The Earl of Cromer: Why
Britain Acquired Egypt in 1882
Notes:
This is a speech delivered the Earl of Cromer, who was the long-time head of
the British government of Egypt, in 1908. Egypt had been a colony of Britain
since 1882, when they shelled Alexandria and overthrew the government set up by
the Urabi Rebels, who had ousted the monarchy and set
up a government run by Egyptian-born military officers. Before 1882, Britain
had exerted considerable influence in Egypt, though not outright control.
“Egypt may now almost be said to form part of
Europe. It is on the high road to the Far East [due to the opening of the Suez canal in 1869]. It can never cease to be an object of
interest to all the powers of Europe, and especially to England. A numerous and
intelligent body of Europeans and of non-Egyptian orientals
have made Egypt their home. European capital to a large extent has been sunk in
the country. The rights and privileges of Europeans are jealously guarded, and,
moreover, give rise to complicated questions, which it requires no small amount
of ingenuity and technical knowledge to solve. Exotic institutions have sprung
up and have taken root in the country. The capitulations impair those rights of
internal sovereignty which are enjoyed by the rulers or legislatures of most
states. The population is heterogeneous [mixed] and cosmopolitan to a degree
almost unknown elsewhere. Although the prevailing faith is that of Islam, in no
country in the world is a greater variety of religious creeds to be found
amongst important sections of the community.
In addition too these peculiarities, which are of a normal character,
it has to be borne in mind that in 1882 the [Egyptian] army was in a state of
mutiny; the treasury was bankrupt; every branch of the administration had been
dislocated; the ancient and arbitrary method, under which the country had for
centuries been governed, had received a severe blow, whilst, at the same time,
no more orderly and law-abiding form of government had been inaugurated to take
its place. Is it probable that a government composed of the rude elements
described above, and led by men of such poor ability as Arabi
[Urabi- the leader of the 1882 revolt] and his coadjutators, would have been able to control a complicated
machine of this nature? Were the sheikhs of the El-Azhar
mosque likely to succeed where Tewfik Pasha and his ministers, who were men of
comparative education and enlightenment, acting under the guidance and
inspiration of a first-class European power [Britain], only met with a modified
success after years of patient labor? There can be but one answer to these
questions. Nor is it in the nature of things that any similar movement should,
under the present conditions of Egyptian society, meet with any better success.
The full and immediate execution of a policy of "Egypt for the
Egyptians," as it was conceived by the Arabists
in 1882, was, and still is, impossible.
History, indeed, records
some very radical changes in the forms of government to which a state has been
subjected without its interests being absolutely and permanently shipwrecked.
But it may be doubted whether any instance can be quoted of a sudden transfer
of power in any civilized or semi-civilized community to a class so ignorant as the pure Egyptians, such as they were in the
year 1882. These latter have, for centuries past, been a
subject race. Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs from Arabia and Baghdad, Circassians, and finally, Ottoman Turks, have successively
ruled over Egypt, but we have to go back to the doubtful and obscure precedents
of Pharaonic times to find an epoch when, possibly,
Egypt was ruled by Egyptians. Neither, for the present, do they appear to
possess the qualities which would render it desirable, either in their own
interests, or in those of the civilized world in general, to raise them at a
bound to the category of autonomous rulers with full rights of internal
sovereignty.
If, however, a foreign
occupation was inevitable or nearly inevitable, it remains to be considered
whether a British occupation was preferable to any other. From the purely
Egyptian point of view, the answer to this question cannot be doubtful. The
intervention of any European power was preferable to that of Turkey. The
intervention of one European power was preferable to international
intervention. The special aptitude shown by Englishmen in the government of
Oriental races pointed to England as the most effective and beneficent
instrument for the gradual introduction of European civilization into Egypt. An
Anglo-French, or an Anglo-Italian occupation, from both of which we narrowly
and also accidentally escaped, would have been detrimental to Egyptian
interests and would ultimately have caused friction, if not serious dissension,
between England on the one side and France or Italy on the other. The only
thing to be said in favor of Turkish intervention is that it would have relieved
England from the responsibility of intervening.
By the process of
exhausting all other expedients, we arrive at the conclusion that armed British
intervention was, under the special circumstances of the case, the only
possible solution of the difficulties which existed in 1882. Probably also it
was the best solution. The arguments against British intervention, indeed, were
sufficiently obvious. It was easy to foresee that, with a British garrison in
Egypt, it would be difficult that the relations of England either with France
or Turkey should be cordial. With France, especially, there would be a danger
that our relations might become seriously strained. Moreover, we lost the
advantages of our insular position. The occupation of Egypt necessarily dragged
England to a certain extent within the arena of Continental politics. In the
event of war, the presence of a British garrison in Egypt would possibly be a
source of weakness rather than of strength. Our position in Egypt placed us in
a disadvantageous diplomatic position, for any power, with whom
we had a difference of opinion about some non-Egyptian question, was at one
time able to retaliate by opposing our Egyptian policy. The complicated rights
and privileges possessed by the various powers of Europe in Egypt facilitated
action of this nature.
There can be no doubt of
the force of these arguments. The answer to them is that it was impossible for
Great Britain to allow the troops of any other power to occupy Egypt. When it
became apparent that some foreign occupation was necessary, that the Sultan
would not act save under conditions which were impossible of acceptance, and
that neither French nor Italian cooperation could be secured, the British
government acted with promptitude and vigor. A great nation cannot throw off
the responsibilities which its past history and its position in the world have
imposed upon it. English history affords other examples of the government and
people of England drifting by accident into doing what was not only right, but was
also most in accordance with British interests.