Egypt and the Sudan 141
surrendered (January, 1900), and the whole Sudan was
recovered,
It would be difficult to apportion responsibility for the
loss of the Sudan as between England and Egypt. It is
as difficult to apportion between them the credit for its
recovery. Its reconquest was directly attributable to the
unexpected successes of the Egyptian troops ; and to
the no less surprising surplus in the Egyptian Treasury.
But both these can be ascribed in turn to the efficiency
of British officers and to the economy of British officials.
Moreover, owing to French and Russian opposition,
which secured rulings from the Mixed Courts, the use
of this surplus for the Sudan expedition was prevented.
The cost of the campaign was partly covered by a
British loan to Egypt at a low rate of interest—two
and a quarter per cent. The total cost of wiping out
Dervishism was no more than ^2,500,000, of which
;£i,500,000 were spent on railways, telegraphs, etc.,
leaving only ;£ 1,000,000 of purely military expenditure.
Thus the Sudan was recovered for much what Ismail
had spent on one of his more expensive entertainments.
But if this extraordinary economy was due to the
efficiency of the English advisers in general, and of the
Sirdar Kitchener in particular, it was also due to the fact
that this was an Egyptian campaign with which the War
Office had nothing to do. The campaign was a typical
Anglo-Egyptian enterprise, run as a business operation
with engineering exactitude. And if the cost both in men
and money was borne largely by Egypt, Egypt was
amply repaid for the outlay by getting an open frontier
in the south, a share in control of the Upper Nile, and
trade with a progressive and peaceable hinterland.
There would, therefore, have been nothing unfair to
Egypt had Great Britain at once annexed the Sudan.