Back Aa

Bonaparte in Egypt and the Egyptians of To-day

<h2>CHAPTER XX</h2> <h3>MORE UNHEALTHY INFLUENCES</h3> We come now to consider unhealthy influences arising either from the present constitution of the administration of the country or directly or indirectly from the action of the Government. That we may understand the position taken by the Egyptians with respect to these matters, it is necessary to see what are the conditions they consider the English administrators of the country are bound to fulfil to justify official statements as to the objects and extent of the occupation. These, as seen by the Egyptians, may be summed up in one sentence and are—that the country is to be governed with due regard to the rights of the Sultan as sovereign, the religion of the people, the general interests of the country, and with a view to the ultimate independence of the native Government. On all of these points there is much dissatisfaction. Of the first two I have spoken in the last chapter. As to the third it is commonly admitted that the commercial and financial interests of the country are well cared for and administered, but the criticism is frequent that this is so, not for the sake of the country or of its people, but for the sake of the European interests involved. The Englishman's sense of, and devotion to, duty are recognised by all save perhaps a few, but the common feeling is that in Egypt this devotion is not stimulated by any feeling of duty or obligation to the country or its people, but solely by the desire to perpetuate the occupation. Englishmen of the cad type of which I have spoken, including unfortunately too many military officers and Government officials, by their behaviour towards the people do much to justify this conclusion and, if one may judge by their action in public places, even seem anxious to do so. That there are Englishmen in the country and in the Government service who are of a very different type is fully recognised, and the Egyptian is too just and too generous in sentiment to confound these with those, yet he cannot but feel that while such conduct is allowed, apparently unrestrained, and that even the men of the better type make no open protest, he can draw no other conclusion but the one that the Englishmen who really are honest in their desire to serve the country and conciliate its people are not only few in number but small in influence. It may be said that this is at most but a sentimental grievance, and that the solid good done in the country far outweighs, or should outweigh, such causes of complaint. Those who think so know nothing of human nature, and might, perhaps, benefit by studying Ruskin a little. Nor must it be overlooked that with this, as with other unhealthy influences, it is not the direct or isolated influence of each that is to be considered, but its cumulative effect as one of a large number of forces tending in the same direction. As a thousand feeble threads that an infant might snap one by one, scarce conscious of the effort it was making, when united may form a cable that will drag a mighty ship against wind and tide, so these little threads of discord united serve to draw the ship of State into troubled waters. It is often made a subject of complaint that the Egyptian fails to appreciate the great work that has been done and is being done in the country. This is true to some, but only to some, extent. It is very much less true than it is thought to be. That the Egyptian should largely fail to comprehend the Englishman and his work is the outcome of that irreconcilability of Eastern and Western ideas and mental processes I spoke of in my first chapter. And the Egyptian, in his endeavour to understand the Englishman, has to encounter difficulties far greater than those that baffle the Englishman who seeks to understand the Egyptian. The Englishman in Egypt can, if he will, place himself more or less in direct touch with all classes of the Egyptians, and can study them at his leisure. The Egyptian has no such opportunity of studying the Englishman. He is barred from any but the scantiest and most formal social intercourse with the English, and, even in this, as in his other efforts, he is perplexed and bewildered by the ever-varying aspects the English character presents, for to the Egyptian the Englishman is a veritable Proteus, as inconstant as the unstable element he boasts of ruling. Now an Imperialist, and anon a "Little Englander"; now a courteous gentleman and again a braggart cad; now an earnest man of lofty aim and again a "flannelled fool" of witless brain; now commanding respect and esteem for his sterling qualities and again exciting contempt and censure by his ill-bred manners. And in these varying shapes and forms the Egyptian sees but little of the Englishman, and that little for the most part amidst surroundings that confuse his vision and disturb his judgment; what wonder, then, that he should be at a loss to reconcile the conflict between official statements and private views, between friendly words and unfriendly acts? Yet it is one of the most promising of auguries that, by the mere force of his own generous spirit of tolerance and his desire to be