The Suez Canal.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume I, Issue 61, 1 November 1887, Page 3

The Suez Canal.

Ix the Times of August 3, there appears a letter written by H. W. Gordon, in the course of which he (Urises England to give up possession 8f Malta in time of . peace, as she Would only lose prestige in time of S&r as she w.ojild be unaole to hold it. S also states that it would be the better policy for England to allow France to occupy Syria and Russia to inarch on Constantinople ; and withdraw her own Mediterranean fleet and add it to the Channel squadron. He quotes a long letter from General Gordon, an extract from which we give below

. It has often been argued that by the supximacy of our maritime power we hold the fines Canal, and with the loss of that supremaey we lose the Canal. I would wish to discuss if thia assumption holds good. In the event of war wish any particular nation, we could not, without incurring the complications with and hostility of neutral nations, Close the Canal to these neutral nations, Whose Vessels would have free traffic through it. Considering the immense importance that would accrue to the nation with whom we might be at war. to close the Cabal to us, the spirit which actuates adventurers in these days, the outlay of, e4y, £lOO,OOO would be small, if by any such outlay adventurers or an adventurer were to be induced to scuttle a vessel or two of the neutral vessels in the Canal and thus stop its passage. Nothing more probable is likely to happen ‘.ban the blocking of the Canil. Mow conaider tvhat ♦ complication of affairs with all Europe would Ee the clearing. aWky of the the obstacle. 1. The Canal, with a portion of land near it, is French property ceded to France—at least, so the French consider it; therefore to clear away the obstacle by English troops or sailors would be an invasion of French territory. 3. The Canal is in Egyptain territory. I believe the Pasha it responsible for its protection; at any rate he sent Egytain troops to guard it during the Russian scare of 1887. Then, again, Egypt is a province of Turkey, and therefore the Sultan’s rights would be invaded by British forces entered to remove the obstacle in it. A vista of difficulties arises when we consider the question of how a scuttled vessel in the Canal is to be removed, leading on to the occupation of Egypt. In fact, the supretnacy of our maritime power is useless against such like attempt), and our hold over the Canal hangs upon a thread—namely, depends on our enemy finding an adventurer among other nations or a particular man among its subjects to scuttle a vessel in it. The route of the Suez Canal is therefore precarious. Now with respect to Malta. I think this fortress has very much lost its importance. The Mediterranean now differs much from the Mediterranean of 1815. Other nations possess great dockyards and arsenals on its shores, which are backed by united peoples. The warfare of Great Britain in the Mediterranean with any other Power would inevitably lead to all sorts of complications with neutral nations. Steam has changed the state of affairs and has brought the Mediterranean close to every nation in Europe. War in the Mediterranean in these days of steam is “ war in a basin,” the borders of which Pre in the hands of other nations, all pretty powerful and interested in trade, and all likely to be affected by any turmoil in that basin and to be against the makers of that turmoil. In reality the Mediterranean trade is so diverted by’ the present railroads of Europe it is but of little importance. The trade which is of value is the trade to the east of Suez, which, passing through the Canal, depends upon the Canal being kept open.