Page:Blackwood's Magazine volume 137.djvu/327

1885] the final balance is struck? Is Egypt a gainer by our blind, bewildered sacrifices of blood and treasure? Will she be one iota the better for the deaths of those near and dear to us, whose bones are whitening on the desert? No: Egypt too is a victim. She has sacrificed, even more bitterly than ourselves, to the Moloch of sophisticated verbosity, which gives us words instead of deeds, which is always overflowing with fine sentiments but has never a policy. Egypt has her dead to mourn over, her ruined trade to deplore, her heavy burdens to bear, which eloquent words and fine sentiments can never lighten. Egypt, like Gordon and the British tax-payer, has been betrayed. As the crowning stroke of his diplomacy, Lord Granville has surrendered every concession on her behalf that he professed to fight for at the Conference, and to be still fighting for in his private negotiations with France. The French Ministry represented the bondholders, who wanted their pound of flesh. Lord Granville was to be the champion of the fellaheen, ground down with taxes, and looking to the special friend of humanity, Mr Gladstone, for help. He insisted that the bondholders should contribute to the sacrifices which had become necessary on all sides. At first they were to be called on for a remission of one-half per cent interest both on the Preference and the Unified debt – not an unreasonable reduction, considering the financial state of the country. Lord Granville at last year's Conference offered to the Powers tempting inducements to meet him even half-way on that point. He would have virtually surrendered our position in Egypt and the whole fruits of the campaign of 1882, if the Powers had only come to his relief and taken on them a share of his responsibility. France stood out for the bondholders, and Earl Granville broke up the Conference rather than openly sacrifice the fellaheen.

Since then M. Ferry has learned a lesson from Prince Bismarck, and practised with brilliant effect his tactics on the "squeezable" champions of the oppressed at St James's. As his difficulties increased, Earl Granville lowered his ultimatum a point or two. He would be content now with a half per cent reduction on the interest of the Unified debt only fully half the total amount – and, at the same time, he would stand to all the original concessions on his own side – European control, the complete neutralisation of the Suez Canal, and the limitation of our stay in Egypt. These tempting baits were still dangled within reach of M. Ferry, though the quid pro quo from him was to be cut down by more than one-half. M. Ferry thought, however, that with a little more "squeezing" he might do still better, and he was right. He made a counter-proposal as to the interest on the Unified debt. Instead of reducing the 4 per cent to 3½ per cent for an indefinite time, he would agree to a tax of 5 per cent on the 4 per cent for two years. In other words, he offered Earl Granville one-twentieth instead of one-eighth, or, in actual money, £111,198 per annum instead of £280,000! This is on a par with Lord Derby's huckstering with the Australian colonies for £15,000, when they wanted to save New Guinea from Prince Bismarck. While Earl Granville was fighting with M. Ferry for £111,198, Lord Wolseley was spending fully as much per day in dragging our army over cataracts rather than lead them along a straight road. M. Ferry is naturally delighted at having pulled the bondholders through with a trump-