234 Egypt
came forward as the most courageous and capable
opponent the British had yet encountered. The refusal
to receive him in London had probably decided any
doubts he might have had as to the use of further
attempts at co-operation. For in January he proclaimed
the programme of the Nationalists in a fiery oration,
frantically applauded by a great public meeting. The
programme was one of national independence, and propa-
ganda soon began to spread through the whole country
from secret printing presses. Subterranean organisa-
tions spread their ramifications to the remotest villages.
Martial law was still in force—the Assembly was still
suspended—and the Press was still muzzled. But this
only gave a revolutionary agitation a more effective
appeal. Its immediate objective at this time did not
professedly go beyond securing from England leave for
the "Wafd," the nationalist delegation, in the first
place to appear not only in London but in Paris on behalf
<pf Egypt, and in the second place to obtain such public
£' mandate5 3 to represent Egypt as the peculiar circum-
stances allowed. But without awaiting the inevitable
refusal, the whole country was circulated with lists of
the Wafd delegates for signature by the electors. And
though the British authorities seized as many of these
forms as they could get, they were signed and returned
in a sufficient number to establish the status of the
delegation.
In attempting to treat Egypt as though it were an
Ireland rather than an India, our foreign policy made a
mistake. A mistake, too, not only in those new regions
of democracy where it has so far always been blind, but
in that ancient realm of diplomacy where it has less
excuse for blundering. Thus it was a "democratic"
mistake not to see that the contemptuous cold shoulder