just, the Egyptian is slowly solving the problem for himself, is sifting the wheat from the chaff, learning to recognise that which is best and truest in English character and politics, to wholly despise the cad for what he is and to appreciate the manliness and merits of the self-respecting Englishman of all ranks and grades. If Englishmen in Egypt cared to do so they might easily learn so much at least of the character of the people, and would learn that the Egyptian can and does appreciate merit, that while he is ever lenient and forbearing towards the faults of ignorance, he can and does most heartily despise those of perversity of character, and that if he so constantly ignores the rudenesses to which he is subjected it is because he looks upon those guilty of them as men beneath reproach. Naturally reticent, the little familiarity he has with Englishmen makes him hesitate to speak to them with even the freedom he extends to other Europeans. How can it be otherwise when he is in constant fear, only too well justified by unpleasant experience, of the snub direct of a contemptuous or offensive response? And this evil is greatest in the official world. Egyptian "Ministers" are placed at the head of all departments of the Government, but it is the English "Adviser" who is the real "Minister." As a matter of simple indisputable fact there is no Egyptian Government in existence. This is the constant complaint of the people. The "Ministers" and the whole official world are but the obedient servants of the "Advisers," whose words are law. It is useless to tell the "Ministers" or others that their candid advice would be appreciated, valued, and possibly acted upon. That I believe is the truth, but it is most certainly the truth that the Egyptian entirely and unconditionally believes that were he to accept the assurance he receives he would find himself playing Gil Blas to the Englishman's Archbishop. The English seaman has it as the cardinal point of all his duty to "Obey orders, though you break owners." Absolute, implicit obedience to his captain's command, even if it means the immediate destruction of the ship, that is his ideal of duty, and it is the ideal that prevails among the Egyptian officials of to-day. It is said that these officials have no power of initiative, that they are incapable of justly criticising the measures and methods adopted in their Departments. Possibly those who think so would alter their views if they could hear the criticisms of these same officials when they discuss these matters in Egyptian circles; but under such a system as this it is, of course, impossible for the Egyptian to learn to govern his country on sound administrative lines. No trade, business, or profession of any kind is taught, or could be taught, in this way. You cannot make a carpenter or an engineer by putting an apprentice to watch the work of others, however expert these may be. If he is to learn, tools must be put in his hand and he must not only be shown how to use them, but must be taught why he is to use them in this or that way and in no other. And the work of governing a country can only be taught in the same way. The Egyptians see this, though it must be admitted that, like the average apprentice who has made some little progress, they are apt to overrate their knowledge and ability, and to fancy that they are quite able to act as master workmen and teachers. No one who has any knowledge of the English seaman and his training can have failed to see that the great merit of the "Handyman," as indeed of all seafaring men, is that they are invariably taught "the reason why." In pulling and hauling on a rope, in letting it go, in holding on to it. In all these simple actions he is guided, not only by the knowledge of which is the best and most proper way to do them, but also by the knowledge of the reason why that way is the best; and with that knowledge and the mental training it gives he is ready at a moment's notice not only to pull, and haul, and let go, and hold fast, with the utmost economy of labour and the utmost efficiency of result, but to modify his method of doing any of these things to suit any possible emergency or special conditions he may have to deal with. Every seafaring man recognises that it may at any moment be a matter of life and death to him and all on board a ship that some one of the crew should have had, or should not have had, this training, and so every man on board is ever ready to help and aid in the training. Does it not seem reasonable that this same spirit should prevail amongst all who form the crew of the ship of State? That every one who has a hand in guiding or working that ship should reflect that its safety and good working are only to be secured by the intelligent efficiency of all concerned? The man who is the chief of a Government Department should, like the captain of a ship, be entitled to instant, unhesitating, unquestioning obedience from all under his command, but, having this, is it not his own interest and an absolutely necessary condition for efficient working that he should see that that obedience is based upon an intelligent comprehension of the principles by which the administration