290 



EGYPT. 



occupation to be fixed at a maximum of 300,- 

 000 a year. The normal budget submitted by 

 the English delegates estimated the receipts at 

 8,855,000 Egyptian pounds and the expenses of 

 the Government at 4,667,000 Egyptian pounds. 

 The cost of the army of occupation for the 3| 

 years being fixed at 293,000 Egyptian pounds a 

 year, the reduction of 511,000 Egyptian pounds 

 per annum in the service of the debt would leave 

 the Treasury with a surplus of 135,000 Egyp- 

 tian pounds. The English financiers framed 

 their estimates with reference to an eventual 

 reduction of the land-tax. The French dele- 

 gates disputed the necessity of reducing the 

 land revenue, believing that their pressure on 

 the fellaheen would be remedied by equalizing 

 the taxes on Ushuri and kharadji lands. The 

 French experts estimated the revenue 727,- 

 000 higher than the English. The yield of the 

 land-tax was reckoned at 200,000 Egyptian 

 pounds more, the railway receipts at 80,000 

 Egyptian pounds more, and the estimate of 

 369,000 Egyptian pounds for irrecoverable tax- 

 es was reduced to 72,000 pounds. These esti- 

 mates were substantially approved by the Ger- 

 man, Austrian, and Russian delegates. On the 

 basis of this calculation the French Govern- 

 ment opposed any reduction in the interest of 

 the public debt as settled by the Law of Liqui- 

 dation, but proposed that the sinking funds 

 should be suspended, that the interest on the 

 Suez Canal shares held by the British Govern- 

 ment should be lowered, and that the sinking 

 fund of the new loan should not go into ope- 

 ration until the other sinking funds were re- 

 established. Tb.3 guarantee of the new loan 

 France wished to make a collective one of all 

 the powers. The English estimates of the ad- 

 ministrative expenses were accepted, but an 

 inquiry into the land revenue was asked for, to 

 be undertaken by England and reported to the 

 Conference in 1886. The English representa- 

 tives made a counter-proposal to raise the new 

 loan without any guarantee, paying in its scrip 

 the Alexandria indemnities, and making its 

 service the first charge on the Egyptian rev- 

 enue; afcer which would come the adminis- 

 trative expenses, as calculated in the normal 

 budget, the cost of the army of occupation, the 

 working expenses of the railways, taken at 45 

 per cent, of the receipts, and the Moukabala 

 claims, amounting to 150,000 Egyptian pounds 

 per annum; and then, as the third charge, the 

 interest on the existing debts. An alternative 

 proposition was that England should guarantee 

 the portion of the new loan not applied to the 

 payment of the indemnities, and that the pro- 

 posed reduction in the interest of the public 

 debt should cease after ten years, when a new 

 Conference should be called. M. Waddington 

 demanded an inquiry as to the necessity of re- 

 ducing the land-tax. A final proposition was 

 made, July 29, to let the reduced interest on 

 the old debts be a second charge on the reve- 

 nue after the pre-preference loan for the pay- 

 ment of the indemnities, and then, after meet- 



ing the cost of administration, military occu- 

 pation, etc., to pay the deducted per cent, if 

 there was a surplus, the arrangement to hold 

 good for three years. After receiving instruc- 

 tions from his Government, M. Waddington 

 on August 2 made a final counter-proposal 

 that the new loan should be the first charge on 

 the revenue ; the full interest on the other 

 loans the second ; the sinking funds being sus- 

 pended for three years ; and the administrative 

 expenses, as fixed by the English financiers, 

 the third ; that any surplus should go to the 

 treasury, and any deficit be subject to the de- 

 cision of the Commission of the Caisse, to con- 

 sist of seven members, who could enact a re- 

 duction of interest by a unanimous vote, the 

 question to be referred to the great powers if 

 they differed. The French Government per- 

 sisted in its request for an inquiry into the land- 

 revenue. Count Nigra, the Italian plenipo- 

 tentiary, acting under instructions, supported 

 the English propositions. Musurus Pasha was 

 prepared lo support England, but protested 

 that no modification in the finances, adminis- 

 tration, or integrity of Egypt could take place 

 without the consent of the Sublime Porte, and 

 that in respect to any proposal for neutraliza- 

 tion Turkey reserved liberty of action. Lord 

 Granville pressed for a vote on the final Eng- 

 lish proposal, but the German, Austrian, and 

 Russian representatives insisted on waiting for 

 the decision of France. They held themselves 

 neutral during the discussion, declining to pro- 

 nounce any opinion, in view of the material 

 differences of view between the powers most 

 interested. Count Munster was instructed by 

 his Government to request the Conference to 

 take up the subject of sanitary precautions in 

 Egypt and the Suez Canal, as affecting the 

 public health of Europe ; but Lord Granville, 

 as President of the Conference, ruled the ques- 

 tion out of order. Upon the submission of the 

 French ultimatum. Lord Granville objected de- 

 cidedly to its terms, and particularly to con- 

 ferring upon the Public Debt Commission a 

 mastery over the Egyptian Government, siu-h 

 as would result from the proposed control ot 

 expenditures upon the unavoidable occurrence 

 of a deficiency. He thereupon declared the 

 Conference adjourned sine die, announcing that 

 England regained her liberty of action. M. 

 Waddington called for an adjournment to some 

 future date, but Lord Granville pronounced the 

 Conference at an end. The representative of 

 France delivered a sharp protest against this 

 abrupt termination. With the failure of the 

 Conference the Anglo-French agreement lost 

 its binding force. 



Attitude of the Variois Powers. None of the 

 powers was more anxious for the termination 

 of the British protectorate than Turkey. The 

 aim and desire of Turkish statesmen was to 

 eliminate foreign influence from Egypt, and es- 

 tablish in Cairo the direct authority of the 

 Porte again, as far as was possible. As against 

 exclusive English predominance a multiple con- 



