expedition, and that the slave-trade would reappear in stupendous
activity when the English personal influence should be withdrawn. Such
unsympathetic expressions must have been a poor reward to the Khedive
for his efforts to win the esteem of the civilized world by the
destruction of the slave-trade in his own dominions.

Few persons have considered the position of the Egyptian ruler when
attacking the institution most cherished by his people. The employment
of an European to overthrow the slave-trade in deference to the opinion
of the civilized world was a direct challenge and attack upon the
assumed rights and necessities of his own subjects. The magnitude of the
operation cannot be understood by the general public in Europe. Every
household in Upper Egypt and in the Delta was dependent upon slave
service; the fields in the Soudan were cultivated by slaves; the women
in the harems of both rich and middle class were attended by slaves; the
poorer Arab woman's ambition was to possess a slave; in fact, Egyptian
society without slaves would be like a carriage devoid of wheels--it
could not proceed.

The slaves were generally well treated by their owners; the brutality
lay in their capture, with the attendant lawlessness and murders; but
that was far away, and the slave proprietors of Egypt had not witnessed
the miseries of the weary marches of the distant caravans. They
purchased slaves, taught them their duties, fed and clothed them--they
were happy; why should the Khedive of Egypt prohibit the traffic and
thus disturb every household in his territory?

There is no Hyde Park or Trafalgar Square in Egypt, there are no
agitators nor open-air meetings, fortunately for the modern ruler, or he
would have had an unpleasant expression of the popular sentiment at the