E§yPt
of British Liberalism to the Egyptian imbroglio of the
early eighties.
That the European intervention in Egypt in general and
the English invasion in particular created the Mahdist
movement in the Sudan cannot be proved, but seems
probable. The deposition of the Khedive and the domina-
tion of the Khalif by the Powers caused a subversion of
Turco-Egyptian authority over the Sudanese tribes that
was bound to result in anarchy and in attempts to set up
a new Islamic autocracy. The principal conditions for
the ..coming of a li Mahdi " are that there should be civil
conflict after the death of a Khalif. Other Mahdis had
already appeared on the Upper Nile, but the conditions
not being suitable, they had been easily suppressed by
the Khedive. Now, however, when a Mahdi was pro-
claimed (1881) in the person of a Dongola boatbuilder,
there was no sword of Osman to nip the rising in the bud.
Even so, it was some time before the new Mahdi became
, a serious menace.'
This Mohamed Ahmed was a sheikh of imposing
presence and an eloquent preacher of a Moslem mil-
lennium. He had from the first the support of the fikis,
or wizards, and of the warlike Baggara tribes. But his
programme of £ c driving the Turk into the sea * * appealed
to all native elements in the Sudan, where the Egyptian
immigrants and troops were hated as much as the Turkish
officials and officers. Thus Colonel Stewart reports
(February 27, 1883) : " ^ is impossible to criticise too
severely the conduct of the Egyptian troops, both officers
and men, towards the natives ... In itself almost suffi-
cient to cause a rebellion. The Government is almost
universally hated." Wherefore, not only did the fighting
tribes and slave-dealing chiefs rally round the Mahdi,
but the more peaceable population were ready to help in