is guided? A Government that is not conducted in this way may attain for the moment good results, but it is, and can be, nothing more than a mere temporary makeshift, for it must depend entirely upon the personal qualities of the man at its head. I have now to touch upon some matters that have attracted almost world-wide notice and have wrought much evil. Of these the first to produce a noticeably ill effect was the trial of Menchawi Pacha. Charged with having caused some men to be flogged with a view to extorting from them a confession as to the theft of a bull belonging to His Highness the Khedive, the Pacha was arrested, tried, convicted and sent to prison as an ordinary prisoner. His arrest caused intense excitement throughout the country and among all classes. During the Arabi revolt he had, with great risk to himself, given the utmost protection to Europeans of all nationalities and creeds, and had gathered all he could of these in his own palace and there guarded them in safety until the danger had passed. For the services he had thus rendered he was given the official thanks of almost all the Powers of Europe. Whatever his faults or errors may have been, he was therefore a man entitled to the most lenient judgment from all Europeans. The whole Press of the country, excepting the English organs, took up his case, and while none condoned or in any way sought to justify his offence, they all pleaded that his was a case in which common gratitude demanded mercy. Unfortunately there was only too much to be said on the other side, and the Pacha had therefore to undergo the three months' imprisonment to which he was sentenced. The trial was intended not only to punish a case of wrong-doing, but to impress upon the people the fact that the law was strong enough to protect the poorest and weakest against the richest and most influential, and upon minor officials that no excuse would be taken for gross neglect of their duty. That the trial has largely had the desired results is certain, but two causes contributed to lessen in some degree the effect produced. In the first place the Egyptian, while accepting the theory of "even-handed justice" and "one law for all," which is, indeed, an essential part of the teaching of Islam, has so long been accustomed to see that teaching ignored in practice that he has come to look upon the strict administration of justice as an injustice, and thus clings to the old fallacy which, if I am not greatly mistaken, under English law still entitles a peer of the realm to the luxury of a silk rope should he be so unfortunate as to incur the penalty of death by hanging. The other cause sprang from the Egyptian's habit of attributing all the acts of public men to their personal feelings and desires—a vice that is a constant source of evil and one of the greatest obstacles in the way of progress, not only in Egypt but throughout the East, utterly destroying, as it does, the growth of anything like a healthy and vigorous public spirit. The vice is one not unknown in home politics, but it is there less prolific of evil, for the sterling common sense of the people teaches them to weigh acts and deeds by their intrinsic qualities and not by mere surmises as to the motives of the actors or doers. In Egypt there is, I think, a tendency towards improvement in this direction. As I have said, the people are learning to think, they are less prone to cling to the first idea that presents itself to their minds as being necessarily the first and last worthy of consideration, and they have thus made one step towards healthy progress—one, too, that must lead to others. One and all of the unhealthy influences I have described were in force and were marring the goodwill that should exist between the two peoples, and yet, in spite of all, the Egyptians, balancing the good with the evil, buried their dissatisfaction under hopes of better days to come and a future recognition by the English of their true spirit. So evident was it that the people really desired to conciliate their rulers, to co-operate with them and accept their guidance and control in all things, that Lord Cromer announced that the time had come when the army of occupation might be safely and wisely decreased. At once a panic cry went up from a portion of the English colony. Every one in the country knew that the few who really disbelieved Lord Cromer's assurance that the measure he had proposed was a perfectly safe one, were in a hopeless minority, but there were many who, without the least sense of possible danger, had very strong reasons for opposing any reduction of the garrison. Every one who has lived in a garrison town can understand this. The withdrawal of a single battalion of English troops from Cairo or Alexandria is a very serious matter to many very excellent people and to a great many people who are by no means excellent in any sense of the word. Unfortunately for these their interests cannot be allowed to control State affairs, and these therefore swelled the chorus of alarm, probably with no thought that in doing their best to protect their own interests they were doing much ill. The Egyptians, as might be expected, received Lord Cromer's announcement