EVENTS IN HISTORY have a tendency to escape the control of those who instigated them. Recent efforts by the US to establish democracies in the Middle East are both case and point. Another is the Arabi revolt, that was intended to reclaim ‘Egypt for the Egyptians’ but which led to the unanticipated occupation of Egypt by British forces from 1882 to 1956.

When the Arabi movement, relying on the native population and directed against the Turkish aristocracy and high echelons of the military, generated riots and looting in Alexandria that Khedive Tewfiq’s troops were unable to quell, the khedive panicked and requested the help of the British navy. A joint British and French fleet was sent to Alexandria. The foreign residents, fearing that they would be massacred, fled the city.

Tewfiq suggested that Alexandria be bombarded. The French refused and withdrew but the British complied and Alexandria was partially destroyed and Arabi’s army routed. Order was restored by a force of British marines who took over the city.

At this point, Arabi declared that the Egyptians and British were at war and the country rallied to support him. The British government, led by William Gladstone, voted to send an expeditionary force to protect the Suez Canal and generally reestablish order, and more importantly financial stability, under the authority of Khedive Tewfiq.

Twenty thousand troops were landed in the Canal Zone and the Egyptian army was swiftly defeated at the battle of Tel El-Kebir. The Egyptians surrendered at Cairo and Arabi was exiled to Ceylon. Thus began the ‘temporary’ occupation of Egypt by the British who were often criticized by other world powers who simply watched as the British dug themselves in.

In September 1883, Sir Evelyn Baring (later Lord Cromer) arrived in Egypt as the new British agent and consul-general. At the age of forty-three he had already served twice in Egypt, first as the British Commissioner of Debt (1877-79) and later briefly as financial controller. He returned after a three-year stint in India as financial member of council for which he was knighted. His rather imperious manner earned him the nickname of ‘Over-Baring’.

Baring was said to be an extremely able administrator and financier as well as a disciplined hard-working man who was fanatically serious about his tasks, a trait which inspired great respect among his colleagues.

At first Baring believed that the British were destined to leave as soon as the khedive’s authority was restored but within a year he had changed his mind coming to the conclusion that it would take a very long time, possibly centuries, before the natives understood and abided by the principles of Western civilization. In his biography of Baring, Lord Cromer, Roger Owen writes that “[i]n October 1886 Baring was already writing that the only “native government” that would provide any prospect of stability would be an ‘ultra-fanatical’ Muslim one which would get the finances of the country into ‘hopeless confusion.’”

To Wilfred S. Blunt (a defender of Arabi) who propounded the picture of Egypt as a “Mohammedan country” best governed by Egyptian Arabs, Baring replied that “Egypt was in fact a nondescript country. Were the Suez Canal, the railways, the telegraph to Europe, the European colonies, trade, the capitulations the debt and the mixed tribunals all removed Blunt’s suggested government may be made to work. But it would be more rapacious, violent and corrupt than that of the Turkish aristocracy which it replaced.”

Baring had a spontaneous contempt for the native population: he made no attempt to understand their mentality or cultural traditions and although he was fluent in French and spoke some Turkish, he made no attempt to learn Arabic. Rather, he acquired the services of Harry Boyle, an expert linguist, who joined the consular service in Cairo in 1885 at the age of 22. Asked to become fluent in Arabic, Boyle disguised himself as a Turk and went to live among the local population. It is said that within five weeks he had reached the goal assigned to him and displayed an astounding proficiency. Boyle was regarded by the British community as eccentric in his ways and untidy in his appearance. He nevertheless became Baring’s close collaborator and confidante and the position of Oriental Secretary was created for him. He became Baring’s eyes and ears and very little escaped him that he was not able to report to his master. The two of them were observed on their daily walks along the Nile and referred to jokingly as “Enoch walking with the Lord.”

Thus aided, Baring was able to considerably consolidate his power. Soon the number of British and Europeans occupying posts in the Egyptian government increased. Baring was now the power that moved the khedival hand. If Egyptian officials still occupied the highest positions, they were always endowed with a British adviser or civil servant directing their actions and inspiring their decisions.

The term ‘veiled protectorate’ was coined to designate this state of affairs and the way Egypt was run under Baring. Even though Egypt never officially became a British colony, Baring as consul-general gave himself more powers than the viceroy in India.

The British Agency was constructed while Baring was consul-general in the newly developed area of Garden City. The building was in colonial style with a large garden reaching down to the Nile. Samir Raafat, historian of the glory years in Cairo, describes the building which was known in Egypt as Beit el-Lurd or the Lord’s House thus: “The embassy’s colonial style building with its finely painted walls and ceilings was originally an all-in-one residence-chancery designed by R.H. Boyce in 1893. Construction costs reached LE 39, 894 and building was supervised by A. Huntley. The land itself had been purchased in 1890 at a cost to the British treasury of LE 2, 580 including LE 500 for the construction of an access road. In 1896-97 a further LE 144 was spent to raise the floor of the basement above the level of the annual Nile flood in an effort to solve seepage problems.” Cited by Raafat is the letter sent by Cromer to his superiors in London to request more spacious quarters than the old legation in which he was staying on Adly Street.”

“The house which I at present occupy is in no way adapted for an agency. The reception rooms are far too small for the number of people whom I am obliged to entertain. As regards the sleeping apartments there is just enough room for my family which only consists of my wife, two children and a governess. If I have to receive any visitors as was the case when the viceroy returned from India, I am obliged to go to the trouble and expense of sending my children to an hotel.”

“Nothing can be worse than the arrangements of the chancery. Two very small rooms, one of which was intended to serve as a pantry and another which is so hot as to be almost uninhabitable in summer are all that I can give to my staff which consists of six persons. This accommodation is quite inadequate. The archives have to be stowed away in different parts of the house which cause great inconvenience. There is not a single room in the house for a European manservant and the rooms for the native servants are very bad and unhealthy. Yet this is the best house I can obtain in Cairo and I pay LE 600 a year rent for it.”

Baring’s request was eventually granted, the result of which was the largest embassy in Cairo which is still in evidence today in Garden City.

Looking back on Baring’s legacy, one is led to wonder if he would have couched his early analysis of the situation in Egypt in very different terms today.  et