Poverty Bay Standard. Published Every Evening. MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 1882.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1132, 28 August 1882, Page 2

Poverty Bay Standard. Published Every Evening. MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 1882.

It looks very much as if the mastery of the situation in Egypt had been already transferred from Arabi Pasha to the English Government. All Europe has been transfixed with wonder at England’s adoption of •uch significant measu"es for the preservation of her verv material interests m the Suez Canal. It is untrue that the “ entente cordiale ” between England and France has been thereby weakened. On the contrary, the agreement between the two countries will, in all probability, be more cordial and definite as the result of English independent action. The Liberal Pi-ess and the Liberal Party are responsible, in a certain degree, for the delusion which was temporarily shaded by France in common with the other Western Powers that England was prepared to go to any length short of actual fighting, The shibboleth of Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues gave rise to this delusion, advertising, as it did, in the early mooting of the subject, that the policy of the English Government was “a policy of surrender,” and that “peace at any price ” would be their adopted motto. The Conservative Press declared such policy to be impotent and a failure, and shewed that the proposed appeal to a Conference was ■a last ana feeble resource to involve Europe in a question which England alone should settle. What wonder then that it was believed by surrounding Powers that Englishmen were best able to interpret the national policy ? What wonder that foreigners accepted dicta thus energetically propounded, especially after the unfounded bnt well circulated statements that England’s naval demonstrations were purposely made delusive and apparently weak. Hence it occurs that England on the first note of armed preparation was accused of professing peace whilst meditating war ; of seeking selfish ends ; while in reality she only sought to vindicate national rights. Ever since the close of the Afghan war and the re-transfer of the Transvaal, England has been flouted and sneered at in reference to her foreign po’icy, and many well-meaning and really discerning men have confessed to misgivings as to whether her prestige abroad has not suffered by a misconception of her aims and doctrine in regard to the rights of her neighbors. It is of course to be regretted that so strange an article as a “ spirited foreign policy ” should have been deemed necessarily a policy of aggression and injustice ; but the responsibility of that misconception rests with those who have supplied the definition to the phrase. England has exercised a wise policy of action and determination in foreign affairs which materially affect her interests, but has sought neither to bully nor intimidate, and, speaking rather by deeds than words, lias endeavored to make it manifest that she seeks justice, not self-interest, and that surest of tranquility which is founded on integrity of purpose and iair dea’ing. Amid their surprise and chagrin the French are fain to allow that the measures taken by England are not only wholly justifiable, but such as are consistent and wholly dignified. The gods help those who help themselves. So long as there was the semblance of coherence in the Egyptian Government, so long as there was direct responsibility for outrage or neglect, the Western Powers had no right or cause to interfere in the concerns of Egypt. But, when it became manifest that the Khedive had fallen to the condition of a mere puppet, that sentient Government, had been (fesiroyed, and that rnhe of the country had been .usurped by a perverse and uncompromising fanatical revolutionist, it became the duty no less than the interest of foreign Governments to interfere. Thus far the principle of intervention is vindicated upo i the highest grounds. Still it is held by good men and true, in England and France, that, considering tlut the paramount interest in Egyptian affairs belong to France and England, the adoption of a vigorous joint action on the pan of these two countries six months back would have prevented Egyptian disorders reaching their present of volcanic eruption, It is probable, too that England would have been content to al few France to take the initiative in the defence of neutral interests. The very most energetic interchange of opinion has been constantly going on regarding this view of the matter between the French and English Cabinets ; but from reasons which we cannot question, perhaps from suspicion of English motives, or distrust of England's ulterior action, France has lagged behind and temporised. When England resolved on despatching a fleet to Alexandria, France resolved to despatch one also; but when it was seen that the menace of the naval expedition was derided by Arabi Pasha, who put forth intelligibly that the issues were to be wrought out on land, and not on sea, France demurred to the further and consequent step of a military expedition. Only om alternative remained to England; if joint interests could not he ensured by i'olnt action, then individual iutei eats at east must be guaranteed by individual action. That such individual action has been thoroughly and energetically taken may be gleaned from Reuter’s and other, notably the “Age,” cablegrams. In the meantime it is ulmoot ludiunjun to conaider the surprise confessed to by English ns well as dunthrt’iittd joutTials. “ What I Mr,

Gladstone fight?” cry the French a"d German lucubrators. They have forgotten that even a Quaker can resent robbery and spoliation, while he repudiates the little word “ fight “ Friend, lam about to ‘fire where thou standest” bears as much significance in its way as “Stir a hand and I’ll blow your brains out.” We are alitt’emo e euphemistic, but we are of the o’d Adam, and may answer at times as Frederick d»d to Sir Charles Copeland in “ The Poor Gentleman. ” Says the Baronet in his wrath, “Can you fight, sir?” “Well,” says Frederick, “a little—try me.” England does not court war, she does not believe in brute force, and she altogether repudiates aggression and intimidation ; but she cannot stand idly by and see her own interests involved in others ruin. Arabi has set his own house on fire, and may fiddle, like the Roman fool, while it bums, but he must not let the flames touch England’s premises. This is the plain English of the Egyptian question. It is true that, beyond our merely materip,! concerns, there is something more than an interest for us in Egyptian affairs. England is pledged to the maintenance of the Khedive and his rights, and she cannot but acknowledge that it is mainly as the result of folloving the counsels of the English Syndicate, and of favoring Anglo-French policy that he has been discredited and practically deposed. We know what “the beginning of strife” has been compared to, and, pacific as she is, England will probably rot go into a paroysm of indignation when some fine morning it is announced that European bayonets have restored the Khedive ; given Arabi the happy despatch ; and suggested to the Sultan that his plots and intrigues should be confined to his own palace, and that if he sows dragons’ teeth, they may grow up armed men.