Last Saturday the Egyptian Budget for 1906 was submitted to
the Council of Ministers. The revenue for the year is estimated at £14,500,000, which will show a surplus over expenditure of £500,000. This surplus is to be attained in spite of the extensive remissions of taxation which Lord Cromer is bringing into force next year, and which are included in the Estimates. There is to be a total reduction of £332,000, made up of a 4 per cent. reduction in certain duties on common possessions such as livestock, coal, and wood; the abolition of the salt monopoly, which means a loss to revenue of £175,000; and the abolition of sundry ferry, sea-fishing, and lighthouse dues. A sum of £120,000 is also put in reserve to provide for certain changes in official salaries, which will occupy the attention of the Government next year. Remission of taxation is the first sign that a country has found itself. In early days in Egypt taxes had to be retained on a high scale to provide funds for reproductive expenditure. Now that the policy of bold outlay has been amply justified it is only right that those who bore the burden during the lean years should reap the fruits of the time of plenty. Lord Cromer and the able body of men who work under him are to be congratulated upon having achieved the most notable as well as the rarest of administrative triumphs,—the reduction of taxation.
Lord Rosebery delivered a speech at Bodmin on Saturday last which has caused no little stir in the newspaper world. After saying some excellent things on the Fiscal controversy, he dwelt on the need of maintaining unity amongst all sections of Free-traders in the coming contest. Premising that it was the plain duty of them all to say or do nothing that would render that union more difficult, Lord Rosebery somewhat inconsistently remarked that he had read with grave misgivings the speech in which Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman had " hoisted once more, in its most pronounced form, the flag of Home-rule." He protested against this course, not only because of high constitutional objections founded on the recent experience of foreign European countries, but because of his belief as to what would really conduce to the welfare of the Irish people itself, and above all because it impaired the unity of the Free-trade party, and indefinitely postponed discussion of social and educational reforms, on which the country had set its heart. "I, then," continued Lord Rosebery, "will add no more on the subject except to say emphatically and explicitly and once for all that I cannot serve under that banner."
Sir Edward Grey, who spoke at Newcastle-on-Tyne on Monday night, dealt promptly and effectively with the situation created by Lord Rosebery's speech. The news- papers, he said, seemed to anticipate a row in the Liberal, party ; but at the moment he was in a state of mystification as to why there should be any row at all. He disagreed with the particular interpretation which Lord Rosebery bad placed on Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's speech, but he 'held that there was no substantial difference between them as to what should be the practical Irish policy of the next Liberal Government ; and until Sir Henry had staled that he disagreed with Lord Rosebery he preferred to believe that there had been a misunderstanding. That is excellent sense, 'and said with the tact and good teMper, as well as practical wisdom, which characterise all Sir Edward Grey's acts and utterances. Lord Rosebery has no right to ask Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman to do more or say more than he has, which is to make- it quite clear that no Home-rule Bill will be introduced into the next Parliament, and further that not Home-rule but Free-trade is to be the battle-cry of the Liberal party at the next Election. As long as that is the position taken up by the Liberal party, as it unquestionably is, and with the full assent of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, Unionist Free- traders have nothing to complain of. A fortiori, Lord Rosebery has no ground for protest.
The Irish policy of the Liberals Sir Edward Grey defined as large administrative reforms, especially in regard to the Castle government, with a view to securing the sympathy of the religious and political majority ; the development of local institutions ; the reconciliation of Ireland with the Empire; and the relief of the Imperial Parliament from its present congestion. But these objects should be pursued by methods which would carry with them step by step the sympathy and support of British opinion. On the question of a statutory Parliament for Ireland Sir Edward Grey was perfectly explicit. Those who supported the Bills of 1886 and 1893 were fully entitled to go on proclaiming themselves Home- rulers, but they must remember that they did not help Ireland by simply going on saying "Home-rule" unless they had some prospect of carrying it out. The issue before the country was the Fiscal question, and a Liberal majority, if gained, would be won by the votes of large numbers of people who had voted against the Liberals in 1895, or abstained from voting at all. Some would be influenced by Chinese labour, some by the education question, and all of them would be greatly influenced by Free-trade. It would not, therefore, be honest, in his opinion, to use the votes of men given in that way to reverse the verdict of the country with regard to Home-rule given in 1895.
The practical policy for the next Liberal Government, continued Sir Edward Grey, was a fair policy, and he considered that everybody ought to know that whoever voted for the Liberal party ought to be prepared to see the Liberal Government go on with Sir Antony Macdonnell's policy. Further steps might have to be taken in future years, and under future Parliaments, but they must be content in Irish affairs to take one step at a time, and he thought it fair to give a guarantee that if they held it right in future years to go beyond the steps he had described, they would again give the country an opportunity of pronouncing its opinion upon them. In view of this most satisfactory statement of Liberal policy towards Ireland, we can hardly regret the attempt made by the Protectionist Press to manu- facture a Home-rule crisis in the Liberal party. The only result has been to show that the Liberal party is, for the present at any rate, united in regard to an Irish policy which has no terrors for Unionist Free-traders who, like ourselves, regard the maintenance of the Legislative Union as a vital matter.
Sir Edward Grey's reading of the situation was thoroughly justified by Sir Henry Campbell-Batmerman's speech at Partick on the following night. Throughout his address Sir Henry made no reference to Lord Rosebery or Home-rule. At an overflow meeting, however, in reply to cries of " What about Ireland P" Sir Henry observed: "Everybody knows my opinion on Ireland, and Hatne-rtile. There is no necessity to repeat it, tO'be always talking about it. I made a full exposi- tion of my opinions, which are very moderate opinions, the other night, and I have nothing to add to what I said then!' In thus refusing to be drawn" Sir Henry' Campbell-Banner= man, in our opinion, .showed good temper as well as discretion, and conclusively exposed the absurdity of the allegations as to a " Radical eplit." As Mr. Asquith said at Wisbech on the same night, there was not, and there would not be, a split, because, as regarded Home-rule, there was -no real or sub- stantial difference of opinion. For the rest, he associated himself entirely and unreservedly with every word that was 'spoken on Monday night by Sir Edward Grey. To this we may add that not only does it take two to make a quarrel, but that it is absurd to describe as a party "split" a situation in which the minority is a minority of one.
The Bishop of Birmingham contributes a letter to Monday's Times which puts the case against Chinese labour as temperately and concisely as can be desired. He can gain no reassurance on the moral question ; for though there is little evidence on the subject, such as he can get confirms his fears that "the enclosure of a very large number of men by themselves in compounds, secluded as far as possible from contact with the population outside," must " result in shocking immorality." Further- more, he feels that "to supply the need for labourers in a young colony by importing Chinamen who are confined in compounds, and are in every way to be prevented from becoming a part of the common life of the colony (as, with all their differences from the white man, the Kaffirs undoubtedly are), is to build the social fabric of the colony on a bad basis,— a basis altogether below the level of a civilisation which can be called Chriitian."
Previous page
