The question of the importance to the commercial interests of Great Britain of cutting through the Isthmus of Suez, has been considered in the most favourable light by the principal men of science, engineers, economists, and public writers of England. I shall quote hereafter the opinions of Mr. Anderson, the present director of the Peninsular and Oriental Company, and of Captain James Vetch, R. E., from their respective works. ([Appendix, Nos. 8 and 9.]) The fact of the question having been frequently treated with favour by the press, seems to show that it has already been accepted by the feeling of the country; the remarkable extract from the “Papers for the People” in the memorial of the engineers ([Appendix, No. 4]) will be read with interest. The celebrated novelist, Charles Dickens himself, has not disdained to devote several eloquent pages to a very practical consideration of the project for constructing a canal through the Isthmus of Suez.
It is to be remarked that the English authors who have written upon this question, have, without exception, advocated the direct line from Suez to Pelusium. This view is taken by all the inhabitants of Egypt, and I doubt if the indirect line, complicated as it is by traversing the Nile, would have been adopted by two of my compatriots so distinguished as M. Baude and M. Paulin Talabot, if they had themselves been on the spot before they gave their opinions.
The Moniteur Universel of France, in the Number for the 6th of July, has proved the advantage of the direct track over the indirect one. I refer my readers to that article ([Appendix, No. 9]).
It is incumbent on me to add, that, although the two tracks may be entertained, theoretically speaking, practically only one is now to be thought of; for the Viceroy of Egypt, who consents to the cutting of the Isthmus, has a perfect right to refuse to allow the whole of Egypt to be cut through. He has, in his written instructions, specially charged me to make known his declaration, which is in the following terms:—
“After having passed in review the numerous projects submitted to various Governments or to the public for more than fifty years, I grant perfect liberty for the application of those means that science shall recognise to be best to bring the Red Sea and the Mediterranean into communication at any point of the Isthmus, eastward of the course of the Nile; but I declare that I will not authorize the Grand Maritime Suez Canal Company to adopt any track which shall have its point of departure on the Mediterranean coast, to the west of the Damietta branch, and which shall traverse the course of the Nile.”
If it were necessary, reference might be made to the East India Company, the merchants of Australia, of Singapore, of Madras, of Calcutta and of Bombay, the commercial houses of the City, the shipowners of London and Liverpool, the manufacturers of Manchester, the proprietors of iron mines, the manufacturers of machines, the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, the directors of banks and of extensive industrial undertakings, the Chambers of Commerce, the proprietors of coal-fields, who in 1854 exported 1,309,251 tons of coal, of the value of £2,127,156, an amount which, immense as it already is, will be still farther increased, and to a considerable extent, by the opening of the Isthmus of Suez.
I appeal to their interests, and leave the decision to their judgment.
Lastly, the objection has been made, that the canal project would not be received with favour by the Turkish Government; but, like every question in which the principle is just, the consequences are infallible; and from whatever point of view we regard this question of the Isthmus of Suez, we see nothing but universal benefit arise from it.