British state papers and the records of the House of Commons and the House of Lords contain half a hundred categorical assurances to the same effect. Over a period of thirty years, Mr. Gladstone, Lord Granville, Lord Dufferin, Sir Charles Dilke, Lord Derby, Lord Salisbury, Lord Cromer, Sir Edward Grey, and Sir Eldon Gorst officially disavowed the intention of Great Britain to remain in Egypt, and promised the Egyptians specifically that their Government would never proclaim a protectorate. Nothing could be more concise and definite than the declaration of Lord Salisbury in the House of Lords on August 12, 1889:

We cannot proclaim our protectorate over Egypt nor our intention to occupy it effectively and perpetually; this would amount to breaking the international pledges signed by England.

During the recent war those at the head of the British Government gave no less unreserved pledges to the Egyptians and to the civilized world. The British censorship, exceedingly rigorous in Egypt, allowed the native press to publish the successive declarations of British premiers and ministers. Without question these unqualified promises made the Egyptian people believe that the defeat of Germany, to accomplish which they were contributing in human lives and treasure as heavily as any Allied nation, would mean their independence. At the Guildhall on November 9, 1914, Mr. Balfour, speaking for the Government, said:

We fight not for ourselves alone, but for

civilization drawn to the cause of small states, the cause of all those countries which desire to develop their own civilization in their own way, following their own ideals without interference.

At the same place a year later Premier Asquith declared:

We shall not pause nor falter until we have secured for the smaller states their charter of independence and for the world at large its final emancipation from the reign of force.

More emphatic still was the policy of Great Britain set forth by Mr. Asquith in the House of Commons on December 20, 1917. A Reuter despatch, given prominence in the Cairo press with the assent of the British authorities, quoted Mr. Asquith's words as follows:

We ought to make it increasingly clear by every possible means that the only ends we are fighting for are liberty and justice for the whole world, through a confederation of great and small states, all to possess equal rights. A League of Nations is the ideal for which we are fighting, and we shall continue fighting for it with a clear conscience, clean hands and an unwavering heart.

This was at the time when Egyptian aid was essential, according to General Allenby, to complete the crushing of Turkey.

This ought to be enough to demonstrate the lack of foundation of the charge that the attitude of the Egyptian people toward the British Government since the armistice is due to a worldwide heralding of American idealism in the speeches of President Wilson. It is of course true that we Americans accepted in good faith the assurances of British statesmen and entered the war against Germany for the triumph of the war aims already set forth by them. But long before the World War the Egyptian nationalist movement was fostered and encouraged by Europeans who had no connection with and who were not under the influence of German imperialist propaganda or American "sentimentalism." The sole instance of

American intervention in the Egyptian question is that of Roosevelt, who certainly did nothing to encourage Egyptian aspirations.

I first became acquainted with the Egyptian nationalist movement in Paris salons at the time of the Boer War. French intellectuels and politicians were not under the influence of German propaganda in their hatred and denunciation of England as the power which aimed at world domination through hypocrisy and aggression against small nations. Resentment over Fashoda was still keen and brought back the bitter memory of how the British supplanted the French in Egypt and gained control of the canal that had been dug by French brains and enterprise. Every one sympathized with Egyptians and Boers who were resisting British imperialism. Mustafa Kamel, leader of the Egyptian nationalists, received more than simply moral aid from certain French circles, notably that dominated by the wonderful personality of Mme. Juliette Adam. But I was not greatly impressed, for I saw in French sponsorship of Egyptian nationalism prejudice against England rather than conviction of the justice of the Egyptian cause. Why? Why? I am going to confess frankly. The same people who denounced Great Britain could not speak too bitterly about my own country's war against Spain and imputed to us the intention to remain in Cuba. That was too much for my Anglo-Saxon instinct. But when I returned to London, my attention was once more fastened on the Boer and Egyptian causes by the impassioned eloquence on behalf of subject races of a rising Welsh Liberal, David Lloyd George, who was tireless in protesting against his Government's policy of aggression and oppression.

the

French support for the Egyptian nationalist cause ceased after Anglo-French agreement of 1904, just as Russian support for Indian nationalism ceased after the Anglo-Russian agreement of 1907. British statesmen, after a long period of uncertainty, chose what they considered the lesser of two evils, and compounded their colonial rivalries with France and Russia instead of with Germany. Left to them

selves, as the Poles and other subject nationalities of Russia and AustriaHungary were left to themselves, the Egyptians could do nothing. Between 1908 and 1914 I enjoyed the privilege of studying the various nationalist movements of Europe and the near East on the ground. The same factors worked everywhere against the success of these movements. As long as the great powers were agreed upon maintaining the status quo, there was no hope of emancipation. Internal agitation, inciting to defiance of constituted authority, could lead only to local outbreaks. These were easily suppressed, and the leaders were punished for "disorder" and "lawlessness." College professors, priests, lawyers, physicians, and students could alone afford to take the risk of espousing the national cause.

