inhabited by its own people only, who are subjects, kinsmen, or clansmen of the chief, and are always wholly subordinate to him. There is little intermixture of the European element and no fear of complications on this score. Egypt, so far from being outside the European system, lies directly on the high road between East and West, and is yearly becoming more and more the main high road leading out of the Western world. The Suez Canal depends largely on the peace of Egypt. Foreigners of every description swarm within its frontiers; the commerce and the industries of the country are mainly in their hands; the two great cities of Cairo and Alexandria are as much European as Egyptian; the foreigner, protected by the International Tribunals, by Capitulations, and by his Consuls-General, snaps his fingers at Egyptian tribunals and Egyptian police, and at the British Executive behind them. The whole land is honeycombed with European influences. Egypt herself is far from homogeneous. Among the subjects of the Khedive are Turks, Copts, Syrians, Armenians, black men from the Soudan, brown men from Berber, yellow men from the Delta, Arab and Negro, Christian and Muhammadan, heathen and Hebrew. What could be more unlike a typical Indian Native State? What analogy can hold as to administering the one from the practice and precedent of the other?

It may very reasonably be matter of regret with some of us that Great Britain should have felt herself compelled to occupy Egypt, and to assume charge of the direction of its administration. But, the necessity admitted, it is impossible that the old laws, customs, and usages should remain unmolested, in so far as they are opposed to justice, the public security, or the public health. Public opinion in Great Britain would before long revolt at such a situation; it may be permitted to doubt whether Egypt itself would remain constant to misrule. The kurbash, the corvée, torture in prison and torture in the tribunals, pestilent hospitals, universal corruption and peculation, these are usages and customs of old time. If in the effort to remove them Lord Cromer has given umbrage, it is to be regretted umbrage should have been given, but can it seriously be contended that Egyptians passionately cling to them? Nor does it follow that we need come with Mr. Dicey to the conclusion that any attempts to persuade the natives to accept British ideas respecting sanitation, law, justice, and administration are doomed to failure. If it is so, that is an indictment, not against Great Britain, but against Egypt. Let us turn again to India, if India is to be our model. Why should the Egyptian be more difficult to reclaim than the Indian? Why should our notions regarding law, justice, and administration, which have found much favour in India, be doomed to sterility in Egypt? Is it not a question mainly of time? We have seen something of the gradual effect of time in India; and if we have recognised its handiwork, we have learned how slowly it moves and with what patience we must await

results.

Not to be weary of well-doing is the first and best lesson to be learned by the European reformer in the East. He has put his hand to the plough, and he cannot withdraw it. Least of all can he succumb to the atmosphere of the Orient and, whether from complaisance or from lack of purpose or of courage, fall into a system of laisser aller. That would be to turn his back on the very influences which have brought him there; to be a renegade to the civilisation of which he is a pioneer, and of which the battle has been entrusted to his hands. We have been but twenty-five brief years in Egypt; if in that time much has been done for the material progress of the country, we have scarcely had time to touch the surface of moral reform or the regeneration of the Egyptian. Therein, moreover, the patient must minister to himself.

While the author of The Future of Egypt would allow the Egyptian to return to his laws, usages, customs, and habits, the voice of the so-called Nationalist party in that country proclaims aloud that he has already changed them all. That party, far from wishing for the old order to be recalled, bases its claim for self-government and independence on its culture, its advance in the march of civilisation, and its moral worth. Of whom the Nationalists consist it is not easy to ascertain. One or two journalists are mentioned in the European Press (for it is a peculiarity of Egypt that to know what is occurring there you must very often inquire anywhere but in Egypt itself). With these may be joined a few young Turks, who can in no way be representative of Egypt, and a sprinkling of obscure Egyptians whose names are devoid of significance. The group has its local papers, addresses itself to London and Paris journals, makes itself as much talked about as possible, and is apparently well supplied with funds. It professes to represent a united and highly patriotic Egypt, intelligent and resourceful, above reproach and above suspicion, but unjustly and undeservedly subjected to the domination of overbearing England. Where the members that make up this body, and are blessed with these high qualities, are to be found, it is impossible to ascertain. Intelligence is common enough in Egypt, as in other Eastern countries. But patriotism, resource, and singlemindedness do not cry aloud in the streets of Cairo. Had it not been for British soldiers, Egypt, as a State, would have been wiped out of existence any time between the years 1885 and 1898. She owes her very existence, as she owes her financial prosperity and what moral regeneration she may have so far achieved, to the foreigner who stood between her soil and the Dervishes on the one hand, and, on the other, between her people and the despotism which had plunged her into bankruptcy. In the recent sessions of the Egyptian General Assembly the Nationalist fuglemen have seen their chance of directing a bold and general movement. A summary of the demands of the Assembly has been recently published in the Times and seems instructive. Until

we have before us an authorised version of the proceedings, it would not be fair to criticise too closely. But if it is true that the Assembly demands the creation of an Egyptian Parliament, the reservation to Egyptians of all important administrative appointments, and the control of the finances and the Executive, it can only be said that it takes a strangely false estimate of its position and of its own capacity. The burden of a heavy foreign debt lies, and for years to come will lie, on Egypt. Immense sums also have been sunk in that country by European enterprise. The springs of her wealth and well-being lie in the hands of foreigners. She has no adequate means wherewith to defend herself from attack, from whatever quarter she may be assailed. The weight of centuries of oppression weighs down the character of her sons, and immemorial despotism has made them a byword among nations. It is terrible that this should be so, but so it is; and not all the scratching of a million pens can alter one iota of the cruel fact. The General Assembly's programme, if it is accurately reported, sufficiently condemns those who put it forward. No serious men, in so difficult a position, would so lightly claim with such tremendous responsibilities. The trivial other demands which make up the sum total of throws light on the capacity of those who have adopted it. But the official version must be awaited before criticism can be of use.

