EGYPT. 



271 



lish consols, for the benefit of the delegateurs 

 of the Company, till the end of the period 

 of regular delegation that is to say, for 8 

 years, unless, in the mean while, parties should 

 desire the question to be decided by a judg- 

 ment. The most interesting part of the report 

 was that referring to the situation of the canal 

 as affected by the war between Eussia ahd 

 Turkey. Several shareholders had manifested 

 alarm as to the danger of interruption which 

 the navigation of the canal ran amid the events 

 passing in. the East. M. de Lesseps hastened 

 to London, in order to come to some under- 

 standing with her Majesty's ministers on a ques- 

 tion so important to the Company. The propo- 

 sition to maintain, by a general agreement, the 

 complete freedom of navigation in the canal, 

 which had existed since its opening, in 1869, 

 had been seriously considered, and on his re- 

 turn he received the following declaration from 

 Lord Derby : 



Any attempt to blockade or hamper, by any means 

 whatsoever, the canal or its approaches would be 

 considered by her Majesty's Government as a menace 

 to India, and as a serious injury to trade in general. 

 From these two considerations, any such act, which 

 her Majesty's Government hopes and trusts neither 

 of the belligerents will commit, would be incompat- 

 ible with the maintenance by her Majesty's Govern- 

 ment of an attitude of passive neutrality. 



MODERN EGYPTIANS. 



Lord Lyons, on making this declaration to 

 the Company, added that her Majesty's Gov- 

 ernment was glad to see that it agreed with the 

 French Cabinet in all that concerned the canal. 

 "Henceforth," the report concluded, "the ca- 

 nal created by your capital and sustained by 

 your union and perseverance will remain out- 

 side political complications, because it has now 

 become indispensable to the relations of all na- 

 tions." After having read the report, M. de 



Lesseps observed, amid general applause, that 

 the attitude of the British Government and its 

 categorical declaration were certainly prefer- 

 able to the scheme of international guardian- 

 ship he bad himself proposed in London. 



In an official communication to the Depart- 

 ment of State at Washington, it was stated 

 that the Suez Canal, up to the close of 1876, 

 cost the Egyptian Government, in addition to 

 the amount of shares sold to the English Gov- 

 ernment, over $71,000,000, about half of this 

 sum being interest. This includes the cost of 

 the fresh-water canal from Cairo to Ismailia, 

 and thence to Suez, for the use of the Suez 

 Canal and the stations on its line, including 

 the cities of Port Said, Suez, and Ismailia. 

 This enterprise, so useful to many nations, and 

 especially to England, was one of the first 

 causes of the present financial embarrassment 

 of Egypt. Notwithstanding this great sacri- 

 fice in the interests of commerce, Egypt to this 

 time has received no benefit from this canal; 

 but, on the contrary, has sustained constant 

 loss. By the passage of all classes of vessels, 

 with their passengers and cargoes, directly 

 through the canal, considerable commerce is 

 lost to Egypt, and also a large business in 

 freights and passengers, that would otherwise 

 be transported from Alexandria to Suez on 

 the Egyptian railways. It appears from a 

 statement, showing the navigation through 

 the Suez Canal from December 1, 1867, to 

 December 31, 1875, that the entire number of 

 vessels was 6,275 the largest numbers being 

 4,847 English, 292 Italian, 168 Dutch, 140 Ot- 

 toman, 345 Austrian, 118 German, 48 Rus- 

 sian, 82 Spanish, and 10 American. Of the 

 entire number of vessels, 4,406 were commer- 

 cial steamers, and 1,197 postal steamers. The 

 total number of passengers was 859,036. 



The Court of Appeals, on February 18th, 

 gave a decision in which all Egyptian creditors 

 were interested. Two claims had recently been 

 preferred, in first instance, for execution of 

 judgments against the Egyptian Government. 

 In the one case the claim arose on a judgment 

 of the new tribunals for money due 50,000 

 for work done by a contractor on one of the 

 big canals of the country, and distraint was 

 asked for on the money lying in the public 

 Treasury. In the other case, the claim arose 

 on a judgment for 1,500, awarded by an ar- 

 bitration court, composed of three appeal 

 judges Messrs. Lapenna, Giaccone, and Scott 

 appointed by the Khedive to decide certain 

 old claims against the Government. Distraint 

 was sought to be levied on the public money 

 in the hands of the Governor of Alexandria. 

 The lower courts decided that public money 

 could not be seized in distraint at the suit of 

 any private person. The question was again 

 raised, and fully argued before the Appellate 

 Court. The appellant argued that, by the Ju- 

 dicial Treaty, the Egyptian Government is sub- 

 ject to the jurisdiction of the new tribunals; 

 that it comes therefore within the provisions 



