at least superficially. But they rarely get beyond Assuan and the First Cataract. To most Englishmen and to substantially all Americans the Sudan is an unknown land. For this reason one is disposed to pronounce Mr. Low's account of it the most valuable part of his book. The Sudan of today dates from the "reconquest" by Kitchener in 1898 and the establishment of the Pax Britannica after the fury and chaos wrought by the Khalifa and his followers. Its towns, railways, educational system, land system and government are all of the twentieth century. The modern Khartum is only fifteen years old. Port Sudan on the Red Sea, the "New Gate to Africa," is the terminal and creation of the Nile-Red-Sea Railway, which was opened in 1906. The makers of the new Sudan believe that this town will become the chief emporium of its commerce. "Port Sudan is waiting for the argosies. The govern of the world to discharge their cargoes on her quays." ment of the Sudan is "an anomaly within an anomaly." After the reconquest, it occurred to Lord Cromer, then British consul-general and agent in Cairo, informal" adviser" of the Khedive but real ruler of Egypt, that the Sudan might be organized as a condominium under the joint administration of Great Britain and Egypt. Lord Salisbury, the British prime minister, approved the proposal, and there suddenly came into existence "a hybrid state of a nature eminently calculated to shock the susceptibilities of international jurists." The union jack and the Egyptian crescent were hoisted together at Khartum in 1899 and the illogical compromise has been working in true British fashion ever since. The government is vested in a governor-general, who is also the sirdar or commander-in-chief of the Egyptian army. He is nominally responsible to the khedive and the British government, "actually responsible to nobody, unless it it be the British agent in Cairo, who is in theory one of the foreign consuls-general, and in reality the representative of the British government, which controls the government of Egypt." Thus the two partners in the administration of the Sudan are equal only in theory; for in practice the khedivial government is carried on in accordance with informal "advice" tendered to the nominal rulers of Egypt by resident British officials. "The truth is," says Mr. Low, sweeping aside the legal fiction, "that the Sudan is a vast territory, inhabited by African natives, administered by English officials, with the assistance of Egyptian subordinates, and defended by a force of Egyptian and Sudanese troops under English command." Progress in the Sudan has been more striking and rapid than in Egypt partly because British officials have not been hampered by the theory of native rule, and the baneful privileges secured to for eign residents in Egypt by the "Capitulations." The Sudanese government is an interesting example of benevolent despotism. It is of necessity intensely paternal. "There was no room for laissez-faire among a people just released from an armed tyranny and theocracy, who looked to the new administration for the first requisites of existence." So the new government perforce became "landowner, housebuilder, purveyor of food and clothing, storekeeper, railway manager, importer, retail trader, agriculturist, and tourist agent." The new rulers of the Sudan have nipped millionaire landlordism in the bud. They welcome the bona-fide settler, but not the land speculator. It is their policy not to sell freeholds, but to grant leases for comparatively short terms. They think that the "unearned increment," especially in the case of urban property, should go to the state. The prime need of the Sudan is water, since the rainfall is insufficient for agriculture. But Lower Egypt has the first claim on the waters of the Nile, and not until the completion of irrigation works which will add to her supply will the Sudan be able to secure more of the water necessary to enlarge her cultivable area. Though their subject-matter is better known, the chapters on Egypt are as well done as those on the Sudan. The anomalous system of "advice and inspection " which has guided and controlled the government of Egypt for the last generation is described in Mr. Low's best style. This strange experiment in imperial statecraft has worked better than might have been expected, but it has serious defects. The author discusses the possibility and desirability of abandoning the theory that the British occupation is "temporary," and establishing a British protectorate, but concludes that "we owe it to ourselves, and to the pledges we have made to the world, to maintain the present system unless it is rendered clearly intolerable by causes which affect the British empire and its relations to other powers more than Egypt itself.” Since the publication of this book these " causes have arisen from the activities of Turkey in the present war. The shadowy suzerainty of the Sultan over Egypt has been terminated and a British protectorate formally proclaimed. When the Anglo-Saxon undertakes to justify despotism, be it benevolent or otherwise, he pays the price of his birthright; he is never quite at his ease. As a good British imperialist Mr. Low professes to see little but "yeasty fermentation" in the agitation of the Egyptian Nationalists. Yet he cannot wholly condemn them, for he admits that "it is hard for any class of men, especially for men who are young, ambitious, high-spirited, to be governed-though it be for their own good-by those who are alien from them in religion, race and sentiment." On the whole one may agree with the author that the British occupation of Egypt has been the most honorable episode in recent British history, and yet not much wonder that the English are not popular in Egypt. R. L. SCHUYLER. The Cyclopedia of American Government. Edited by ANDREW 785 pp. It is more than twenty years since Lalor's Cyclopædia came from the press; and in that time not only has the value of its articles naturally declined, but interest in government has shifted more and more to the practical side. Owing to the mass of recent literature and the changes which have gradually manifested themselves in our political life, the need of a new and compact