In answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy he would remind the House that we went to Egypt to protect British interests, as hon. Gentlemen opposite were accustomed to say. We say the Army of Occupation went to Egypt to maintain Treaty engagements; and it was only reasonable that, having undertaken those Treaty engagements, we should be prepared to bear some part of the cost of fulfilling them. There was also a graver reason for that course. Egypt was unable to pay the whole costs. She had been threatened with bankruptcy for years past, and if we contributed nothing her financial position would be hopeless. By giving her a temporary indulgence the finances of the country would be improved, and for that reason the bondholders were asked last year to accept a diminution of their interest. Then, again, unless we contributed something it would be difficult for English Commanders to act in a military crisis on their own responsibility for the defence of the conntry. He could, in conclusion, inform the House that the Government had every reason to believe that the finances of Egypt would continue to improve, and before long it was probable that she would be a solvent country. He entertained some hopes that the organization of the Egyptian Army would be improved; that the efforts made by British Administrators to promote irrigation works would be successful; that forced labour would be diminished; and the International Tribunals were already beginning to bring forth good fruit.