commander, and those of several of his officers were displayed on poles at Cairo. Mohammed Ali made his leadership secure by massacring the Mamelukes. He and his son Ibrahim Pasha, assisted by Suleiman Pasha, a Frenchman who had fought at Waterloo, eventually took Acre, subdued Syria and were on the eve of advancing on Constantinople, when England interfered, and the great Pasha agreed to confine his rule to the African continent. His sway there was undisputed, and England for many years indulged in no further dreams with reference to the Egyptian Pashalic.

It affords a curious illustration of the interdependence of modern nations as a result of commerce to ascertain that the domestic affairs of the United States of America were the primary cause of the present occupation of Egypt by Great Britain, but such is the fact. The blockade of the Confederate ports by the Northern navy put a stop to the exportation of cotton from America, and it became necessary for European mills to find their supply somewhere else. This new demand made itself felt at once in Egypt, where the best cotton in the world is raised, save only the very restricted Sea Island cotton crop of the Carolinas, for Egyptian cotton has a much longer staple than the ordinary American cotton, and an ever-increasing amount of it is imported into America for that reason. The price of cotton consequently went up rapidly in the early sixties, to supply the lack of the American article, the production of cotton was stimulated and extended and the country entered upon an era of prosperity theretofore unknown, and which soon made itself felt in a plentiful revenue for the government. Ismail Pasha succeeded to the government in 1863, at the very height of this wave of abundance. Grandson of Mohammed Ali, son of the great general, Ibrahim, he had inherited a strong character, but it had been spoiled by a semi-foreign education. Affable in manner, he was at heart an Oriental despot in spite of his

thin veneer of Parisian vices. With his treasury full, he acted as if he were possessed of the lamp of Aladdin and the purse of Fortunatus. Ambitious to rival the magnificence of European capitals, totally unable to appreciate the value of money, a spendthrift by nature, he made his reign a prolonged orgy of extragagance. He built a score of lath-andplaster palaces, which are already far more ruined than the temples of the Pharaohs, and he paid for them as if they had been marble. He bought expensive machinery for sugar-mills and other industrial enterprises, and left it to rot unused. He spent ninety million dollars and thousands of lives on the Suez canal, which damaged Egypt by enabling the commerce of the world to pass through without stopping. He spent large sums in bribes at Constantinople, his new title of Khedive and the hereditary right to the throne costing him roundly. Cairo became the Mecca of the adventurers and swindlers of Europe, and when Ismail was slow to pay, the consuls-general of the great Christian Powers made him do so. With utter disregard of the position of the Egyptian taxpayer, the representatives of the governments of Europe deliberately permitted their fellow-subjects to engage the Egyptian government in extortionate contracts, and then used all their power to exact every farthing nominated in the bond. The results were soon evident enough, although the Powers paid no attention to them. General Gordon estimated at one time that the Khedive was paying thirtysix per cent. interest. The national debt in 1863, when Ismail became Pasha, was fifteen million dollars. In 1876 it was four hundred and forty-five millions. It had increased thirtyfold in thirteen years! This meant a debt of seventy-five dollars for every man, woman and child of the six millions of population of that day, while the average cost of living for each individual was only five cents a day apiece. A man therefore who spent less than nineteen dollars a year for his own

support was obliged to pay the interest on seventy-five dollars in taxes, besides his share of the cost of government. Lord Milner tells us how much less than the face of the loans included in this debt was received by the Khedive. The Oppenheim loan of 1873 for the nominal sum of thirty-two million pounds sterling brought only twenty millions into the treasury, and probably seventeen millions is nearer the true figure. The balance had already disappeared in rake-offs to the distinguished usurers who managed the job. Lord Milner's estimate is that only ten per cent. of the Egyptian national debt was used on works of permanent utility, but this is surely an optimistic view of the situation. And the Powers either participated in this international knavery, or at best sat by consenting. Hard-pressed by his creditors Ismail disposed of the Egyptian shares in the Suez Canal to D'Israeli for the British Government for twenty million dollars. A few years ago they were worth ninety millions. It was a neat piece of business which ought to entitle the United Kingdom to quarter the bearings of the Medici on her coat-of-arms. England had put every possible obstacle in the way of building the Canal which Egypt built. But Egypt paid the bills and England got the profit.

Ismail at last understood the situation, but he was unable to curb his extravagant tastes. He had some sense of humor, however, which may have relieved the gloom a little. "Close that window behind his Excellency," he is reported to have said to a servant, while he was conversing with some official European visitor. "If he should catch cold, I might have a big claim for damages on my hands!" I heard another story which goes to show his prodigality, but for the truth of which I cannot vouch. He told one of his attendants that he would like to have "Schneider" come to Cairo. It so happened that there were two Schneiders, one an actress, whom the Khedive had intended, and the other an agent for

