taxation merely because, although they were at liberty to exercise some profession, they failed to do so. An argument of this sort completely disconcerts the Western mind. A European cannot put himself in the position of one who will advance what to him appears such an absolutely untenable theory.

Naturally, amongst the uneducated classes the differences of mentality become even more striking. I remember that on one occasion the English doctor who was employed by the Egyptian railway administration was summoned to a station in the Delta to see the station-master, who was said to be very ill. On being admitted to the man's room, the doctor found that he was in the presence of a raving maniac, who instantly attacked him and, being a very powerful man, threw him on the ground and endeavoured to strangle him. A furious struggle ensued, until at last the doctor was able to gasp out to two policemen who had been passive spectators of the whole scene an order that they were to pull the station-master off him. They at once replied with the Arabic equivalent of 'Aye, aye, Sir!' and acted accordingly. Their non-interference was in no way due to cowardice or to any reluctance to take action. It was simply owing to the fact that it never occurred to them that it was either necessary or desirable to stop a furious struggle between a maniac and a sane person. Or, possibly, they may have thought that the doctor was adopting some strange and, to them, unknown European method for dealing with maniacs.

It might perhaps be thought by a superficial observer that Europeans resident in the East would be specially attracted by such Easterns as have been more or less Europeanised and, therefore, in some respects resemble themselves. The very contrary is the case. I have invariably noticed that Englishmen, at all events, are much more attracted towards the pure Oriental untainted by any European alloy than towards the semi-Europeanised type of Eastern. The former class is becoming every day more and more rare. I can, however, cite one typical case within my own experience.

A venerable Sheikh, who is now dead but who used to reside at Cairo, was a very remarkable character. I never met him, as he was very chary of mixing with

Europeans, but he often used to send me very friendly messages and, indeed, on one occasion, paid me the compliment, in connexion with certain judicial reforms which I was then advocating, of letting me know that he thought my ideas were much more in conformity with the religion and practices of Islam than those advocated by the semi-Europeanised Moslems, whom he cordially despised and detested. He was very devout, and when he went out used to put wax into his ears in order to prevent him from hearing any blasphemous or indecent words in the street. In Surah xXVII of the Koran it is stated that Solomon visited the Valley of Ants, and that one ant said to the others: Oh, ye ants, enter your dwellings, lest Solomon and his army crush you and know it not.' The question was raised by certain Ulema of Aleppo, whether the ant who made this remark was of the male or female sex. It was referred for decision to the Sheikh at Cairo. He pronounced decisively in favour of the male sex on the ground, which would be strongly resented by all suffragists, that only the most superior kind of ant would have dared to speak in the presence of Solomon, and that the superiority of the male over the female ant was manifest. The matter was then referred to various learned Moslems in different cities, even to those resident so far off as remote Samarkand. At last the discussion, especially between the Cairo Sheikh and a Tunisian Pundit, who threw himself whole-heartedly into the cause of the female ant, waxed so warm that common friends had to interfere to stop it. On another occasion, the Sheikh was asked to dine with a few friends. The pièce de resistance of the dinner was a roast turkey. Just as it was placed on the table a beggar happened to pass by in the street who invoked charity. The Sheikh instantly took the whole of the turkey and, the room being on the ground floor, passed it out of the window to the beggar with the remark: All Moslems are brothers.' The hungry guests were somewhat amazed, but they were shortly afterwards deeply interested by a discussion which arose as to whether, in the next world, the credit for the disposal of the turkey would accrue to the man who gave it to the beggar or to the host who had paid for it.

money. It was natural that Ismail Pasha should have disbelieved in the existence of honesty or probity, for until nearly the end of his career he rarely had to do with any honest man. His general estimate of human character may be judged from the following incident. He once granted an interview to a representative of a leading English newspaper. When the account of the interview was published, he expressed annoyance that certain remarks which he had made and to which he attached a special degree of importance had been omitted. On enquiry it appeared that Ismail had himself told the reporter that these observations were of a strictly confidential nature and were on no account to be published. He subsequently explained that he made this condition as he thought it was the most certain method for ensuring their publication.

