The Southland Times. PUBLISHED DAILY. Luceo Non Uro. MONDAY, DECEMBER 11th, 1882.

Southland Times, Issue 4499, 11 December 1882, Page 2

The Southland T imes. PUBLISHED DAILY. Luceo Non Uro. MONDAY, DECEMBER 11th, 1882.

Ouu evening contemporary has undertaken to expound the Egyptian situation to liis readers, but we are afraid wifck no very gre&t success. We do not object at all to his description of Arabi's trial, which it mu3t be admitted is an inexplicable business, on any information that has come this way. But we do object most decidedly to his "sketch of the history of the lasb great Egyptian war. " In the first place, nobody ever heard before of the " Ottoman Porte" — the Porte we know, and the Ottoman Empire we know ; and the Porte is the Turkish Government ; but the Ottoman Porte ia something new. What is still more startling, however, is the suggestion that what Arabi did was done on a secret understanding between himself and the Khedive. It was left for bur contemporary's ingenuity to broach a theory ofybis kind, and no wonder, for the most casual reader of Egyptian intelligence will remember that the rebellion aimed straight at the authority of the Khedive, who was with the utmost difficulty rescued alive from the hands of the insurgents. So far from Arabi's . being in. leagiie with Tewfik against the Sultan/ it has been pretty well demonstrated by? events that all the Sultan's sympathywas with the rebel leader, and the sfcrina^. at Constantinople were known- to tsei pulled by a power in strong and i^4 terested hostility to the Khedive. TUV truth is that, with the advice anxT. aisieUuce of Fr»ne« »n4 EagUad, »n

administration in Egypt was impending 1 that would jbe far' too just and honest for the Turkish plunderers, and such an administration must be' prevented at any bawifrcLji ijL 'j>retty> destiny Arabi and his .at jPptißtantinople, would have worked out for Egypt, and* a nice' bed they would hare made for the •jLhedi?e,rto4ie^on)rif.4hey^could have had their way. It Is admitted that Turkey, and Egypt 'are both largely; indebted to British capitalists, but we vobjectt— to~ the— inference that- if Turkey had lost the sey,en ( hundred thousand poundß of "Egyptian tribute, her creditors, would have received so much less interest on their loans ; and we, object also to the conclusion that any issue of the rebellion could have led to a successful repudiation on the part of Egypt. It is extremely amusing to Bee how our contemporary deils with the great question of the Suez Canal, which he knows very well, or ought to know, is the paramount interest of Great Pritain in Egypt. "It was desirable to " keep the Canal open" is the gracious concession of the News. Would it not have been better to say, essential, and to regard the necessity for keeping our way to India and all the East clear, as an •rerwhelming consideration in our dealings with Egypt. Let us examine a sentence of the News on this subjept t . "That it (the canal) ever" would " have been closed," he say9, "for any "length of time no one in their " [his ?]' sober senses would suppose, " for France and other powerful nations " werej : nearly as much as Britain, inter- " ested in keeping it open." The value of this statement will be comprehended when we mention the fact that out of every nine ships thai; go through the Suez Canal eight are British-owned. That is to say, our contemporary holds that to have one ninth of an interest in the canal is nearly equal to having interest of eight-ninths. But the News must have spoken without reflection when it referred so lightly to the closing, even for a time, of this great waterway of trade. The closing of it even for a month would have been to Britain a great commercial calamity. r But it is to be remembered further that ifc was in the power of the insurgents, if unchecked, to do yet more serious damage. It is understood that well directed efforts would in a day create obstructions that it would take a year to remove ; so that to leave the Canal for any time at all at the mercy of an insurgent rabble was & thing not to be thought of with so great interests at stake. In tbe presence of these very obvious reasons for the armed occupation of Egypt and tbe suppression of rebellion, what must we think of the following account of the action of the British Government. " A more ex- " traordinary spectacle was never pre- " sented to the world than on this " occasion. British arms were called " in requisition to quell an insurrection in " a foreign state. British troops were " seen to be acting, not in defence of " their country, not in the vindication " of its honor, but as simple mercenaries " willing to shed their blood for their " daily pay." This is what the News says, and could there be a more wilful or deliberate perversion of the truth ? It is plain enough, that the historical romance of our contemporary has had its origin in that anti-British feeling ■which on so many other occasions he has displayed. We ought perhaps rather to say that feeling against law and order, wherever these are sought to be maintained. We will not enumerate instances, although these are at our hand. But we ask whether in a British colony, proud of its traditions and glorying in the success of the British arms, it is decent to parody and misrepresent so proud a chapter in the national annals as that afforded by the last war in Egypt ?