work of reference on American government is evident. Professor McLaughlin and Professor Hart have attempted to meet this need in a way which will probably give general satisfaction. Government is viewed by them in its comprehensive sense, as embracing not only political and economic theory, historical development, international law and constitutional law, but also political practice; and quite properly the emphasis has been laid upon this last aspect. Even the theoretical expositions have been written so as to carry practical implications and to promote, as theory should, a clearer insight into the meaning of actual conditions. The mechanical apparatus and the arrangement of material will also give satisfaction. There are more than 120 maps and charts, numerous statistical tables, an exhaustive index covering some eighty pages, and under each article cross-references to cognate articles and a short bibliography. In settling the alphabetic arrangement of titles, however, the editors have not always been successful in following their avowed principle and using "the term which would naturally occur to the mind." Only a mind of peculiar prophetic vision would expect to find "Entangling Alliances" under" Entangling" or "Ratification of Treaties" under "Ratification." It must also be said that the plan of considering different phases of a subject in independent articles, while advantageous in most cases, has occasionally been carried too far. Thus there are articles on treaties, negotiation of treaties and ratification of treaties, written by different men and supplied with overlapping bibliographies; and, not without confusion to the reader, a separate treatment of corrupt practices acts and publicity of party expenditures. In a work which embraces so many independent contributions and which attempts to furnish the latest information, some inaccuracies of statement, some defects in balance and proportion are certain to appear. In this case the task of the editors was all the more exacting because, owing to delay in publication, detailed corrections had to be made in many of the articles. A casual reading of the Cyclopedia will reveal lapses here and there. We are told, for instance, that Vermont still holds September elections (II, 569); that the speaker is “a member ex officio of the committee on rules" (II, 633); and that Professor Stimson wrote in 1893 a work on comparative administrative law (II, 92). In the bibliographies, titles and dates are not always given correctly. Although difference of opinion may naturally arise as to the space which should be allotted to various subjects, it is hard to justify the apportionment of one page to "Governor of the State" and almost six pages to "Commission System of City Government ;" and it is equally hard to understand why any space whatever was conceded to " Ochlocracy." But though criticism may be offered on minor points, the volumes show generally the marks of careful and competent editorial supervision. The editors have also shown good judgment in the selection of contributors, of whom there are more than two hundred and fifty. For the most part they are recognized authorities, leading specialists in their particular fields; and no better guides could be offered than North on census statistics, Johnson on the regulation of express rates, Goodnow on administrative law, Goodwin on the civil service, Moore on extradition, Dewey on financial policy or Whinery on street pavements. There are also some less competent guides, but the list of eminent contributors is a long one and likely to inspire a confidence which closer inspection of the Cyclopedia will do little to modify. E. M. SAIT. BOOK NOTES In view of the political changes which have been going forward in the past decade Mr. Sidney Low has brought out a revised edition of The Governance of England (New York, G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1913; xl, 320 pp.). No important modifications have been made in the body of the text; as long as the future of the House of Lords and of Irish government remains unsettled it would be a thankless task to undertake a thorough-going revision. But Mr. Low, not wishing to have his book regarded as a mere "paper description," has provided in the introduction a suggestive analysis of existing tendencies. His conclusions with regard to the effects of the Parliament Act are especially deserving of attention. The power of the cabinet will be augmented, he tells us, not only by the restrictions placed upon the veto of the Lords, but indirectly also by the shortening of the parliamentary mandate. Circumstances no longer favor dissolutions at irregular intervals. "In the first and second years they will be avoided because the House of Commons is too near its cradle, in the third and fourth years because it is already drawing towards its grave"; and since three sessions are required to carry a measure which is opposed by the Lords, dissolution will be avoided while such measures are awaiting final passage. It follows that the cabinet will become more self-confident, less responsive to public opinion; for, as in France or the United States, appeal will be taken to the constituencies at fixed intervals. That Mr. Low has no enthusiasm for the proposal to create an elective upper house is natural enough. It would be either too strong to permit of the proper functioning of cabinet responsibility or too weak to attract men of experience and capacity. He asks whether the House of Lords, limited by the Parliament Act, but still retaining much of its historic tradition and its association with the territorial and industrial aristocracy, might not be in reality more influential than a new-minted and miscellaneous assembly, with larger nominal powers, but with no roots in the past, and no definite relation towards any great permanent element in our social organism." He speaks of another alternative, single-chamber government, evidently with approval, but believes that such a system should be accompanied by the referendum" or some other machinery for ascertaining the popular will when ministers were unwilling to submit to a general election." Equally instructive are the comments upon the position of 66 |