Article IX.-The French Government thank the English Government for accepting some of their amendments, which refer to the form rather than to the substance of the Article. As regards the objections raised to the remainder of the Article, they do not appear to them entirely justified. The obligation to meet at least once a-year has for its object to prevent the duty of supervision intrusted to the Representatives of the Powers from falling into disuse. It is certainly not excessive that the Consuls should be obliged to meet once a-year with this object; doubtless, they will generally only have to verify that nothing irregular has occurred during the past year; but such verification will keep alive in them the sense of their duty, and will prevent their supervision from being entirely fictitious. The opposition of the English Government to a provision so natural and so much in conformity with the general spirit of the Treaty is not understood.

The same may be said of the opposition to the provision according to which the Representatives of the Powers are to make their proposals to the Khedive, instead of presenting them to their respective Governments. It is the Egyptian Government who are competent to take measures of protection; it is therefore to them that the cases should be notified in which such measures would be necessary. The English note adds, it is true, that this would give the Consuls "a facility for intervention in the Local Government which appears neither opportune nor necessary." But it is certain that if the Representatives of the Powers address themselves to their Governments, the latter must in their turn present to the Khedive the observations or proposals which such a step may suggest to them. Intervention in the Local Government, far from being avoided, will take place with much stronger pressure, and perhaps without its being either opportune or necessary. If such necessity nevertheless occurred, and if, either through negligence or ill-will on the part of the Khedivial Government, circumstances should require the intervention of the Powers, it is well understood that the Consuls will of course preserve the right of informing their Governments of everything that may concern the security of the Canal; the latter will consequently always be in a position to take such steps as may appear to them proper. But as a rule it will suffice to warn the Khedive; and it is precisely in order to respect his legitimate independence that it seemed preferable that this warning should be given by the Consuls accredited to him, instead of by the Powers themselves. The more energetic intervention, which would inevitably result from the system proposed in the English draft, would thus be avoided.

Article X.-The opposition of the English Government to the words, "and under the conditions prescribed by the present Treaty," is inspired by the disagreement which has occurred with reference to the preceding Article. But as an understanding with regard to the whole Treaty can only take place on condition of its being realized with regard to Article IX, as well as with regard to the other Articles, it would be difficult to explain why the English Government should insist upon maintaining their amendment in the final text of the Treaty. The words in question are to some extent a matter of style, and need never have been inserted, but they could not now be suppressed without appearing to weaken the authority of the Convention. How could one refuse to say that the Egyptian Government "will act in accordance with the conditions prescribed by the present Treaty"? Would it not be, to some extent, to disavow and discredit these conditions, at the very time when they were being defined? We ask, therefore, that these words may be retained. At the commencement it might perhaps have been said that they were not indispensable; but it would be dangerous to suppress them now, and under any circumstances their harmlessness cannot be contested.

Article XI.-The principal observations of the English note refer to the words, "by their own forces," and to the words, " in the region of the Canal," which, in both cases, are added in the French draft Compromise. These observations are presented in a form which appears rather interrogative than affirmative. It is well, therefore, to define the object which the draft Compromise was intended to attain.

That object is not to prevent the Sultan or the Khedive from having recourse to the assistance of allies, and consequently to limit the exercise of the rights of an independent Sovereign in all that concerns the defence of Egypt. It is not a question in the draft Treaty of Egypt considered as a whole, but only of the Suez Canal, and this was clearly indicated by the addition of the words, "in the region of the Canal."

The Sultan and the Khedive remain free to have recourse, in case of war or rebellion, to the assistance of allies for the defence of all the rest of Egypt; the prohibition is limited to "the region of the Canal." If it be said that, even thus

restricted, this prohibition is derogatory to the rights of an independent Sovereign, we reply that the very fact of a Treaty being discussed and drawn up by Europe respecting the free passage of the Suez Canal, may be considered as having this result. The neutralization of the Canal and its region is, in one sense, a limitation of the sovereignty of the Egyptian and Ottoman Governments. It is not therefore necessary to say anything further with regard to this observation, which would, moreover, present itself in Egypt in many other cases.

To sum up, the draft Compromise withdraws from the Sultan and the Khedive the right of having recourse to the assistance of allies; but it is not for the defence of Egypt that this provision is made, but for that of the Canal, which, being neutralized, will not require to be defended. The new wording which we propose for Article XI reproduces this same idea with greater clearness.

Paris, June 8, 1886.

Text in conformity with the above Observations.

ARTICLE V.

THE Maritime Canal remaining open in time of war as a free passage, even to the ships of war of belligerents, according to the terms of Article I of the present Treaty, the High Contracting Parties agree that no right of war, no act of hostility, nor any act having for its object the direct preparation of an operation of war, shall be committed in the Canal and its ports of access, as well as within a radius of 3 marine miles from these ports, even though the Sublime Porte should be one of the belligerent Powers.

ARTICLE VI.

In time of war belligerent Powers shall not disembark or embark within the Canal and its ports of access either troops, munitions, or materials of war.

ARTICLE IX.

