other, yet typical of the author, before we proceed. First the famous beginning, which some have thought suggestive even of Dante :

'As I walked through the wilderness of this world, I lighted on a certain place, where was a den; and I laid me down in that place to sleep; and as I slept, I dreamed a dream. I dreamed, and, behold I saw a man clothed with rags, standing in a certain place, with his face from his own house, a book in his hand, and a great burden upon his back. I looked, and saw him open the book, and read therein; and as he read, he wept and trembled; and not being able to contain, he brake out with a lamentable cry, saying, "What shall I do?”'

Then this beautiful picture:

'I saw also that the Interpreter took him again by the hand, and led him into a pleasant place, where was builded a stately Palace, beautiful to behold; at the sight of which Christian was greatly delighted; he saw also upon the top thereof, certain Persons walked, who were cloathed all in Gold. Then said Christian, May we go in thither? Then the Interpreter took him, and led him up toward the door of the Palace; and behold, at the door stood a great Company of men, as desirous to go in, but durst not. There also sat a Man, at a little distance from the door, at a Table-side, with a book, and his Inkhorn before him, to take the Name of him that should enter therein: He saw also that in the doorway, stood many Men in Armor to keep it.'

After all, it is not through continuous passages that Bunyan is best remembered. It is in quips by the way that he is at his best, or at any rate is most amusing. Here is one, a description of the Pharisee in a sermon or tract:

'He goes on boldly, fears nothing, but thinketh to himself that his state is good; he hath his mouth full of many fine things, whereby he strokes himself over his head, and calls himself one of God's white boys, that, like the prodigal's brother, never transgressed.'

Bunyan was certainly an acute observer of the common speech. Had he an eye for scenery as well as an ear for language? That learned antiquary the Rev. H. P. Kennedy Skipton has identified the road of Christian's pilgrimage from the City of Destruction to the Delectable

Mountains, as the road from Guildford to the range which culminates in Leith Hill, and states that there is a tradition of Bunyan's preaching in Guildford and that two houses hard by were associated with him. Bunyan, he would say, took the thought of Christian's pilgrimage from the very pilgrim road whereby Chaucer's characters went to Canterbury. The identification has every mark of exactness. It conflicts, of course, with the more general opinion as to the House Beautiful, but there is a claim for it that again and again in the course there is an exact description of still existing landmarks.*

We return again and again to the conclusion that all the work was a closely personal study. He was a confirmed individualist. Dr Inge has said that Bunyan started on his journey in the way all true Englishmen wish to get to Heaven. He went by himself. A recent writer puts it rather differently † :

The complaint has been made that the "Pilgrim's Progress is a selfish book. Christian, it is said, thinks of nothing but saving his own soul. But Bunyan's aim and his personal characteristics must be taken into account. He wrote in prison. His very active life of evangelism had been rudely interrupted, and, for all he knew, death or banishment might be awaiting him. Did he himself know nothing of Doubting Castle, or of Mr Atheist? He must have been lonely enough at times in the prison on the bridge-head, with so much busy life passing on the other side of the wall. So for the encouragement of his own spirit he sat down and wrote, and, as he wrote, forgot his cares in the glorious adventures of his hero, and the magnificent mercy of his Lord. Religion does not forbid a man to take thought for his own soul.'

Nor, it may be added, his own body. Nor, indeed, from laughing at those who think too much of that. Soul-curer he claimed to be: of body-curers he apparently did not think much. In a charming note, quoted in his Life, Sir William Osler observed this.

* But, on the other hand, it is well said by the Rev. R. Winboult Harding ('John Bunyan, his Life and Times,' p. 29) that the writer of the 'Pilgrim's Progress' would naturally think of the country of his childhood, and that the 'Hampshire theory' arises from an association of ideas about the historic Pilgrims' Way, which passes through the neighbourhood of Guildford, Shalford, and Dorking.

† R. Winboult Harding, ‘John Bunyan,' pp. 110–11.

We must not leave Bunyan with any thought that as a writer he was ever an idle fellow. Though, like Scott and Shakespeare, he wrote currente calamo, and no doubt never blotted a line (the critics are fond of repeating, Would he had blotted a thousand!'), he did revise his work after it was published, and frequently. There are many, and these important, additions to the First Part of the Pilgrim's Progress.' A name was only given to the Hill Difficulty in the second edition: that is one of the many improvements. So again, in the third edition, there enter to us Mr By-ends and his companions, with many delightful sayings. Nor in the first edition is there any full account of the imprisonment in Doubting Castle, and we hear nothing of Mrs Diffidence, or how the Giant treats his prisoners. But, whether with a rapid or a revising pen, the author always enjoys himself. And that is why his readers will go on doing so for generations to come.

