Hamid who would, for his own purposes, fan the flame of religious and racial hatred.  For many years after the British occupation of Egypt began, the efforts of the British administrators in that country were unceasingly directed towards the attainment of that object.  The methods adopted, which it should be observed were in the main carried out before any large sums were spent on education, were the relief of taxation, the abolition of fiscal inequality and of the corvee, the improvement of irrigation, and last, but not least, a variety of measures having for their object the maintenance of a peasant proprietary class.  The results which have been attained fully justify the adoption of this policy, which has probably never been fully understood on the Continent of Europe, even if—­which is very doubtful—­it has been understood in England.  What, in fact, has happened in Egypt?  Nationalists have enjoyed an excess of licence in a free press.  The Sultan has preached pan-Islamism.  The usual Oriental intrigue has been rife.  British politicians and a section of the British press, being very imperfectly informed as to the situation, have occasionally dealt with Egyptian affairs in a manner which, to say the least, was indiscreet.  But all has been of no avail.  In spite of some outward appearances to the contrary, the whole Nationalist movement in Egypt has been a mere splutter on the surface.  It never extended deep down in the social ranks.  More than this.  When a very well-intentioned but rather rash attempt was made to advance too rapidly in a liberal direction, the inevitable reaction, which was to have been foreseen, took place.  Not merely Europeans but also Egyptians cried out loudly for a halt, and, with the appointment of Lord Kitchener, they got what they wanted.  The case would have been very different if the Nationalist, the religious fanatic, or the scheming politician, in dealing with some controversial point or incident of ephemeral interest, had been able to appeal to a mass of deep-seated discontent due to general causes and to the existence of substantial grievances.  In that case the Nationalist movement would have been less artificial.  It would have extended not merely to the surface but to the core of society.  It would have possessed a real rather than, as has been shown to be the case, a spurious vitality.  The recent history of Egypt, therefore, is merely an illustration of the general lesson taught by universal history.  That lesson is that the best, and indeed the only, way to combat successfully the proceedings of the demagogue or the agitator is to limit his field of action by the removal of any real grievances which, if still existent, he would be able to use as a lever to awaken the blind wrath of Demos.

How far can principles somewhat analogous to these be applied in Algeria?