the Red Sea at the other, by means of locks, and supplied with water from the Nile, was the best mode of construction. The foreign members, on the contrary, held that a canal 27 feet below sea-level, from sea to sea, without any lock, and with harbours at each end, was the best system: the harbours to be formed by piers and dredging out to deep water.

The whole of the Members of the Commission, with the exception of Mr. Rendel, met at Paris in June 1856, when the views of the English engineers were, after full discussion, rejected, and the report to the Viceroy recommended the system which has since been carried out. The Commission estimated the work to cost £8,000,000.

Two years from the date of this report were spent in conferences and preliminary steps before M. Lesseps obtained the necessary funds for carrying out the works. About half the capital required was subscribed on the Continent, by far the larger portion being taken in France, and the other half was found by the Viceroy. Further time was necessarily lost in preparation, and it was not till near the close of 1860 that the work was actually commenced.

In this interval two "Reports on the subject of the Deposits of the Delta of the Nile" were made by Admiral (then Captain) T. Spratt, R.N., C.B., F.R.S., extracts from which were printed by order of the House of Commons in 1860. They embraced "An Enquiry into the Soundness of M. Lesseps's Reasonings and Arguments on the practicability of the Suez Canal," and "An Investigation of the effect of the prevailing Wave-influence on the Nile's Deposits, and upon the Littoral of its Delta." These documents were dated respectively 30th January and 9th July 1858.

The conclusion to which Captain Spratt arrived was adverse to M. Lesseps's project. He was of opinion that it would be next to impossible to keep open any harbour to the eastward of the mouths of the Nile; and he warned "the commercial interest against risking their millions in the undertaking." He contended that the material brought to the sea by the Nile, and which is carried eastwards by the prevailing winds and currents, would accumulate against the piers or jetties proposed to be carried out to deep water at Port Saïd, so rapidly and to such an extent as to prevent the maintenance of a sufficient harbour. He thought "the sands of the Nile would mount over the piers of Saïd," and he did not believe that any amount of dredging would overcome the difficulties.

It was against such opinions from high authority that M. Lesseps had to contend; but his confidence in his project and his courage and perseverance never failed him. As time went on, he had other difficulties ahead.

The original concession granted extraordinary privileges to the Company. It included or contemplated the formation of a "sweet-water " canal for the use of the workmen engaged; and the Company were to become proprietors of all the land which could be irrigated by means of this

canal. One of the conditions of the concession also was, that the Viceroy should procure forced labour for the execution of the work; and soon after the commencement of operations, and for some time, the number of workmen so engaged amounted to from 25,000 to 30,000. The work, thus commenced, steadily proceeded until 1862, when the late Viceroy, during his visit to this country at the time of the International Exhibition, requested Mr. Hawkshaw, F.R.S., to visit the canal and report on the condition of the works and the practicability of its being successfully completed and maintained. His Highness's instructions were, that Mr. Hawkshaw should make an examination of the works quite independently of the French Company and their engineers, and report, from his own personal examination and consideration, the result at which he arrived. If his report were favourable, the work would be proceeded with; if unfavourable, it would at once be stopped.

Mr. Hawkshaw proceeded to Egypt upon this important commission in November of the same year; and in February 1863 he wrote a well-considered report which may be said to have in great measure contributed to the rapid and successful completion of the work. Mr. Hawkshaw described the works of the canal which had been already executed, and those which remained at that time unfinished. He examined and discussed the dimensions of the various parts then in progress, recommending various alterations; and having carefully gone into all the details of construction, he proceeded to investigate the question of maintenance, with reference to which it had been urged by opponents :

"1st. That the canal will become a stagnant ditch.

"2nd. That the canal will silt up, or that the moving sands of the Desert will fill it up.

"3rd. That the Bitter Lakes through which the canal is to pass will be filled up with salt.

"4th. That the navigation of the Red Sea is dangerous and difficult.

"5th. That shipping will not approach Port Saïd, because of the difficulties that will be met with, and the danger of that port on a leeshore.

"6th. That it will be difficult, if not impracticable, to keep open the Mediterranean entrance to the canal."

Having analyzed each of these objections, and fully weighed the arguments on which they were based, he came to the following conclusions as to the practicability of construction and of maintenance :

:

"1st. As regards the engineering construction, there are no works on the canal presenting on their face any unusual difficulty of execution, and there are no contingencies, that I can conceive, likely to arise that would introduce difficulties insurmountable by engineering skill.

"2ndly. As regards the maintenance of the canal, I am of opinion that no obstacles would be met with that would prevent the work, when completed,

being maintained with ease and efficiency, and without the necessity of incurring any extraordinary or unusual yearly expenditure.”

The whole of Mr. Hawkshaw's report is well worthy of perusal; and I must congratulate him on the sound conclusions at which he arrived, and on the foresight by which he was enabled to point out difficulties and contingencies which have since arisen. Could he at that time have seen the full realization of the work, he would scarcely have altered the report he wrote.

Saïd Pasha died between the period of Mr. Hawkshaw's examination of the country and the date of his report. He was succeeded by his brother Ismaïl, the present Viceroy or Khedive, who, alarmed at the largeness and uncertainty of the grants to the Canal Company, of the proprietorship of land which could be irrigated by the Sweet-water Canal, and anxious to retire from the obligation of finding forced labour for the construction of the works, refused to ratify or agree to the concessions granted by his brother. The whole question was referred to the arbitration of the present Emperor of the French, who kindly undertook the task, and awarded the sum of £3,800,000 to be paid by the Viceroy to the Canal Company as indemnification for the loss they would sustain by the withdrawal of forced or native labour, for the retrocession of large grants of land, and for the abandonment of other privileges attached to the original Act of Concession. This money was applied to the prosecution of the works.

