New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1922-01-01
sentiment than the patriotism o.
home and tradition
Positions Of India and
Egypt Are Very Different


ISL nstivist agi.ations in Egypt and in
india. must be carefully guarded, or
It will become misleading. The status
OF India is entirely different from that
Of Egypt. Egypt has never been in
cluded in the British Empire. Up to
1914 she was an autonomous state, un-
der the very limited suzerainty Of Trr-
key Now she is, technically speaking.
an Independent state, temporarily un-
der British protcctorate.
The report Of the Milncr commission.
submitted 60 Lord Curzon on Decembsr
., 1920, clearly recognized this distinc
ton. 1t said:
mo grant to Egypt Of q greater or
less measure Of self governments
even If il Went the length Of what is
known as Dominion Home Rule
would meet the case, because Egyp-
ANS do not regard their country as
sritish dominion, Or Themselves rs
british subjects. This wholly differ
initiates the problem Of constitu-
t'onal development in Egypt from the
same problem in countries which
have for years indubitably formed
part Of the British empire, as, for
instance. British India. We talk OF
such countries gradually attaining
the status OF nationhood. The Egyp-
tlans claim that they already have
this status. No settlement Of the
ognize this claim is ever likely to be
accepted by-it can only be imposed
on-the Egyptian people"
Over against this concession Of
Egypt's non-British political status The
Milr5. report set practical considcra-
ton of great consequence from the
viewpoint Of British interests: "Wc
have The patent fact that Egypt,
though not actually part Of the Brit
ish Empire, is of vital importance to
our whole imperial system and that
that country, under British guidance,
has attained new level OF civilization
from which it would b. disastrous TO
allow it to relapse"
Hero in a nutshell is the quarrel BE
tween the Egyptian Nationalists ard
British policy. II was not the gospel
of differentiation preached at Paris
which aroused the Egyptians to a sense
Of nationhood, as it did 80 many other
subject peoples and races. Egypt has
had a well-dcfned national existence
for the last hundred years. She has a
civilization running back for many
centuries and even older than Europe's.
Her people wan. to control their own
destiny On the other hand, Egypt lies
across Great Britain's communications
with India and Central Africa, and
Britain has pulled her out OF the
slough Of stagnstion and misgovern-
ment. There are the two sides TO the
controversy which ABLY Pasha and
Lord Curzon failed to settle in The
recent negotiations in London.
Roots OF Controversy
Go Back One Century
The roots Of this controversy go
back into tho history Of the last
century. In the first half Of that period
Egypt, under the Albanian adventurer,
Mehemct Ali, obtained great military
power and almost complete independ-
encc. Mchemet rose 80 the top in
Egypt by overthrowing the Mamelukes
He aided the Sultan materially At che
time of che Greek " ar Of Independence
and afterward fought him, conquering
Syria. The Sultan then made him
hereditary Khedive Of Egypt, stipulat-
ing merely that he should pay Constan-
+..,b
of his SUCCESSORS, boasted that Egypt
had been detached from Africa and had
become European power.
Ismail was reckless spender and
created huge European debt. 1t was
in his reign that the Suez Canal was
built, and he received a big block Of
shares in that enterprise. Later, when
he was near bankruptcy, he put those
shares on the market and the Disraeli
Ministry was shrewd enough to buy
them. This transaction brought Great
Britain into close relations with Egypt
End led eventually to British political
and military intervention.
In seven years Ismail increased
the Egyptisn debt from s1e,oco,ooo
to s47O-00o.000. His European credit
ors. mostly French and British,
became alarmed and through their
governments demanded some form OF
control, which the free
handed Khedive conceded. A foreign
fiscal commission was established, en-
which France and Great Britain were
represented, and power over the purse
in Egypt naturally took the form Of
power over internal administration.
IN Egypt. as in Turkey, the capitu-
lations system had been introduced
This allowed eHtraterritoriality to Eu-
ropeans, created mixed tribunals in
which cases involving foreigners were
tried and virtually relieved foreigners
Of taxation. The opening of the Suez
Canal and the development Of the cot
ton industry brought many foreigners
into the country. Alexandria became a
partly Europeanizsd city. The powers
which had assumed responsibility for
the discharge Of the debt became also
in = measure responsible for the pro-
lection Of those enjoying extrsterri-
.orial privileges.
Group