THE ORIGIN OF THE SUEZ CANAL. 141 



public and in society, with reference to the Suez 

 Canal, is this: "As M. de Lesseps and his share- 

 holders are indifferent to the ruinous impossibility of 

 the work, which The Times has pointed out, so much 

 the worse for them. It is not England's business to 

 preserve them from the consequences of their own 

 folly. It would be absurd to oppose the execution of 

 a thing which is not possible; and if, by dint of 

 money expenditure and by ruining two or three 

 generations of shareholders the canal is made, so 

 much the better for England which will derive more 

 benefit from it than anyone else and for the in- 

 tegrity of the Ottoman Empire, from which Egypt, 

 rendered inviolable by the universal interests attached 

 to the canal itself, will be in no risk of being 

 separated." 



" Is this a more or less honourable mode of beating 

 a retreat, or is it not rather, as I believe, an expe- 

 dient for putting the French Embassy to sleep, and 

 for making a redoubled attack against the Viceroy ? 

 It is represented that he has wasted and ruined the 

 finances of Egypt, and that it is desirable to replace 

 him. Not being able to attack the canal outright, an 

 endeavour is being made to discredit the financial 

 position of the Viceroy with respect to the work, 

 which will, however, cost him much less than the 

 railway to Suez. Be this as it may, I know that the 

 Embassy is upon its guard, and that despite the good 

 will for Sir Henry Bulwer with which Turks said to 



