Anglo-Egyptian War: Difference between revisions

A.G. Hopkins rejected Robinson and Gallagher's argument, citing original documents to claim that there was no perceived danger to the Suez Canal from the ‘Urabi movement, and that ‘Urabi and his forces were not chaotic "anarchists", but rather maintained law and order.<ref name=hopkins />{{rp|373–374}} He alternatively argues that British Prime Minister [[William Ewart Gladstone|William Gladstone]]'s cabinet was motivated by protecting the interests of British bondholders with investments in Egypt as well as by pursuit of domestic political popularity. Hopkins cites the British investments in Egypt that grew massively leading into the 1880s, partially as a result of the Khedive's debt from construction of the Suez Canal, as well as the close links that existed between the British government and the economic sector.<ref name=hopkins />{{rp|379–380}} He writes that Britain's economic interests occurred simultaneously with a desire within one element of the ruling Liberal Party for a militant foreign policy in order to gain the domestic political popularity that enabled it to compete with the Conservative Party.<ref name=hopkins />{{rp|382}} Hopkins cites a letter from [[Edward Malet]], the British consul general in Egypt at the time, to a member of the [[Second Gladstone ministry|Gladstone Cabinet]] offering his congratulations on the invasion: "You have fought the battle of all Christendom and history will acknowledge it. May I also venture to say that it has given the Liberal Party a new lease of popularity and power."<ref name=hopkins>{{cite journal|last1=Hopkins|first1=A. G.|title=The Victorians and Africa: A Reconsideration of the Occupation of Egypt, 1882|journal=The Journal of African History|date=July 1986|volume=27|issue=2|pages=363–391|jstor=181140|doi=10.1017/S0021853700036719|s2cid=162732269 }}</ref>{{rp|385}}

 

 

==Course of the war==