a manufactory of fire-arms. The attendant misunderstood his master, and sent for the latter. When this gentleman was ushered in, the Khedive at once appreciated the error, and without hesitation gave a large order for rifles which were not at all needed. So great was the courtesy of his Highness! He tried to make the opera at Cairo surpass that of other capitals, and he outbid St. Petersburg and Vienna to secure stars for its stage. "Aïda" was specially composed for it, and was one of the features of the mad revel of extravagance which marked the reception of the Empress Eugénie in 1869 upon the opening of the Suez Canal. Obscure indeed was the public man who could not obtain an invitation to those festivities and a free pass to everything. Champagne ran like water, new roads and palaces were constructed, and the fellah had to pay for it all. Ismail had in office nearly thirteen hundred Europeans, most of whom held sinecures and were only active in drawing their salaries. M. G. Mulhall, the well-known statistician, in his Dictionary of Statistics (tit. Finance, subtit. Egypt) says: "The nine loans effected between 1862 and 1880 represented nominally seventy-seven millions sterling, but produced only £50,589,000, the difference being lost in discounts and other unavoidable drawbacks," and he is quoted as saying elsewhere that British contractors charged as much as eighty per cent. profits on Egyptian public-works during this period. The Egyptian national debt on December 31, 1904, was £101,275,340. If the sums included in this enormous debt had been borrowed at par and at six per cent. interest per annum, it would have been entirely paid off by the amounts already paid under the head of interest, and yet the Egyptian people are still forced to pay interest on this unholy debt and the full principal is still held due against them.

None of the statesmen of Europe showed any interest in the scandalous condition of affairs in Egypt until it became difficult to collect the interest on

he bonds. Ismail might do what he pleased to force money out of his subjects for the purpose of meeting his obligations to the swindlers of Europe, but that was nobody's business but his own. When, however, the payment of interest was delayed, the situation took a new aspect and the righteous indignation of the Powers began to kindle. Mr. Goschen, now Lord Goschen, was sent out with M. Joubert in 1876, by the bondholders, to put Egyptian finances into shape and they arranged a plan which plan which however proved too onerous and was followed only for a short time. Then the estates of the Khedive and of his family were hypothecated and with this security Mr. Rivers Wilson went to Paris and negotiated a loan of eight millions and a half sterling, upon which it is said there was a discount of twenty-seven per cent. Wilson is reported to have retained a commission of 2 per cent. on the nominal sum, thus receiving £212,000, that is, over a million dollars, for his services. The Khedive Ismail was unable to adapt himself to the rôle of prince of a bankrupt country. He had always been a spendthrift and he could not learn frugality. It was useless to remodel the Egyptian finances, so long as the leakage continued, and finally in 1879, moved by the complaints of European bondholders, England and France intervened and deposed the Khedive, setting up his son, Tewfik, in his place. Mr. Goschen on behalf of England and M. Joubert on behalf of France took hold of the finances, and what is known as the Dual Control of these two Powers began.

The fact was that the taxpayers of Egypt, the fellaheen peasants who have always lived in grinding poverty and worked like slaves, were now being pressed beyond their power to respond, and their discontent began to make itself audible. It was natural that the educated natives of the pasha class should begin to resent the presence of foreign tax-gatherers, and that Arabi, an officer in the Egyptian army and standing high

in ministerial circles, should undertake with the aid of his friends to put himself at the head of a revolt. It is unnecessary to recite the "Events" as they are called in Egypt to this day. Arabi gathered a force and took possession of the venerable fortifications of Alexandria. The fleets of the Powers were sent to the neighborhood to watch the issue, and as many as possible of the foreign residents took refuge upon their respective men-of-war. The British government, nominally supporting the government of the Khedive, ordered their fleet to bombard the forts and invited the French fleet to join with them, but under instructions from Paris the French vessels withdrew. On July 11, 1882, the British ships went into action and without any difficulty or appreciable loss demolished the fortifications, which were totally unfit to withstand modern ordnance. The guns in the forts were also out-of-date and the men who manned them were unskilled and inefficient. The contest under the circumstances hardly deserved the name of a battle. When the fortifications lay in ruins the unruly classes in the city formed mobs, and set buildings on fire and the best portion of Alexandria was swept by flames. The marines on the American men-of-war which were in the offing were sent on shore and succeeded in restoring quiet and putting an end to the conflagration. Meanwhile Arabi's routed forces retired southward. To follow up her success upon the water, England now organized a land-force under Sir Garnet Wolseley and sent it into the Delta to complete her triumph by annihilating the army of Arabi. This expedition engaged the native forces at Tel el Kebir on September 13, 1882, and fully accomplished its purpose. When we remember that the Egyptians were imperfectly armed, drilled and commanded, and that the British army had all the advantages which skill, science and wealth could give it, it will be readily seen that this widely-heralded victory was not much to boast of. Sir Garnet

was nevertheless created a viscount by way of reward, the same honor that Nelson received for all his great victories up to his death at Trafalgar. Arabi's army completely disappeared after this defeat, its survivors quietly going back to their homes, and England took possession of Egypt in the name of the Khedive Tewfik, who ever afterwards loyally supported her influence. British "under-secretaries" were placed in charge of each ministry, under a native figure-head, British officers were assigned to all the leading posts in the army, and the British Diplomatic Agent and Consul-General, Sir Evelyn Baring, now Lord Cromer, has ever since been the actual ruler of

the country under the British Government. If the action of France in refusing to bombard Alexandria could be attributed in any way to sympathy with the cause of the natives or disapproval of foreign intervention on any moral ground, it would be a pleasure to record the fact, but unfortunately such is not the case. The French Government was vacillating and undetermined. They hoped that England might get involved in some mistake by which they could profit, and they have never ceased to regret that on that day in July, 1882, they permitted England to proceed alone. (To be continued.)

