THE SUEZ CANAL.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 7253, 16 May 1885, Page 2 (Supplement)

THE SUEZ CANAL.

Major-general Sir Andrew Clarke, who was delegate of the Australian Governments at the International Consultation Commission on the Suez Canal, has forwarded to the Agentsgeneral his report, The report states that the Commission unanimously resolved that it was "in favour of the enlargement of the existing canal, subject to the views which may be expressed by the Sub commission which is about to proceed to Egypt.". At the close of bia report, Sir Andrew Clark states: — After much discussion the Sub-commission unanimoußly agreed to the following dimenBions for the improved canal: —

Breadth (at a depth of 26ft). —From Port Said to Bitter Lakes, 71 yards; from Bitter Lakes to Suez, 82 yards,

Depth.—29£ft at low water ordinary spring tides,

The order in which it was recommended that tbe works should be executed was roughly as follows:—

Ist. Canal to be widened 50ft, and depth increased to 28ft.

2nd. Canal to be widened to its final dimensions.

3rd. Canal to be deepened to 29£ ft. On February 9 tho Commission met to consider this report, and adjourned to tbe 11th.

The width proposed for the canal was so nearly in accordance with that I had previously recommended, that any further observations from me on this point would have been superfluous. I was, however, well aware of the importance to the Australian Colonies of a deep channel, and was fully prepared to raise tbe quostion and to use evory effort to obtain a minimum depth of SOft. The pilots require Sft of water under the keel of a steamer; tbe finest vessels in the Atlantic trade—notably the latest additions to tho Cunard fleet, the Umbria and her sister shipdraw 27ft. With less than 30ft in the canal, it is evident that there will be a tendency to employ somewhat inferior vessels on the Australian packet service. It was, however, desirable to avoid discussion. Tbe majority of the Sub-commission had, with some difficulty, succeeded in obtaining a unanimous expression of opinion in favour of a depth of 29Jft, and it was clearly undesirable to reopen the question in order to obtain so small an addition as fiin. Unanimity was all important, to enable M. de Leasaps and the directors of the canal to obtain the sanction of the shareholders to so large an expenditure. Finally, tbe Commismiasion adopted the resolutions of the Subcommission nsmine contradicenlc.