with unqualified pleasure. It was the first recognition of the efforts they had honestly been making to promote goodwill and they were grateful for it, though the warmth of their gratitude was lessened by the violent opposition to the measure and the unjust and unfounded charges of fanaticism and hatred to the English brought against them. None the less Lord Cromer's action in this matter was an influence wholly for good and an influence that did more to strengthen and extend English influence in the country than the addition of an army corps to its garrison could possibly do. All then was going well. There was every possible reason to accept Lord Cromer's optimistic view of the position when the Tabah incident occurred, and, like a sudden gale, almost sundered the graft that was fast tending to unite the aims and hopes of the two peoples. News was received in Egypt that Turkish troops had occupied Tabah, near the northern end of the west coast of the Gulf of Akabah, a post that lies well within the Egyptian frontier. To the Egyptian, however, Egypt is bounded by the Suez Canal. He knows that the Peninsula of Sinai is part of the Khedivial territory, but he takes no interest in it whatever. When, therefore, it was announced that an ultimatum had been sent to the Sultan, the one and only point that for the moment troubled the people was the possibility of a war between Turkey and England. That was the last thing that they wanted, and the gratuitously bellicose tone of the pro-English Press raised an alarm throughout the country. The people could see no excuse or reason for the peremptory demands of the English. There was no Turkish army at or near the place in dispute, and if the possession of it was really important to Egyptian interests, it was a question that might be settled by discussion and was in no sense a pressing or urgent one. Why should the English be in such a hurry to pick a quarrel with the Sultan if they had no ulterior aims in view? All the old fears as to the real aim of the occupation were reawakened. Have not all the rulers of Egypt sought the conquest of Syria and the Hejaz? Was not this the object of the English? And there were not wanting those who held that the aim of the English was to stop the construction of the railway to the Hejaz. So little did the people know of the question at issue that many believed Tabah to be a station on the route of the new railway to el Medina and that what the English really wanted was to secure the control of that route. These and many other ideas were freely circulated and discussed, and rumours of the wildest kind were echoed through the bazaars. The English had landed troops on the Syrian coast, a vast army was on its way from Turkey, the Arabs of Arabia were assembling for the protection of the holy lands of Islam. Nothing was too absurd to be repeated or believed. As to what was actually occurring the people had no means of knowing, and while the great majority could not, of course, understand the interests involved, it could and did understand that the English were threatening to make war on the Sultan, and that those to whom it looked for guidance held that it was not in the interests of Egypt, but in those of England, that the war was to be made. What more natural than that there should be excitement in the country? And seeing this the pro-English Press took the very course common sense should have taught it to avoid, and began crying out about "fanaticism" and Pan-Islamism, thus throwing oil into the fire that had begun to smoulder. That the real attitude of the people was wholly and entirely misunderstood by the English generally is beyond question. The one thing that the Egyptians were wishing for was the avoidance of war. The one thing that had given birth to the excitement that arose was the fear that war could not be averted, that the English were determined upon forcing the Sultan's hand. The one question the Egyptians were asking themselves was not, What shall we do if the war breaks out? but, How can war be prevented? Had it not been for the attacks of the pro-English Press upon Moslem sentiment and the oft-repeated statements made as to "unrest" in the country no other thought would have occurred to the people. Those who understood the questions at issue would have felt, as they did and do, aggrieved by the action taken by the English, but they would have given their thought no open utterance and would have trusted to time to see their wishes realised. There was, therefore, absolutely no "unrest" in the country, for I take it that "unrest" implies a desire for, or tendency towards, action, and this is precisely what did not exist. Agitation, uneasiness, and excitement, were visible clearly enough, but "unrest" no. But the wanton and utterly unprovoked anti-Islamic tone of the pro-English Press added one more to the unhealthy influences at work in hindering the progress it should be the first aim of that press to promote. And once more the Egyptian showed his self-control and gave proof of his desire to live in peace and harmony with all. Had this not been so the consequences might have been serious; on the one hand, the anger of a people naturally hasty