Rhinebeck, N. Y. ERNEST CROSBY.

HE STORY of politics in the United States is the recital of a continuous struggle on the part of the people to obtain control of the political machinery of the nation.

It was thought that the introduction of the Australain ballot would inaugurate a millennium in the political world, and it did work a partial reform. Political bosses could no longer march the voters to election-booths in gangs of "tens" and "twelves" and force them to cast the ballots which had been thrust into their hands. But this reform only caused the professional politician to transfer his activities from the election-booth to the caucus and the convention. If he could control these and nominate the candidates of all parties, it was immaterial to him whom the people elected.

And what has been the result? To-day we find that the caucus and convention no longer express the popular will. Delegates have become the mainshafts of political machines. Corporate wealth and influence dictate the policies

of the dominant parties, while candidates and office-holders, instead of being responsible to the voters, are responsible to the boss and the ring which nominate them.

All attempts at reforming the caucus and the convention have resulted in dismal failures. New York, California, and Cook county, Illinois, which have the most highly legalized caucus-systems, are still boss-ridden and machine-controlled.

There can be but one remedy,—the government must be brought back to the people. They must be given the power to directly nominate their party-candidates. If they are sufficiently intelligent to directly elect them by means of the Australian ballot, they are sufficiently intelligent to directly nominate them.

Experience with the Direct Primary in thirty-two states, where it is now being used in one form or other, shows that every good Direct Primary law, whether applied to city, county or state, must have the following five essentials: (1) It must

be compulsory upon all parties; (2) the Australian Ballot must be used; (3) all primaries must be held under state regulations; (4) the state must bear the expense; (5) all parties must hold their primaries at the same place and time. Under a system of Direct Nominations, one of the registration days is set aside for the primary. The voter goes to the polls, registers, receives a ballot containing a list of the candidates, and votes directly for the men of his choice. Nothing could be more simple in operation than this. It places in the hands of the voters the power to nominate their partycandidates, and in all sane governments that is where it should be placed.

The real tests of any nominating system, however, are (1) the number of voters that take part in the primaries, and (2) the kind of candidates nominated. Under the caucus-system, no matter how highly legalized, the voters will not take part in making the nominations. They are not even interested, for in the caucuses they do not nominate candidates, they only elect delegates, and a delegate, no matter how honest he may be, cannot correctly represent the wishes of his constituents upon all, and quite often not even upon a small portion, of the candidates to be nominated in the convention. Do the facts uphold the argument? Take the caucus-system at its best and what do we find? In San Francisco, New York city, and Cook county, Illinois, which places since 1901, 1900, and 1899 respectively, have had the most highly legalized and reformed caucus-systems in the United States, an average of but 39 per cent. of the voters of San Francisco, 41 per cent. of those in New York, and 38 per cent. of those in Cook county, Illinois, take part in making nominations. If but this small number of people attend the caucuses when such great care is taken to protect the voice and the will of the people, what a handful must turn out in those states in which few if any legal regulations are thrown around the nominating machinery! Under the cau

cus-system the resulting government cannot represent the will of the majority. It can only represent the will of the minority, and it is to this small minority (composed though it usually is of men who are in politics for what there is in it) that our officials are directly responsible, not only for their nomination but also for their subsequent election.

On the other hand, it cannot be denied that the Direct Primary greatly increases the attendance at the primaries. The reason for this is that it gives the voters a real voice in making party nominations. They can express their choice upon all candidates from governor down to justice of the peace, and by this means are able to exert a direct influence upon the final results.

In Cleveland, Ohio, under the old caucus-system, only 5,000 voters took part in nominating the Republican candidates for city offices in 1892, but in 1893, when they used one of the most poorly-framed and extra-legal primary systems imaginable, over 14,000 Republicans turned out. This number increased to 23,000 in 1896, to 28,000 in 1899, and to 31,000 in 1901, the vote at the primaries during these years averaging more than 95 per cent. of the vote cast by the Republicans at the subsequent elections. In Crawford county, Pennsylvania, where the Direct Primary has been used since 1860, the average attendance at the primaries has been more than 73 per cent. In the 25th Congressional District, where the system has been used since 1890, 77 per cent. of the voters have made the nominations. Even where there was no contest, as was the case in 1894 and 1900, more than 62 per cent. of the voters attended the primaries. What other portion of the United States can show such a record as this? "In Minneapolis," writes Mr. Day of that city, "under a highly legalized caucussystem, but 8 per cent. of the voters attended the caucuses.' Under the Direct Primary, however, 91 per cent. of the voters attended in 1900, 85 per cent. in