The carrying on of the white slave traffic, the dealing in noxious drugs and the manufacture and sale of pernicious alcoholic compounds and similar trades do constitute a substantial grievance. They militate equally against European as well as Egyptian interests, and any restraining machinery to prevent their continuance would meet with no opposition. Probably the best solution would be to transfer offences of this class to the jurisdiction of the Mixed Courts with power, which at present they do not possess, of inflicting deterrent penalties. Lord Milner's Mission recommended the substitution of Great Britain for the Powers enjoying capitulary rights to secure the protection of all legitimate foreign interests by a certain measure of control over Egyptian legislation and administration so far as it affects foreigners. Lord Cromer's scheme for their reform was based on this principle, but he contemplated an Egyptian Government assisted and controlled by British officials. However much these ideas may have commended themselves to the foreign communities, in Egyptian circles they encountered nothing but antagonism and hostility.

The Finance Committee of the Egyptian Government bas stated that 50 per cent. of the private incomes are untaxed and that the whole burden of direct taxation falls upon real property. (This is almost inevitable in a country which has no manufactures, and whose sole source of wealth is agricultural produce.) They demanded equality of taxation as between all the inhabitants of Egypt. They mentioned that the inability of the Government to impose direct taxation on foreigners is the reason for the excessive growth of indirect taxation in recent years; for the enforced impotence of the Government in discriminating between luxuries and articles of prime necessity; for their dependence for revenue on railway fares and freights which are economically unsound and harmful to trade. They claimed that the Government should have complete freedom to impose direct taxation, which could be graduated according to the ability of the taxpayer to bear it, and that all privileges as between one class and another (i.e. the foreigner) should be abolished. In this way the revenue would be increased and many necessary Vol. 251.-No. 497.

I

measures and reforms which required financial assistance could be undertaken.

There is of course a good deal of truth in these statements, but it is not the whole truth. It is true that in 1895 direct taxation was double that of the indirect, and that in 1925 the indirect exceeded the direct by more than one-half. It is also true that the growth of indirect taxation is harmful, and is in a great measure due to the inability of the Government to impose direct taxation on foreigners. But the Egyptian case as set forth is purely ex parte. Its protagonists all make much of the inequality between the Egyptian and the foreigner with regard to taxation, but no mention is made of the benefits received by the two classes as the result of taxation. If we examine the expenditure side of the Budget we find there is no equality between the Egyptian and the foreigner. To all intents and purposes the Egyptian alone makes use of the following services: Educational Services and Missions, Hospital Services, Ministry of Justice (excluding the Mixed Courts), Prisons, Subventions to Al-Azhar and Parliament, all of which amount to about 5 million pounds Egyptian.

The expenditure side of the Budget in 1926, excluding the commercial services such as Railways, Telephones, Telegraphs, and Domains, is approximately 30 millions. It is necessary to point out that at least one-sixth of this is of no benefit to the foreign resident. To the Revenue side, however, which apart from the commercial services amounts to 28 millions, the foreign element contributes to almost every head with the exception of two items, School fees, £E.438,000, and Military Exemption dues, £E.230,000, while he is practically the sole contributor to the items: Ports and Light dues, £E.370,000, and Royalties from Companies, £E.110,000. To the Land Tax, House Tax, and Judicial fees on transfer of property, which represent 73 millions of the Revenue, he contributes exactly in proportion to his property. The cotton tax is paid by the foreigner equally with the Egyptian. To the Customs Duties-12 millions of the Revenue-he probably contributes more than his per capita share, owing to his greater dependence on imported goods and his general higher standard of living. The privilege of the foreigner at the present moment is to

contribute his share and probably more than his share to the Public Revenue, and to receive quite certainly less than his share from the Public Expenditure. In addition the foreigner has to pay to his own Government estate and death duties from which the Egyptian is exempt. It will be seen from the foregoing that equality of taxation actually exists in Egypt at the present time. If, however, the Capitulations were abolished and the system of taxation readjusted according to Egyptian ideas, there seems little doubt that there would be a great tendency under any such system to make the disenfranchised foreigner pay more than his fair share to the Egyptian Exchequer as compared with the native population as a whole. If they were in any way interfered with except as in so far as may be deemed expedient to prevent the abuses connected with the sale of noxious drugs, alcohol, and the white slave traffic, England's task of defending foreign interests would be well-nigh impossible.

