New-York tribune., 1884-02-18


EGYPTIAN VARS AND BRITISH TAXES.
While British garrisOns are having a hard
| time of it in Egypt, Britishtaxpayers and bond
holders are having hard time of it at home.
Possibly the causes and the nature of the
| Egyptian difficulty might be better understood,
not only here but in England, if considered in
their true connection with British finances. The
| London Economist, while affirming that it is
| absurd to characterize the expedition to Egypt
| as ga bOndhOders war;" admits that "there
is one sense in which the expression embodies
a certain amount of truth" But for British
| intervention the inSurrectiOn under Arab
would have made short work of bondhOlders'
claims. But for British resistance, the Mahdi
would probably wipe ont in a short time the
present government of Egypt and the claims of
British bondholders together. But the tax
payer has some interest in the matter too, and
how great an interest the British taxpayer him.
self would just now like to know.
The revolt in the Soudan is largely
due. as the revolt under Arab was, to
the intolerable oppression of tax -gatherers, who
have little or nothing in common with the peO-
pie they squeeze. But the presence of such tax
gatherers, and the heavy exactions which they
make, are largely due to the measures which
| foreign bOndhOlders have taken to enforce the
payment of interest on their bonds Going still
| further back, we find that the Egyptian loans
were made, in very large measure, for thepur-
pose of maintaining i'll Egypt a government
| through which British interests in the Suez
| Canal particularly, and in the East generally,
could be protected The people of Egypt do not
want the Turkish rule; have not wanted it at
any time. But it suited England. "The UNI
speakable Turk" was bankrupt himself, but
his nominal tool in Egypt could borrow money
because it suited British interests to keep him
there, and to pay him roundly for doing as he
did Virtually, then, the taxpayers of Egypt
who are forced to pay crushing taxes to foreign
bOndholders, are paying the debts of Govern
ment which they never wanted, and which, if left
alone, they would soon get rid Of-debts created
for no object of the people of Egypt but largely
in order to serve British interests.
Why do not the British people pay these
debts themselves2 The Economist considers
seriously but combats a proposition that the
British Government should now take upon it
self the cost of the British Army Of Occupa-
ton" The British taxpayer has something to
say about that. He wanted protection of
British interests in Egypt, but he wanted Egypt
ians to pay the cost. He wanted control of the
Suez Canal, but he insists that $1,000,O00
yearly should be paid out of the Egyptian
Treasury as interest on the 20,000,000 in
vested in the canal. He now wants a MahOm-
etan uprising put down, because it threatens
all sorts of British interests in India as well as
in Arabia and Egypt, but the British tax
payer nevertheless wants the half-starved
Egyptians to pay the cost.
This, The Economist tells the British tax
payer plainly, has became absolutely impOs-
sible. The Egyptian Government cannot tax
any more. The Law of Liquidation sets
apart a revenue for bondholders, which
cannot be touched, though it now shows
surplus; but the revenue which it sets apart
for the government of Egypt is insufficient for
present necessities and can by no means be
stretched TO cover the cost of war. AS for bOr-
rowing, that is at an end the loan recently
made from the ROthschilds is the last that the
Law of Liquidation permits, and yet the Gov
ernment is called upon to pay $20,000.000 as
indemnity for property destroyed iii Alexandria,
and debts Of $10,000,000 beside caused by
the war in the SOudan, and meanwhile, there
Is absolute necessity that further large expenses
should be met in order to put down FL Mahdi. |
Otherwise the Government cannot exist nor
can the bondhOders get any money.
Clearly, either the British bondholder must |
Z" let up" little, or the British taxpayer must !
pay up Already, it is charged, the rigid ex- |
actions of the bOndhOlder have so crippled the
Government that the efforts to put down the !
rebellion have been paltry, tardy and impotent, |
and the victories of the rebels have enOr-
n0usly Increased the cost which must |
low be borne. Bat, on tine other hand, /
he British taxpayer had to bear his additional !
ncolnc-tax last year for the suppression of !
Arabi. He may well consider that If he is going |
q be taxed year after year, in time of great /
Industrial lrosiration, to keep alive n foreign |
government which cannot stand alone, his
interest IN the business ought to be made very
lear TO him.