The Representatives in Egypt of the Signatory Powers of the present Treaty shall watch over its execution. In case of any event threatening the safety or the free passage through the Canal, they shall assemble, on the summons of one of their number, and, under the presidency of their Doyen, to proceed with the necessary verifications. They shall inform the Egyptian Government of the proposals which may appear to them advisable to insure the protection and free use of the Canal.

Under any circumstances, they shall assemble once a year, in order to verify the due execution of the Treaty.

ARTICLE X.

The Egyptian Government shall take, within the limits of their powers, resulting from the Firmans, and under the conditions provided for in the present Treaty, the necessary measures for insuring the execution of the said Treaty.

ARTICLE XI.

Similarly, the provisions of Articles IV, V, VI, and VIII shall not interfere with the measures which His Imperial Majesty the Sultan and His Highness the Khedive, within the limits of the Firmans granted, might find it necessary to take to insure by their own forces the defence of the district and public order in the region of the Canal.

My Lord,

No. 14.

The Earl of Rosebery to Viscount Lyons.

Foreign Office, July 6, 1886. THE French Ambassador informed me to-day that he had been pressed by M. de Freycinet for an answer to his last communication on the subject of the Convention for the free navigation of the Suez Canal, though he himself had pointed out to M. de Freycinet that the political condition of things in England was too unsettled for him to expect replies at this moment.

I told M. Waddington that our draft reply was under consideration by the other

Departments which it affected; that I hoped (though I could not bind myself) to send an answer in the course of the week, but that he must remember that most of the chiefs of the principal Departments of State were now engaged in electioneering and scattered over the country, so that I could make no formal pledge on the matter.

I am, &c.

M. de Freycinet to Count d'Aubigny.—(Communicated to the Earl of Iddesleigh by Count d'Aubigny, September 16.)

(Télégraphique.)

Paris, le 9 Septembre, 1886. VEUILLEZ rappeler à Lord Iddesleigh que nous n'avons pas encore reçu de réponse du Gouvernement de la Reine au texte transactionnel d'accord relatif au régime du Canal de Suez, portant la date du 9 Juin dernier, et dont Lord Rosebery a été saisi à cette époque. J'espère que le Cabinet de Lord Salisbury aura le désir de se mettre d'accord avec nous sur une question où la modération de nos propositions a égalé notre longanimité à attendre les convenances du Gouvernement de la Reine. Les divergences de vues qui nous séparaient précédemment étaient assez minimes pour que nous puissions compter sur l'adhésion du Cabinet Britannique à notre proposition

du 9 Juin.

(Telegraphic.)

(Translation.)

Paris, September 9, 1886.

BE good enough to remind Lord Iddesleigh that we have not yet received the reply of Her Majesty's Government respecting the text of the arrangement for a compromise with regard to the Suez Canal, dated the 9th June last, which was submitted to Lord Rosebery at that time. I trust that the Cabinet of Lord Salisbury will be desirous of coming to an agreement with us on a question in which the moderation of our proposals has equalled the forbearance with which we have awaited the convenience of Her Majesty's Government. The difference of opinion which formerly separated us was small enough to enable us to count on the adhesion of the British Cabinet to our proposal of the 9th June.

My Lord,

No. 16.

Mr. Egerton to the Earl of Iddesleigh.-(Received October 14.)

Paris, October 13, 1886.

M. DE FREYCINET spoke to me to-day very seriously about the delay in answering the proposals he had made respecting the free passage of the Suez Canal Convention. He said he had waited several months for an answer. The French Government had been charged by the Powers to come to an arrangement with Great Britain on this matter, and he had been frequently asked by Representatives of these Powers as to whether the arrangement were come to.

If he got no answer he would have to inform the Governments that he had abandoned hope of coming to an agreement with Great Britain, and they would have to consult as to what was to be done.

(Extract.)

No. 17.

The Earl of Iddesleigh to Mr. Egerton.

Foreign Office, October 15, 1886.

THE French Chargé d'Affaires called on me to-day, and inquired what progress we were making towards a settlement of the point still in dispute as regards the Convention for securing the free navigation of the Suez Canal.

I observed that a solution was a matter of difficulty, and that I felt that difficulty all the more, because I had taken up the subject in the middle of a discussion, com

menced by my predecessors in office, and had carried it on upon their lines rather than on my own. I went on to say that I thought that it would be a convenient arrangement if Sir Julian Pauncefote, who was thoroughly conversant with the whole question, were to discuss the matter personally with Count d'Aubigny, and explain the views held by Her Majesty's Government. To this Count d'Aubigny assented.

My Lord,

No. 18.

The Earl of Iddesleigh to Viscount Lyons.

Foreign Office, October 21, 1886. WITH reference to my despatch of the 15th ultimo, I have to inform your Excellency that the French Chargé d'Affaires called on me this afternoon, and expressed a fear lest there might be some misunderstanding as to the nature of the communications which it was proposed should be held between himself and Sir Julian Pauncefote on the subject of the Suez Canal. Count d'Aubigny said he had mentioned the proposal to M. de Freycinet, who had asked to be furnished with a note of the points on which the discussions should take place, but Sir J. Pauncefote had apparently thought that such a note should emanate from M. d'Aubigny.

