No. 651.
Mr. Farman to Mr. Evarts.
Consulate-General of the United States,
Cairo, Egypt, August 2, 1880. (Received August
26.)
No. 441.]
Sir: I inclose the leading article of the
Egyptian Gazette of the 13th ultimo. This journal is published at
Alexandria, and is especially devoted to English interests. The article,
however, gives one of the principal causes of the debt of Egypt, and
contains other very important truths.
Heretofore two ideas relating to the embarrassed financial condition of
this unfortunate country have been kept prominently before the
[Page 1021]
European public. First that
the debt of Egypt arose from the building of palaces and the other
personal extravagances of its ruler; and, second, that the country was
rich and abundantly able to pay all its nominal, as well as real,
indebtedness, together with the high rate of interest that had been
stipulated. Now, it is frankly admitted, that these extravagances “are
but drops in the ocean.”
The same journal published, a few weeks since, Judge Morgan’s article on
the cost to Egypt of the Suez Canal, with commendatory remarks in
relation to its truthfulness. Little by little the correct history is
being written, and when it shall have been completed it will be found
that the debt of Egypt is principally due to the official and officious
interference of certain foreign powers and of their subjects sustained
by official influence.
It is the moral force of the English navy that has for many years kept
this country in subjection to the Ottoman rule. Egypt could at any time
free herself from Turkey with the utmost ease, were it not for the
support that the latter would receive, or at least would at any time
heretofore have received, from England and France.
There have been two reasons on the part of these powers, principally on
the part of the former, for holding Egypt in subjection to the Porte.
First, to strengthen the Ottoman Empire as a bulwark against Russian
power and influence in the Orient; and, second, because the tribute was
really payable to Turkey’s English creditors.
Now that there is a disposition on the part of Turkey to disregard even
the wishes of England, an English paper suggests the injustice of the
tribute to which it ascribes one-half of the debt of Egypt. No
suggestion of this character would have come from a similar source one
year ago.
It is emphatically true, as stated, that the fellah has for many years
served as a permanent burnt offering to the Moloch of Egyptian finances.
It is quite as true that he still serves as such. Himself, his body and
soul, his family and lands, cattle and savings, his past, present, and
future, “have been and are impartially and mercilessly sacrificed to
whom it may concern”—that is, at the present time, to the bondholders.
It is difficult, however, to see what sacrifice has been made by this
class of creditors. There are very few of them who have not doubled,
within five years, the capital they have put in Egyptian securities, and
the more unfortunate have at least received very high interest. The
sacrifice is, however, to be continued on the part of the fellah, and so
far as can now be seen, on the part of no one else. A faint cry may
sometimes be raised in his behalf by the humanitarian, but there are too
great pecuniary interests involved to permit him to be heard by the
statesmen of England and France. There are also potent political reasons
for the continuance of the present system of control The future of Egypt
is indeed dark, and unless relieved by some great upheaval that shall
revolutionize all the governments of the Orient, its inhabitants must
continue for an indefinite period, in the future as in the past, to
labor without the right of enjoying either the fruits of their property
or toil.
I have, &c.,
[Inclosure in No. 441.—From the
Egyptian Gazette, Saturday, July 31, 1880.]
the tribute.
In the various proposals suggested and adopted for the rehabilitation
of Egyptian finance, we have heard much of sacrifices demanded on
all sides. The fellah for many
[Page 1022]
years has been a permanent burnt offering;
himself, body and soul, his family, lands, cattle, and savings; his
past, present, and future have been impartially sacrificed for
account of whom it might concern, and it was only when this peculiar
form of sacrifice, which required no more learned priest than the
late Muffetish, became exhausted that Ismail Pasha bethought him of
European augurs and invoked the services of Mr. Goschen for the
sacrifice of the creditor. But the creditor deemed that even the
pleasures of self-sacrifice should not be indulged in to excess, and
the commission of inquiry appeared as an awful Nemesis and suggested
sacrifice even to the viceroy himself. In turn Nubar Pasha, two
consuls-general, the European ministry, the ex-Khedive, Cherif
Pasha, and a host of minor celebrities have been sacrificed to the
Moloch of Egyptian finance. The country, the nation, the creditor,
the state, the ruler have all made sacrifices. Is there no one else
from whom some sacrifice is due?
Egypt is groaning under her debt of a hundred millions; a great
portion of all that can be ground out of the country is going to the
foreign creditor. It is too late to recover the millions that have
been squandered, but it is not too late to profit by the lessons
which the past teaches.
What has become of those hundred millions? We hear talk of palaces,
of expensive yachts, of personal extravagances; these are but drops
in the ocean. One-half the indebtedness of Egypt is money paid to a
foreign power with which Egypt has but a nominal connection, from
which she derives not one iota of benefit, and to which she may yet
be called upon to sacrifice her whole future. Two millions a year
for the past fifteen years is the most moderate estimate that can be
formed of the amount paid to the sublime Porte; if we add to this
the cost of the Egyptian contingent during the late war and charge
the whole amount with compound interest at the exorbitant rates
which the government has had to pay, we shall exceed fifty
millions.
It is sufficiently hard that Egypt should still be weighted with the
interest on this enormous sum, that she should have to pay yearly
interest upon an amount which she has barely fingered, but surely
the time has arrived when she should be relieved from any further
exaction in the form of tribute.
Tribute may be defined as either the penalty of conquest or a payment
for protection rendered. It ceases, logically, when the sovereign
state has no power to enforce it, or when no protection is rendered
in exchange.
Taking the latter point first, it will hardly De contradicted that
Turkey gives no protection whatever to Egypt; on the contrary, Egypt
gives such protection as she can to Turkey. And we maintain that
Turkey, in her present condition, has no power, to enforce the
tribute; during the late war a blunt refusal to pay would, so far as
the Porte is concerned, have met with simple acquiescence. Why,
then, has it never been refused? Simply because it is no longer
payable to the Porte, but to its creditors. In other words, Egypt is
independent of the Sultan, but tributary to certain gentlemen on the
London and Paris bourses.
It is time that these gentlemen should be called upon to take their
turn on the sacrificial altar, and that Egypt should be relieved
from a payment made, for no consideration, to people with whom she
has no connection, and from whom she derives no benefit.
Candor, however, forbids us to overlook the fact that the continued
existence of slavery as a domestic institution is a stumbling block
in the way of the recognition of the independence of Egypt. Till
this blot on civilization is removed, we question very much if the
European powers would recognize the existence of Egypt as an
independent state. We think we are justified in saying that when
this happy day arrives one condition of our government would be the
immediate and unconditional abolition of slavery. England would be
false to all her traditions if she did not make this condition a sine qua non of her recognition of Egypt’s
independence.