and impulsive, was being awakened; on the other, a vague, unreasoning fear was beginning to seize the colonists generally. Fear is a failing that shows itself with many faces and in many phases. There is the timid fear that starts back, "e'en at the sound himself had made"; the panic fear that overwhelms men's reason and sends them madly fleeing they know not where or how; the cowardly fear that palsies the arm, paralyses the brain, and turns men into craven, cowering creatures from whom all manhood has fled; and there is the fear that urges a man to wild, unreflecting action, to strike lest he be struck, the fear of the unbalanced mind that in the sudden presence of apparent danger loses its self-control, the fear of the brave man who for the moment has lost his presence of mind. This was the fear that was seizing many in Egypt when the Tabah excitement was at its height. The cry of alarm that had been raised when the reduction of the army of occupation had been proposed had disturbed the minds of many—good folk who cared nothing for politics, but much for their own peace and comfort. The weather was hot, heavy, brain-heating, and enervating. Had it been otherwise people would not have lost their heads and begun calling for an immediate increase of the army of occupation. It is true that at the prospect of a war between the English and Turkey some of the lower classes had spoken vaingloriously of what the Moslems would do, but that was an incident that no European knowing the people and living among them, thought of as anything but amusing. Yet many Europeans living in the country but, as indeed the great majority of them are, wholly out of touch with the people, scarcely ever meeting or speaking with an Egyptian, living entirely among Europeans, their servants even not being natives but Berbereen negroes, the most fanatical, bigoted, anti-English class in the country, as much out of touch with the Egyptians as the Europeans themselves—these Europeans became seriously alarmed and made their voices heard in the papers and elsewhere. So the cry of danger was echoed and re-echoed, even in official documents, until the announcement was made that the army of occupation was to be increased, and then, their end attained, the agitators began to admit that, after all, the danger from Egyptian fanaticism was a remote and far from pressing one! The truth is that the danger had been a very serious one. The agitation among the European colonists had begun to react upon the people of the country, and while there was no "unrest" among these, in the sense in which I have used the word, the excitement that was growing was such that the real gravity of the position was rather under- than over-stated in Lord Cromer's report upon the incident. At any moment the excitement that prevailed might have been turned by an unlucky incident into "unrest" of a deplorable and disastrous character. Happily the collapse of the agitation among the colonists reacted upon the people as strongly as the agitation itself had done. Seeing that the Europeans no longer feared an outbreak of hostilities, they themselves became reassured, for the cessation of the agitation among the Europeans was to them evidence that there was no longer any intention of forcing war upon the Sultan and that the English were as anxious for peace as they were. Hardly had the heat of this incident passed when the country was startled by the report of the Denshawi affair. Telegrams appeared in the papers stating that English officers had been attacked and killed by some of the fellaheen. The Moslem papers, in publishing the telegrams, expressed regret that such an incident had occurred, hoped that the report was exaggerated, but withheld all comment until the facts should be more fully known. Not so the pro-English Press. This at once broke out about the "fanaticism rampant in the country," demanded "an exemplary punishment" and the instant ordering of reinforcements for the army of occupation. Everywhere, among all classes, the excitement became intense, but the first full account of the affair published calmed the minds of all but a section of the English colony. There had been no murder. The fellaheen had interfered to prevent some English officers shooting pigeons close to their village, and had become very excited when a gun belonging to one of the officers went off and a native woman was accidentally wounded. The officers were attacked by the people and severely beaten with heavy sticks and some of them carried as prisoners, with much ill-treatment, to the village. One of them who had been badly beaten had set out for the camp and was found dead on the road at a considerable distance from the village, his death being due, as medical evidence proved, to the combined effects of the injuries received and exposure to the sun. This was the case as it was heard and understood in Cairo. All the Press condemned the fellaheen, but, with the exception of the pro-English Press, recognised that the affair was simply one of those unhappy occurrences that take place in all countries, and had nothing whatever to do with fanaticism. That the possibility of such incidents had been increased by the disturbed