Still his books bring to many something of a love personal to himself. Bunhill Fields, that strange Campo Santo in the heart of old London, where trees bloom in the summer over the memorials of forgotten heroes of dissent, is still visited by pilgrims from many lands, who turn from the famous chapel of John Wesley across the street, and the column which marks the grave of Defoe, to the tomb, not old yet already crumbling, of Bunyan. Essentially a countryman, he lies in the midst of the world's busiest city. There could be no more fitting place. Men and women everywhere know Bunyan, and his Pilgrim is for ever a citizen of the world.

W. H. HUTTON.

Art. 7.-THE CAPITULATIONS IN EGYPT.

The Egyptian Problem. By Sir Valentine Chirol. Macmillan, 1920.

BEFORE entering upon an impartial survey of the Capitulations in Egypt, with all their uses and abuses, a short account of their origin and history is proper and even necessary to a right understanding of their political and moral importance. Capitulations is the name given by Europeans to those concessions which secured from the Sultans of Turkey extra-territorial rights to foreigners residing there. They are no new thing, only a continuation of similar privileges granted to foreign residents by the old Byzantine Empire. They were unilateral and non-terminable, but liable to modification by subsequent Treaties. If, however, these were terminable, the Capitulations automatically revived on their expiration. Primarily they were intended to make it possible for Christians to trade and reside in the territories of the Ottoman Empire by safeguarding them against any forms of injustice or ill-usage to which, as foreigners of a different religion, they might otherwise have been subjected. The Capitulations granted to Great Britain by the Porte date back to a very early period, but after various alterations they now bear the date of 1675, and were confirmed by the Treaty of Peace concluded at the Dardanelles in 1809. Capitulations were granted to France in 1581, 1604, and 1673, and were renewed in 1740. The Dutch were granted Capitulations in 1612; these were renewed in 1680, and still continue in force. Nearly all the other Great Powers obtained similar concessions at one time or another during the last 400 years. It is in virtue of these unilateral Treaties with the Porte that Capitulations exist in Egypt. The Powers enjoying them before the War were fifteen in number, viz. Great Britain, United States of America, France, Italy, Spain, Holland, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Greece, Portugal, Russia, Germany, and Austria-Hungary. The privileges of the two latter were terminated by the Treaties of Versailles and St Germain.

Turkey abolished the Capitulations as an act of war; during the Armistice they were again put into force

until they were finally abolished by the Treaty of Lausanne for such parts of Turkey as remained under the domination of the Ottoman Empire. The abolition of the Capitulations in Turkey did not affect the capitulary system in Egypt, where matters remained as they were. The subsequent history of foreign interests in Turkey constitutes a grave warning as to what would happen in Egypt if they were abolished in that country. They may be described as the judicial and economic system governing the settlement of foreigners, and have been applied in Egypt since the beginning of the 16th century. Their benefit has not been one-sided. It is from them that Egypt has derived her great and ever-increasing prosperity. The system may be summarised as:

(1) Immunity of foreigners from the jurisdiction of the Native Courts in criminal and civil matters. Criminal and civil jurisdiction being exercised by the various Powers over their own nationals through their own Consular authorities, the one exception being claims to land even when the parties are of the same nationality, in which cases the Mixed Courts have jurisdiction, as well as in all civil cases where the parties are of different nationality, or where a civil action lies between an Egyptian and a foreigner. The Mixed Courts have also a limited criminal jurisdiction over foreigners in what may be termed police offences, in fraudulent bankruptcies, and in certain offences committed within their precincts.

(2) Immunity from legislation of Egyptian authority, except where such legislation has been accepted by the Capitulary Powers, or in matters of police by the delegated authority of those Powers to the General Assembly of the Mixed Court of Appeal. Part of this immunity consists of exemption from taxation by the Egyptian State, except where it has been agreed to by the Capitulary Powers. This privilege, however, is not so ideal as might be imagined, as the principal taxes, which are the chief source of the Government revenue, have all been agreed to by the Powers.

For Egypt, the system, notwithstanding, its theoretical anomalies has been the only possible one under which Europeans could live and do business in the country. It has attracted a vast amount of European capital and