In a recent book, called The Emancipation of Egypt, the case of the so-called Nationalist party in Egypt is argued at great length. The book has been issued evidently in the interests of the antiBritish propaganda now being carried on under whatever auspices in Egypt. It is anonymous, but purports to have been translated from Italian, and is skilfully enough prepared so as to ignore all unpleasant truths and to bring into undue relief every consideration which may seem to support its contention;

We have now freed ourselves (this 'we' is good) from the major portion of our burden of debt, the thriving condition of our country and its finances affords ample security for the payment of interest upon and final repayment of the outstanding debt. While renewing the assurance of our gratitude, we at the same time venture to suggest that the moment has arrived when the British may, with advantage both to Great Britain and to Egypt, set an end to their occupation and leave Egypt to carry on her own government in complete independence.

But more remains behind. Not only is Egypt ready to hold her own in her own little land, but she demands the mandate to civilise Africa:

Look where we will, for the native, the future of Africa looms darkly. From the European there is not a gleam even of hope. One chance alone remains, and that is that some Mahommedan Power should arise which, by the power it possesses of really touching the native soul, may confer upon him some civilisation-perhaps not the best, but such a one as should prepare him for the reception of a better. The one Power which might perhaps be entrusted with the fulfilment of so noble a mission is Egypt, which after a long

and hard novitiate, has learnt from Europe all that it may learn for its betterment. But it is only as a free nation with a proud consciousness of itself that Egypt could act. And why should we not admit that Egypt has ended her years of apprenticeship, and that the hour has struck when she may be trusted with the guidance of her own career—a career on which hangs the last despairing hope of African regeneration?

The force of impudence could no further go; but these passages bear the unmistakable brand of all that issues from the 'Nationalist' quarter. The whole of the so-called Nationalist programme betrays marks of having been manufactured to order. It does not breathe the expression of general desire, but is clearly a faked-up presentment for foreign consumption. It does not speak with many voices but mechanically repeats a mot d'ordre from some hidden source of inspiration. Possibly hope is entertained in high quarters of the Muhammadan world that if malcontents in Egypt-and out of it-can create and maintain an attitude of energetic and emphatic protest against the British occupation, there may be some chance of success in inducing Eurone to convoke an International Conference and a re-settlement in question more in accord with the interests of Connd of Pan-Islamitic claims. However this may be, it is at the Egyptian Nationalist and his friends in this country will not be encouraged to hamper the work which Great Britain rrying out in Egypt, and to plunge it once again into the cauldron of reaction and confusion.

A. COLVIN.

VOL. LXI-No. 362

NN

MR. HALDANE'S DREAM OF

A 'NATIONAL'

ARMY

It seems to me that the word 'national' as applied to any form of voluntary service is not only misleading, but dangerous in the extreme. It gives a totally wrong impression of the nature of a force which consists merely of those willing to undergo a minimum of military training, and it leaves out of account all those who recognise no responsibility to their country, and who are yet willing to accept the advantages which accrue from the sacrifices of others to the call of duty. It is a shibboleth which we shall hear often repeated in the immediate future. It will give an idea of false security to the country, and will go far to satisfy any misgivings which the continual warnings of experts may have aroused in the minds of the people. No army can be national unless all the manhood of the nation is represented in its ranks, and even then its value can only be estimated by the amount of training it has received and by its general organisation and fitness for war. It is herein that the fundamental difference between a second line on a voluntary and one on a compulsory basis stands prominently out. The training of the latter is businesslike and complete; that of the former is partial and inadequate. It is no use counting noses, as is done at an election; numbers alone will not suffice. It is quality as well as quantity that is of importance. There is nothing national about the army proposed by Mr. Haldane. The partial training of 300,000 men, in addition to our diminutive Regular Army, out of a population of over 40,000,000, can in no way be looked upon as representing the strength of the nation. Moreover, these 300,000 are to begin their serious training only after the outbreak of war-an arrangement which must strike foreign countries as peculiar, not to say grotesque. In Mr. Haldane's words, this force will during peace remain in a state of slumber. This hardly seems to me a happy phrase. It suggests a possibility of its being surprised and crushed before it has time to awaken, or, worse still, that this state of somnolence may become chronic, and may some day degenerate into sleeping sickness of a dangerous kind. A collection of partially trained units, insufficiently officered, without means of rapid mobilisation, will never be fit to take the field against a