The withdrawal of native labour involved very important changes in the mode of conducting the works, and occasioned at the time considerable delay. Mechanical appliances for the removal of the material, and European skilled labour, had to be substituted; these had to be recruited from different parts of Europe, and great difficulty was experienced in procuring them. The accessory canals had to be widened for the conveyance of larger dredging-machines, and additional dwellings had to be provided for the accommodation of European labourers. All these difficulties were overcome, and the work proceeded.

Since the date of Mr. Hawkshaw's Report, viz. February 1863, much has been said and written upon the operations of the canal as they were going on, and upon its prospects of success. Sir William Denison, K. C.B., R.E., presented the Institution of Civil Engineers, in April 1867, with a paper on the condition of the works as he found them at the end of 1866, which led to an animated discussion upon the whole subject. The conclusions at which Sir William Denison himself arrived were:

"1st. That (subject, of course, to the condition that the relative levels of the Red Sea and the Mediterranean are as stated by the French authorities) there will be no extraordinary difficulty in carrying an open saltwater channel from the Mediterrancan to the Red Sea of the depth proposed, namely 8 metres.

"2nd. That no special difficulty in maintaining this channel need be anticipated.

"3rd. That it will be necessary to modify the section proposed by the French engineers, making the side slopes much more gradual.

"4th. That the cost of maintaining the above-mentioned depth of water will be found at first to be largely in excess of the amount estimated. Eventually, it is by no means impossible that means may be found to fix or check the drift of sand, or to shut it out from the canal. But for some years it must be expected that the ordinary action of the atmosphere, which has filled up former excavations made in this dry desert, will have the same effect on the new canal.

"Looking at the work as an engineer, there does not appear to be any difficulty which a skilful application of capital may not overcome."

In the discussion which followed, while on the one hand Sir William Denison's views were well supported, much was said, on the other hand, of the difficulties which would attend the construction, and the impossibility of keeping open the harbours and the canal. The old questions of silting up and stagnation were discussed; and quotations from the correspondence of Mr. R. Stephenson with M. de Negrelli were read, with the object of showing the absurdity of the whole scheme. In one of these quotations Mr. Stephenson thus expresses himself:

"In conclusion, Sir, I will only say that I have-indeed I can haveno hostility to a maritime canal through the Isthmus of Suez. If I could regard such a canal as commercially advantageous, I have already shown that I should be the first to give it the advantage of my time, my money, and my experience. It was because, after elaborate investigation, and in conjunction with such men as M. Talabot, I arrived at a clear conclusion that the project was not one which deserved serious attention, that I refused to give it support. I should be delighted to see a channel like the Dardanelles or the Bosphorus penetrating the Isthmus that divides the Red Sea from the Mediterranean. But I know that such a channel is impracticable-that nothing can be effected even by the most unlimited expenditure of time and life and money beyond the formation of a stagnant ditch, between two almost tideless seas, unapproachable by large ships under any circumstances, and only capable of being used by small vessels when the prevalent winds permit their exit and their entrance. believe that the project will prove abortive in itself and ruinous to its constructors; and entertaining that view, I will no longer permit it to be said that, by abstaining from expressing myself fully on the subject, I am tacitly allowing capitalists to throw away their money on what my knowledge assures me to be an unwise and unremunerative speculation."

I

It was shown also by calculations that the evaporation from the Bitter Lakes alone, without taking into consideration the long length of canal, was such that the channel from the Red Sea to the lakes was much too

small to supply the loss, and that the result would be that the water in these Lakes must settle to a level below the low water of a spring tide in the Red Sea. It was urged too that there would be great difficulty in maintaining the entrances to the harbours and the harbours themselves, and that bars would inevitably form at each end of the canal.

It will be seen therefore that, so recently as 1867, opinions were strongly against the success of the canal, those persons who entertained contrary views being in a considerable minority.

In the commencement of this year Mr. John Fowler, C.E., wrote an excellent letter to The Times' on the condition in which he then found the canal, and upon its prospects. The observations which he made, and the conclusions at which he arrived, seem to have been carefully formed and well grounded. He stated that the cost would greatly exceed the original estimate, although the works were carried out of much less than the originally proposed dimensions-that the works were in truth simple in character, and in a soil favourable to execution, but of such vast magnitude, and in a country presenting such peculiar difficulties in climate, and in the absence of fresh water, that special organization and adoption of means of no ordinary kind were required for their realization. He was of opinion that large quantities of alluvium would find their way into the harbour at Port Saïd, and that it would be necessary to make the western breakwater solid to prevent the deposit being carried through, as at presentnevertheless that no apprehension need be entertained as to the channel and harbour being silted up and destroyed, but that considerable expense in dredging would be constantly required. He agreed with Mr. Hawkshaw that the amount of drifting sand would not be such as materially to interfere with maintenance, that various means might be adopted for limiting the amount, but that, after every precaution, it would be necessary to employ one or two powerful dredges to keep the canal clear from the sand blown in. He was further of opinion that the protection of the slopes by stone would be necessary. With reference to the evaporation from the Bitter Lakes, and the current from the Red Sea to those Lakes, he believed that it would not be strong enough to affect injuriously the bottom or sides of the channel, after they had been properly protected by stone pitching. Mr. Fowler then entered into a consideration of the mode in which the traffic should be carried on and the probable use to be made of the canal, and concluded his letter with a well-deserved compliment to the remarkable energy and perseverance of M. Lesseps, to the skill and resources of M. Voisin, the Engineer-in-chief, and the district engineers acting under him, and to the great powers of organization and high qualities of M. Levalley, the contractor.

The total length of the canal from Port Said to Suez is 99 miles; it varies in width from 196 feet to 327 feet, having, however, in each case a width of 72 feet in the centre, the slopes on each side of this centre