The Egyptian nationalist movement, frowned upon by European and American tourists because of its irresponsibility, its unreasonableness, and its menace to law and order, presented to the impartial and unhurried observer the same phenomena as the nationalist movements of races liberated and raised to the rank of sovereign states by the treaties of Versailles and St.-Germain. Russian, German, Austrian, and Hungarian military and civilian despots did not use different methods for checking nationalist aspirations or different arguments to justify their actions from those used by Cromer and Kitchener and others in Egypt. I make this statement, based upon personal investigation and observation, without fear of contradiction. The man who argues that "the case of the Egyptians is different" is on untenable ground.

Let us meet this issue squarely. The delegates of the Egyptian people were denied a hearing at the peace conference. While Poles, Czecho-Slovaks, Jugo-Slavs, and Arabs of the Hedjaz saw their countries emancipated and erected into sovereign states, the Egyptians, against their unanimous protest, were placed under a British protectorate. In excuse or explanation of this disposition of Egypt in the Treaty of Versailles several arguments are advanced.

We are told that the Conference of

Paris could not settle the destinies of the whole world, and that Egypt was an internal question of the British Empire. But if the status of Egypt, like that of India, Ireland, and other countries, was outside of the scope of the peace conference, and was an internal British question, why, then, was Egypt mentioned in the treaty at all? Reference to any manual of international law, to any history of the nineteenth century, to the declarations of British statesmen quoted in this article, will dispose of the contention that Egypt belongs to the British Empire. According to the Statesman's Year-Book for 1913, an English publication, Egypt is listed under "Turkey and Tributary States," whose "administration is carried on by native Ministers, subject to the ruling of the Khedive."

According to a letter, published in the London "Times" on December 21, 1914, from King George to Sultan Hussein, who consented to succeed Abbas Hilmi, deposed by the British for favoring Turkey, the war-time protectorate was proclaimed by the British "to overcome all influences which are seeking to destroy the independence of Egypt." Sultan Hussein told me that the British Government promised him that the Egyptians would participate in the peace conference and would have their say in establishing the new international status of Egypt.

But even if we do not admit that Egypt broke the tie of vassalage to Turkey when she refused to follow Turkey into the war on the side of Germany and did not thus become automatically a sovereign state, how can we ignore the explicit provision of Article XXII of the covenant of the League of Nations, concerning "territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the states which formerly governed them"? This article provides a mandatory régime for territories separated from the Ottoman Empire, with the express stipulation that "the wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the mandatary."

If Egypt is an independent and sovereign state, the British protectorate is null and void. If Egypt is a territory now separated from the Ottoman Empire, the maintenance of the British protectorate, temporarily declared as a war measure, is a violation of Article XXII of the covenant. According to international law, changes in the status quo made in war-time are valid only so long as the war lasts.

We are told that Great Britain cannot be expected to get out of Egypt because control of the Suez Canal is vital to her imperial interests and because she now has so much capital invested in Egypt. This argument for destroying the independence of a nation shows that the detested Prussian mentality is unfortunately not confined to Germany. Germany needed to control her outlet to the sea through Belgium, she needed to dominate the countries that stood between her and Turkey, she needed Schleswig because control of the Kiel Canal was vital to her imperial interests, and she had so much capital invested in her African colonies and Shan-tung! Now, did the Treaty of Versailles emancipate nationalities subject to Germany because they had the right to govern themselves and take away the African colonies because the natives did not want their rule and banish Germany from China because Germany had gained her foothold there by force and subterfuge? We answer affirmatively. It is our justification for having fought the war and dictated the Treaty of Versailles to our vanquished foe. In a dozen speeches during 1919 Premier Lloyd George gave these reasons for the stipulations of the Treaty of Versailles. Since we believe in his sincerity, we are sure that he will be the first to reject a Prussian argument for defending the British protectorate in Egypt.

We are told that the British have brought great blessings to Egypt, have made the country prosperous, have freed the common people from servitude to the ruling classes, and that if the

British got out, Egypt would fall into anarchy, economic chaos, and "the old tyranny would be revived." This, after all, is the supreme justification of governing people by force against their will. It is the theory of the Imperial German Government, which we fought the war to refute. If we believe in it and advance it as a justification for the British protectorate over Egypt, then the treaties of Versailles and St.-Germain, in almost all of their provisions to emancipate subject races are crimes against civilization. For no intelligent man can deny the purely material prosperity of Alsace-Lorraine, Schleswig, Silesia, and Posnania under German rule. Alsatians, Lorrainers, Danes, and Poles, if we take the tests by which the Egyptians are told to count their blessings, enjoyed unrivaled prosperity and perfect security under the German yoke. As portions of a flourishing industrial state, they doubled in population and quintupled in wealth. Think of the railways, roads, canals, efficient administration, public buildings, admirable laws, social as well as agricultural and industrial, of imperial Germany! By the same token, the traveler in the Hapsburg Empire could not help admitting that Bohemia was one of the most flourishing countries of Europe, that Triest and Fiume were cleaner and better equipped and better managed than Italian ports, that the Jugo-Slavs had much more prosperity and material comfort than the Serbians, that the Transylvanians were largely free from the terrible state of ignorance and agricultural exploitation of the Rumanian peasants, and that the political and economic situation of the Austrian Poles was enviable in comparison with the oppression of their brothers under the rule of one of the Entente Allies.