Now and again, in dealing with Eastern affairs, some event occurs, or some trait is revealed in the character of an Oriental who appears thoroughly to have imbibed the spirit of Western civilisation, which suddenly brings back to the mind that the East, though perhaps not so entirely unchanging' as is often supposed, still possesses much of its old leaven. Thirteen years ago, the Western world heard with a shock of the savage murder of King Alexander and Queen Draga at Belgrade. Europe then awoke to the fact that a revival of Byzantinism in its worst form was still possible in this enlightened 20th century. I remember that, when my very highly esteemed friend, Mustapha Pasha Fehmy, then Prime Minister of Egypt, was seriously ill, an offer was made to him that the Khedive's special astrologer should visit him and cast his horoscope. Without doubt, the Pasha thought that the feelings of the astrologer towards himself would be as hostile as those of his employer, but he did not reject his services on the ground that he disbelieved in astrology. He replied that two astrologers of his own choice had already told him of all that could be learnt from a study of the stars and that, therefore, no further astrological help was required. I need hardly add that belief in the Evil Eye' still flourishes in the East. The ex-Sultan, Abdul Hamid, is believed to have kept Mukhtar Pasha for a long time in Egypt because the latter was held to be a jettatore. Whilst on the

tooth out. Ismail said that he was afraid it would be very painful. He was informed in reply that if laughing gas was administered to him he would feel nothing. He still doubted, but told the dentist to bring his apparatus to the palace and he would then discuss the question. It was accordingly brought and the process explained to him. Ismail then summoned an attendant and told him to send up the sentry who was at his door. The man was then ordered to sit down in a chair and the dentist was requested to take out a tooth on either side of his jaw. He was then asked whether he had felt anything, and replied in the negative. Ismail, however, was not yet satisfied. He said that the sentry was a young, strong man and that he would like to see the experiment tried on somebody of weaker physique. Accordingly, a slave girl was summoned from the harem and a couple of her teeth were extracted. He then consented to have his own tooth out. It is related, though possibly this portion of the story is apocryphal, that the dentist then received an order on the Egyptian Treasury for 1000l., and that when the draft was presented it was not honoured, though it was presumably, with many other claims of a similar nature, eventually funded in the Unified Debt.

Ismail, like many other spendthrifts, was niggardly in some small matters. He was very chary of giving away a good cigar. Whenever I called upon him I always knew his disposition towards me because, ordinarily speaking, the attendant would bring me a cigarette. If he wished to be a little more civil he would take a cigar from his breast-pocket; but, if he wished to be out-of-the-way polite, generally as a prelude to asking me to adopt some view of his own to which I was opposed, he would put his hand into an inner envelope in his breast-pocket which contained cigars worth half a crown each, He fully understood the character he generally held in public estimation. I remember on one occasion calling upon him after a fire had taken place in his palace and expressing my regret at the misfortune. He interrupted me at once and said: 'Vous savez que je ne suis pas assuré.' He said the same to other visitors. The first idea which arose in his mind was that everyone would think that he had first insured his palace and then set fire to it himself in order to pocket the insurance

money. It was natural that Ismail Pasha should have disbelieved in the existence of honesty or probity, for until nearly the end of his career he rarely had to do with any honest man. His general estimate of human character may be judged from the following incident. He once granted an interview to a representative of a leading English newspaper. When the account of the interview was published, he expressed annoyance that certain remarks which he had made and to which he attached a special degree of importance had been omitted. On enquiry it appeared that Ismail had himself told the reporter that these observations were of a strictly confidential nature and were on no account to be published. He subsequently explained that he made this condition as he thought it was the most certain method for ensuring their publication.

Now and again, in dealing with Eastern affairs, some event occurs, or some trait is revealed in the character of an Oriental who appears thoroughly to have imbibed the spirit of Western civilisation, which suddenly brings back to the mind that the East, though perhaps not so entirely unchanging' as is often supposed, still possesses much of its old leaven. Thirteen years ago, the Western world heard with a shock of the savage murder of King Alexander and Queen Draga at Belgrade. Europe then awoke to the fact that a revival of Byzantinism in its worst form was still possible in this enlightened 20th century. I remember that, when my very highly esteemed friend, Mustapha Pasha Fehmy, then Prime Minister of Egypt, was seriously ill, an offer was made to him that the Khedive's special astrologer should visit him and cast his horoscope. Without doubt, the Pasha thought that the feelings of the astrologer towards himself would be as hostile as those of his employer, but he did not reject his services on the ground that he disbelieved in astrology. He replied that two astrologers of his own choice had already told him of all that could be learnt from a study of the stars and that, therefore, no further astrological help was required. I need hardly add that belief in the 'Evil Eye' still flourishes in the East. The ex-Sultan, Abdul Hamid, is believed to have kept Mukhtar Pasha for a long time in Egypt because the latter was held to be a jettatore. Whilst on the