condition of public opinion was evident, but that this case was a direct result of fanaticism was not credited by any in a position to gauge the real feeling of the country. The Egyptians were very far indeed from sympathising with the outrage, though it was well known that the fellaheen have much cause of complaint from the injuries they suffer at the hands of "sporting" Europeans who, in all parts of the country, trespass freely on their lands, damaging their crops and property, and only too often needlessly offending the people. Yet here again it was not the facts at issue but the tone of the pro-English press that was most abundantly productive of evil. The renewal of the unfounded charges of fanaticism, the repeated cry for "exemplary punishment," the hurry to try the prisoners, the formation of the special Court, various incidents at the hearing of the case, the severity of the sentences, the haste to carry them out—all these things tended to irritate the minds of the people, but of all these it was the tone of the pro-English press that was productive of the greatest evil. As time passed on, though much soreness of feeling lingered, the agitation was dying out when some Englishmen at home decided to enter upon a campaign against Lord Cromer. These misled by their sympathy with the pretensions of the self-styled "National Party" and backed by a few journalists, rejoiced to find a new and prolific subject, almost simultaneously broke forth in an attack upon Lord Cromer. Taking somewhat different standpoints, they all preached the same moral—that the one thing evil in Egypt was Lord Cromer. It was perhaps but natural that the Egyptian papers should follow suit. They did so, and for a time it seemed to me that all the progress they had been making towards healthy, honest journalism, was to be swept away. There was something to be said in their excuse. Were they not following the lead of Englishmen?—and of Englishmen who professed to sympathise with all their views? Surely these Englishmen knew how to influence their countrymen; and how, then, could the Egyptians do better than imitate their methods and manner? And for the Egyptian journalists we must remember that they work in the face of disadvantages and difficulties that would appal a London pressman. Their articles are for the most part sent hot from the pen to the press; they have no cautious, well-trained colleagues to advise or aid them in any difficulty, no accomplished, painstaking Readers to point out errors, slips, or inconsistencies in their articles; and the work of writing these articles is liable to a hundred interruptions. All these things must be allowed for; but even granting these as largely excusing the imperfections of the Egyptian journals, there is much left that is a just subject of reproach to the writers. They are far too anxious to swell the chorus of the moment, to harmonise their own ideas with those floating around them, to take the tone and colour of their articles from the reading or conversation from which they have just turned. In short, they lack a right sense of the responsibility of their position, and almost all the mental training absolutely indispensable to the journalist who would take a really honourable position in his profession. In the old days in England, when a man had failed in all else he bought a birch-rod and turned schoolmaster. To-day, the first idea of the young Egyptian who has not been caught up into the Government service, is to become a journalist, for Journalism is looked upon as the one happy profession exacting no other qualification than "the pen of a ready writer." Time will improve all this. The Egyptian press will one day yet be worthy of all that is best in the Egyptian people, and that will prove worthy of the esteem of all men. Meanwhile, under the malign influence of their English "friends," the Egyptian journalists have done much to injure their own cause. They are crying out for a "representative government" while, by the very articles in which they make their demand, they show the want of self-restraint, of the capacity to appreciate facts, to weigh arguments, to form well-balanced judgments, which are the very first qualifications needed in men who would guide or rule others. And they err in other ways. No one more fully absolves them of all intention to promote or even countenance fanaticism than I do, but as I have said on page 61, when speaking of religious teachers, it is useless for men to preach toleration while they denounce others as "enemies," describe them as "filled with hatred to the people," and so forth. In the days of "Harry Lorrequer," when a greatly daring dun or bailiff ventured into the great square at Trinity College in Dublin, he was fortunate indeed if he did not hear the cry of "Oh! boys, boys! don't nail his ear to the pump." I do not think that the professed toleration of the Egyptian press is of this type, but I am certain that, accompanied with wild, unreasoning "criticisms," it is only too likely to have the same effect. For the young Egyptian of the so-called "Nationalist" party there is also something to be said. His education separates him almost wholly from the bulk of his