, 1882-03-18
+ r "a c e.

PARIS, Feb. IS.
The Senate to-day was occupied with a
measure, which has passed the Chamber
of Deputies, for Obliging the natives of
Algeria to adopt Surnames. General Ar
naudeau spoke strongly against a Bill
which did not, he said, take into account
the nOmadic character of the people. The
distribution of cards of identity, which
formed part of the measure, would prove
useless and ever dangerous. The penal
ties necessary to enforce obedience would
disturb the native population The repor-
ter Of the Bill, in reply, urged the indis.
pensability of being able to distinguish
the Arabs by name from each other for
the purposes of justice and of enforcing
private contracts. General Arnaudeau
said the natives had multiple names and
were distlnguishable when desired.
The Temps remarks that the desire for
an agreement as to Egypt appears to pre-
vail at COnstantinOple, Vienna, Berlin,
Paris, and London, and that this may
easily be effected. France and England
annOt allow the calling in question of
the financial control, the free passage of
the ISthmuS, and Turkish non-interven-
ton. The first of these has been virtually
admitted by the Powers the second is
insisted upon by all parties in England
and the third is essential to the security
Of French possessions in Africa, Nothing
in these reservations, the Temps thinks,
impedes the right and desire of other
Powers to cooperate in inSuring tranquil
liCy in Egypt. If, therefore, Europe is
sincerely anxious to arrange matters
which might produce great mischief, let
her show it by a preliminary understand
ing for excepting these three points from
the pending negotiations. The Debats
also takes note of the cOnciliatOry temper
animating all the Powers, of the excellent
effect produced in Vienna and Berlin by
the last Anglo French instructions, and
of the good advice still being given to the
Khedive. 1t therefore hopes that quiet
will soon be restored" if, indeed" it
adds, " Arab Bey is agreeable"
The turn taken Of late by the Egyptian
question is considered here on the whole
as very satisfactory, as it has contributed
to define more clearly and precisely the
position of the different Powers, and there
by to lessen the chances of any misunder-
standing. 1t was thus when the Consular
Courts and later on the Commission OF
Control was established, which, as may
be remembered, formed the subject Of long
negotiations between all the Powers, and
thus it was when the rule of IsmaIl Pasha
seemed to compromise the arrangement
that had been made when the Western
Powers took the initiative for his removal,
and when all the Powers co.Operated i'll
Constantinople to bring about in concert
with the Porte the present solution. While
thus practically the Egyptian question
was treated under this double point of
view, there appeared to be no necessity,
and perhaps, it did not even seem oppor-
tune, to take any steps to define the prin-
ciples on which the Egyptian question was
to be placed, so that a question raised
once in this respect by Russia met with
little response. Some incidents have,
however, occurred Of late which nigh
raise some doubts as to whether the Egyptian
question was viewed quite from the same
point of view by all the Powers interested.
There was on one side the Turkish Mis-
sion to Cairo, which received the interpre-
tatiOn that some oneSided action was in
tended by Turkey in Egypt. On the other
side, the Mission was met by the equally
one-sided measure of sending ships of
war to Alexandria, although it had
the effect of putting an end to the
mission. Then followed the Collective
Note of the Western Powers. Although
the Collective Note in standing up for
the maintenance of the status quo in
conformity with existing treaties and the
frmans which were repeatedly issued,
was quite in accordance with the views of