Nor is it conceivable, were England to yield to Egyptian importunity, that the Governments of those foreign nationals whose interests she is pledged to protect would surrender the rights which they have enjoyed for centuries, and which alone have enabled them to reside and carry on business in Egypt and have safeguarded their interests. The Capitulations have not only been beneficial to the foreigner, but they have equally benefited the Egyptian. Without them there would have been no foreigners in the country, and without the foreigner the Egyptian would have been nothing more than a slave at the mercy of his ruler. They have reduced taxation to a reasonable basis, especially since the British Occupation. They have made it impossible to overwhelm the people with a crushing weight of taxation as was done in the days of Ismail. They have enabled the peasant, who is the backbone of the land, to attain a higher standard of living, and allowed him to keep a substantial part of the fruits of his industry. They have prevented him from being the victim of a profligate and wasteful financial policy of unscrupulous politicians. Does the history of Egypt, either modern or ancient, inspire foreigners with such confidence in native rule as would incline them to submit themselves

to its domination and deprive themselves of the safeguards which the Capitulations afford? Their abolition would mean that the European would be at the mercy of the native police by whom he would be blackmailed. He would be looked down upon by the meanest native as a thing beneath contempt. He would be relegated to the place which was occupied by the native Christian, something that was despised and rejected of men. Laws would be enacted, ostensibly applicable to both native and European; in practice they would only be applied to Europeans. It must never be lost sight of that we are dealing with an Oriental people, and that Oriental statesmanship has a different angle of vision from our own. The Egyptian and Turk employ very similar methods and the abortive Treaty of Sèvres should ever serve as a danger-post in our dealings with Orientals. Good faith has never been characteristic of the Egyptians, and they have never respected obligations except in cases where force has been stronger than subterfuge. Is it likely that they will change methods which have been part of their nature for centuries?

In dealing with Egypt we have a great duty to perform, not only to the foreigner to whom we have given our pledge, but to our Empire. The Egyptians have given nothing, neither friendship, goodwill, nor gratitude. We have always desired to adopt a friendly line and to help them, but it has never been of any avail. The only explanation of Egyptian mentality is that they are obsessed with a desire to thwart anything which may emanate from Great Britain, whose policy has been one of forbearance, long-suffering, and great patience. Fortunately we have in Egypt, Lord Lloyd as High Commissioner. He has the complete confidence of the British community, of the British officials, and the foreign communities. He has a thorough knowledge of Egypt and Egyptian politicians, and in him the British Government may justly have the same trust which he has inspired in every place where he has undertaken duty. Any negotiations with regard to the Capitulations may be safely left in his hands, without any apprehension of prejudice being caused to foreign or British interests in Egypt.

J. E. MARSHALL.

Art. 8.-EXCOMMUNICATION IN THE MIDDLE AGES.

Illustrated from the Diocese Registers of Bath and Wells.

As the law stood in the Middle Ages, offences against the Church could only be punished by Excommunication. Owing to complaints in Convocation that the reasons for excommunication were not set forth in the churches, the Bishops in 1435, at the command of the Archbishop, ordered that they should be read in the parish churches at least three times a year. Excommunication was of two kinds. The lesser excommunication, which excluded the offenders from the Sacraments, was employed for comparatively small misdemeanours. It was the greater excommunication which was so much dreaded by those consciously in fault, for its consequences were serious. Excommunicates were cut off from all Church membership. They could not be buried in consecrated ground. They could not sue in any spiritual court, and therefore might be attacked and robbed by any one in greater or lesser orders without means of redress. 6 They were to be shunned,' says Hallam, 'like men infected with leprosy, by their servants, their friends, their families. The mere intercourse with a proscribed person incurred the lesser excommunication.' An excommunicate was, in fact, regarded as an outlaw. No respectable person, it was imagined, would have anything to do with him.

This power of excommunication rested with the Pope and the Bishops. An excommunication immediately ceased, if the excommunicate promised to fulfil the penalties enjoined by the Bishop or his chosen representative, in which case he was absolved. Unless he surrendered within forty days of the publication of the excommunication, or if he absconded, the Bishop wrote to the King and invoked the help of the secular arm. It then became the business of the Sovereign to seek and find the culprit and cast him into prison-which meant too often in those days incarceration in a dungeon so dreadful in its conditions and deprivations that death came as a welcome relief.

Excommunication, in the last resort, was the only