countrymen. His ideals, his aspirations are not theirs. He comprehends and understands them as little almost as do the foreigners in the country. With his lack of that home-training which forms the Englishman's character far more than aught else, and with his imperfect knowledge of French or English and of European life and thought, he falls an easy, self-sacrificing prey to that ultra-Radicalism which is the refuge of the brainless and uneducated in the political world of Europe. In doing so he belies his own nature, decries his countrymen, and disparages his religion. Rightly named the party to which he attaches himself should be termed the "Anti-Egyptian and Anti-Islamic" party, and yet this is the class that Lord Cromer's assailants would have Europeans accept as the representatives of the Egyptian people! If there is a party in Europe essentially and wholly in all its forms and all its aspirations anti-Islamic, it is the ultra-Radical party. Yet it is this party that the "Nationalist" party of Egypt is pleased to accept as its ally. Radicals and Radicalism are the ideals that Mustapha Pacha Kamel holds out to the Egyptians. He does not use the terms, but the principles he advocates are those proper to the terms. He may call himself a Mahomedan but the policy he preaches is the policy of a Radical, and a man cannot be both a Radical and a Mahomedan. If, then, the "Nationalists" desire to promote reform, to protect and develop their own interests, let them fling their Radicalism aside and return to Islam. As Spencer has shown, the social and political history of mankind is the history of an evolution. Whether created in the image of God, or slowly developed from some primitive amorphous atom, so far as we can trace our origin, man has been moving, on the whole steadily, though with many halts and set-backs, towards perfection. As yet our civilisation—the highest point yet reached—is but a miserable makeshift for that we should aim at. Let us hope that when the present agitation shall have died out Englishmen and Egyptians will find it possible to join hands in an effort for the mutual attainment of something better. Thirty years ago in India I preached the doctrine that the welfare of the Indian Empire and its peoples was to be sought in the mutual understanding and co-operation of rulers and ruled. Twelve years ago I began to preach the same doctrine to the Egyptians. To-day I repeat it. Some time ago, urging my views on a Moslem friend, he said, "There is only one thing needed to make your policy a success—that all the Egyptians should be angels and all the English archangels." There is an evident moral in the criticism that needs no pointing. Knowing Englishmen and Egyptians as I do, I believe that the flood of evil that has swept between them will pass away and that even out of all this evil some good will come. If Englishmen in Egypt and at home will but try to realise the patient forbearance, the manly self-control that the Egyptian has been and is practising under the steadily pressing burthen of the unhealthy influences of which I have written, I have so much faith in the English sense of justice, fairplay, and manly straightforwardness, as to believe that these qualities will compel them in the near future, if not now, to form a new estimate of the Egyptian, and to feel that, with all his faults, he has some sterling merits and is a man to whom all honest, right-thinking men may fitly hold out the hand of friendship. It is my hope that what I have written may tend to this effect, and help to bring about a good understanding between the two peoples. The English can, if they will but do justice to their own better feelings, gain and retain the sincere friendship of the Egyptian people, and in gaining that friendship they will gain the friendship of all Islam, and thereby acquire a power and influence in the East such as they can gain in no other way—a power and influence that must prove of endless benefit not only to the British Empire but to the world at large. But if this result is to be attained the Egyptian must contribute his share of effort to realise it. That he should do so needs nothing more than that he should follow his own healthy and natural inclinations and the teaching of his religion, and in doing this he will be serving not only the cause of Egypt, but that of Islam; he will be benefiting not only his own countrymen, but all Mahomedans. In this way, and in this way only, will he find all his best aspirations become not merely possibilities, but actualities, and Egypt will take its rightful place as the great centre and fountain of all Mahomedan progress. If, on the other hand, he allows himself to be seduced by the plausible speech of Radical agitators and, following the advice of Mustapha Pacha Kamel and his party, abandons the teaching of Islam for the teaching of Radicalism, he will assuredly defeat his own aims and sacrifice the claim of his countrymen to be the true leaders in the world of Islam. <hr style="width: 65%;" /> <div style="break-after:column;"></div>

1 of 2

2 of 2

Update Required To play the media you will need to either update your browser to a recent version or update your Flash plugin.