Cold-blooded materialists, who measure happiness and contentment by dollars in the bank, public works, and a good police system, wonder at the stupidity of the Egyptians in demanding the right "to develop their own civilization in their own way, following their own ideals without interference," as Mr. Balfour defined the war aim of Great Britain in his famous Guildhall speech. But if they do this and are sincere and

logical, they must deplore the defeat of Germany and Austria-Hungary. They must be pitying half a dozen emancipated races of central and eastern Europe for the mess our well-meaning, but foolish, war to liberate them has got them into. Of course Alsatians and Lorrainers, Danes, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Jugo-Slavs, Hungarian Rumanians, and Austrian Italians will deny that their unquestioned material prosperity was due to beneficent German rule, to German administrative ability, to having been included within the Zollverein of a populous and flourishing industrial state, to the advantageous markets open to their products through the prestige of Germany, the growth of her merchant fleet, and the protection of her navy. They point to other factorsnative energy and industry, remarkable initiative and development before the German conquest, and above all to their geographical position, the rich production of their soil, and the world-wide phenomenon of increased productive wealth through improved and multiplied transportation facilities and greater scientific knowledge. What happened under German rule there is no reason for believing they could not have accomplished if left to themselves. And they point out to you convincingly how the conquerors did not forget to advance their own interests by reason of their political control.

The Egyptians use against Great Britain the same points which the races we have liberated use against Germany when they deny the assumption that they owe their material blessings to British rule and when they affirm that the Government which held them in subjection has exploited them. The Suez Canal was dug and the railway and irrigation system planned and partly constructed before the British came. Mohammed Ali and his successors were enlightened rulers, and they were responsible for the Europeanization of Egypt. They freed the country from the Turkish yoke, successfully defended its independence, and laid the foundations of the present economic prosperity. The British have reimbursed themselves richly for what they have done in developing irrigation and trans

portation facilities. Not only have the Egyptian people paid in taxes every cent spent upon them, but they were mulcted for a large portion of the expense of the reconquest of the Sudan, and the graft of big salaries and pensions to British officials and of the maintenance of the British garrison and police system has come out of the pockets of the Egyptian people. An appalling sum in gold goes from Egypt every year to be spent in England by the families of British officials and by the large roll of pensioners. The story of how Great Britain has used her position in Egypt to prevent the establishment of a native cotton textile industry for the benefit of Manchester and to cheat the Egyptian peasants out of the open market price of their cotton for the benefit of Liverpool is a telling refutation of the smug and comforting theory that the British occupation of Egypt is an altruistic burden unwillingly assumed by the British Government for the benefit of the Egyptians.

We are told that it is impossible to grant independence or even self-government to a "backward race," which is unable to manage its own affairs, much less defend itself against enemies from outside. This excuse for the protectorate is given by many who admit frankly that all the other arguments for British rule are indefensible. It is the favorite plea of the imperialists. You may have answered their other arguments, but here they think they have you. And they have, if you are a follower of the philosophy of Bernhardi, Treitschke, and others who interpret historical evolution as inevitably limited by the law of force. Does Macht geht vor Recht? If so, Part I of "The Covenant of the League of Nations," in the Treaty of Versailles, is one of the most brazen and shameless cloaks of hypocrisy that has ever been written. But if the League of Nations was conceived in sincerity, British statesmen must be the first to admit that there is now in the world a possibility for the independent existence of small nations.

If the reader thinks that my argument is weak, because we must distinguish between a "small nation" and a "backward race" and because I have put

European Christian races on the same plane with a non-European Mohammedan race, I have my answer in the Treaty of Versailles itself. Among the "high contracting parties" we read "His Majesty the King of the Hedjaz," whose representatives signed the Treaty of Versailles on behalf of a sovereign and independent state. In Article 434 Germany is forced to recognize the independence of the new states created during the war.

The "backward-race" argument is denied by the Treaty of Versailles itself. If, as the treaty provides, the Arabs on one side of the Red Sea are recognized as forming a sovereign and independent state, where does the disability of the Arabs on the other side come in? Puzzle over this question as much as you will; there is no answer. When we cre

ated the Hedjaz as a sovereign and independent state, we deprived ourselves of using the "backward-race" argument against Egyptian independence. When we consider that the Hedjaz never was a state and is not a geographical unity and that its inhabitants are mostly nomad Bedouins with no traditions or little education and virtually no trained leaders, when we realize that the Hedjaz was for a time during the last century a province of Egypt, how can we have the face to say to the Egyptians that the Treaty of Versailles put them under the British protectorate because they were not ready for statehood and could not possibly be expected to organize a self-governing state and manage their own affairs?

Finally, we are told that the Egyptians really do not want to have their independence, that if the British got out, the Mohammedans would massacre the Christians, and that the agitators for independence are irresponsible, selfappointed leaders, working for their own selfish ends or contaminated with Bolshevism. That is the last-ditch argument for the British protectorate. I heard it often at Paris. It has been given in official British statements, and crops up over and over again in the British and American press. Let me say very positively that those who use this argument do not know what they are talking about. If there is any na