After some discussion, I undertook that Sir Julian Pauncefote should give M. d'Aubigny a short and informal Memorandum, showing the points on which it was proposed that the communications should turn.

No. 19.

I am, &c.

(Signed)

IDDESLEIGH.

The Earl of Iddesleigh to Viscount Lyons.

My Lord, Foreign Office, October 25, 1886. WITH reference to my despatch of the 21st instant, I transmit herewith to your Excellency copies of a Memorandum on M. de Freycinet's last proposals of the 8th June last, for the Convention to secure the free navigation of the Suez Canal.

This Memorandum has been drawn up for the purpose of the personal discussion which I had proposed in my conversation with Count d'Aubigny of the 15th instant, and shows the points to which Her Majesty's Government still take exception.

Your Excellency is authorized to communicate this paper, or portions of it, to M. de Freycinet, as in your discretion you may think most desirable.

I am, &c.

Memorandum on the Points dealt with in M. de Freycinet's Communication to Lord Lyons of June 8, 1886.

IT will be convenient to deal with the particular Articles of the draft Convention framed by the International Commission at Paris, to which Her Majesty's Government take exception, in the order in which they are treated by M. de Freycinet in his communication of the 8th June.

Article 5.

The French Government, in a spirit of conciliation, accede to the wish of Her Majesty's Government, that the distance from the shore within which hostile operations are prohibited should be precisely defined. It is unnecessary therefore to dwell on this point; but it may be observed that the French proposal to define the distance by the word "approches" in addition to the words "eaux territoriales" would have opened the door to possible discussions as to whether the approaches of the Canal did not include the Red Sea; for it will be remembered that such an extension of the operation of the Convention was urged by one of the members of the Commission, (See Protocol No. 4. Sitting of the 9th June, 1885.) D

Article 6.

This Article is partly founded on the second basis of Earl Granville's Circular of the 3rd January, 1883, which is as follows: "That in time of war a limitation of time as to ships of war of a belligerent remaining in the Canal should be fixed, and no troops or munitions of war should be disembarked in the Canal."

The French Government now agree to limit the application of this Article to "time of war." But they still insist on its application to the ports of access (Port Saïd and Suez), although the Canal alone is named in the second basis of the Circular.

There are grave reasons which preclude Her Majesty's Government from agreeing to this extension. It might, for instance, in the case of the interruption of the navigation of the Canal, prevent the embarkation at Suez of British troops destined for India in time of war, and which, owing to the stoppage of transit through the Canal, it might be found necessary, with the sanction of the territorial Power, to send overland, through Egypt, to that port.

In view of British interests in India, Australia, and the East, a clause absolutely prohibiting, under any circumstances, the embarkation or landing of troops and munitions of war in transit at Suez might occasion the gravest difficulties.

Article 9.

Notwithstanding the arguments of M. de Freycinet on this Article, Her Majesty's Government still consider that a fixed yearly meeting of the Consuls is unnecessary. It would give the Consular Body in Egypt a permanent collective status in relation to the Canal which is strongly objected to by Her Majesty's Government, and which is opposed to the spirit of Lord Granville's Circular.

As regards the right of the Consuls to submit proposals to the Khedive respecting the Canal the terms of the Article are vague, and might be interpreted into a right of advising the Khedive at any time, and generally, as to the mode of protecting the Canal and securing its freedom.

Article 10.

Her Majesty's Government cannot waive their objection to the words "dans les conditions prévues par le présent Traité," and they learn with satisfaction that, in the opinion of M. de Freycinet, they are not indispensable. They have always maintained that the Egyptian Government should be left entirely free as regards the defence and protection of the Canal. The majority of the Paris Commission, on the contrary, desired that the Khedive should act in conjunction with the local Commission to be established under Article 9 of the draft Convention. The French Government have now abandoned that Article, and, therefore, there can be no need for the words "dans les conditions prévues par le présent Traité." Any "conditions" in the Treaty affecting the Khedive's complete independence as regards the protection of the Canal would be a departure from bases 4, 6, and 8 of Lord Granville's Circular.

Article 11.

The French Government still argue in favour of the retention in this Article of the words "par leurs propres forces," coupled with the limitation of the words, "dans la région du Canal." But this limitation in no way disposes of the objection of Her Majesty's Government to any restriction on the complete liberty of action of the Khedive in regard to the defence of Egypt, including the "region of the Canal," with or without allies, in accordance with the eighth basis of Lord Granville's Circular. The project of a Commission having been abandoned, the Khedive will, in the first instance, be responsible for taking prompt measures for the defence of the Canal, and it might prove fatal to its safety if in case of sudden danger he were precluded from summoning foreign gun-boats to his aid.

The above observations are confined to the particular questions raised in M. de Freycinet's communication of the 8th June. But it is desirable to advert also to the grave objection which is entertained by Her Majesty's Government to the terms of Article 5, as regards the words, "aucun acte ayant pour but de préparer directement une opération de guerre."

That Article applies to the ports of access and to the territorial waters at both ends of the Canal, and is open to the same objection as that which has been pointed out above with reference to Article 6.

The expression "en temps de guerre" is undefined. It may mean war between