Without entering at any length into this much discussed question, it must be borne in mind that until conquered in 1821 by the late Mohammed Ali the Soudan was entirely independent of Egypt, and separated from it by a great desert. Colonel Charles Gordon wrote: 'From Wady Halfa southwards to Hannek, a distance of 180 miles, an utter desert extends, spreading also for miles eastwards and westwards, on both sides of the Nile.... It was this boundary that kept the warlike and independent tribes of the Soudan quite apart from the inhabitants of Egypt proper, and made the Soudanese and the Egyptians two distinct peoples that have not the least sympathy one with the other.' Of the result of Egyptian rule, the late Sir Samuel Baker, writing in 1864, drew a melancholy picture. He described the provinces as utterly ruined and only governed by military force, the revenue unequal to the expenditure, and the country paralysed by taxation; shut in by deserts, all communication with the outer world was most difficult, and the existing conditions rendered these countries so worthless to the State that their annexation could only be accounted for by the fruits of the slave trade. Zobehr Pasha's opinion as expressed to me was, that if the people of the Soudan were assured that no attempt would be made to restore the authority of Egypt, their hostility would cease, and they would be anxious to open their country to trade. Speaking generally, it appeared to me that his views were sound, and that if we were to proclaim a policy of peace at Souakim, combined possibly with some annual payment to the neighbouring chiefs, the road to Berber and Khartoum would soon re-open and commerce be renewed. At all events I cannot see that it is any part of our duty to assist the Egyptians to reconquer the Soudan.