the failure of the Canal was deemed certain by almost every resident in Egypt, and by most of the English visitors to the opening ceremony-I need hardly say that I coincide entirely in this opinion. I have not the time now to enter on any discussion as to the reasons besides those I have already mentioned in former letters which induce me to hold this view more firmly than ever. Yesterday I asked an English merchant captain of great experience, what part of the Canal he had found most difficult to navigate? His answer was, " There is no difficulty anywhere. It is as easy sailing through the Canal as going through the Pool." Immediately on the arrival of the Hawk at Suez, it was determined, on the captain's report, to send her back to England to embark the shoreend of the cable for India, and then to sail for Aden, via the Suez Canal. Yesterday a large English shipowner telegraphed orders to London, to freight two of his ships, of about 2,000 tons each, for Bombay by the Isthmus route. I mention these facts, because they come within my own knowledge, as practical testimony to the success of the Canal.

AFTER THE OPENING.

AFTER the passage had been effected, and the Fayoum was riding at anchor in the waters of the Red Sea, I met the Captain again, and was saluted by him with the remark: "I told you we should get through all right." And the odd part of the incident is that, to my belief, both statements were made in perfect good faith. The spectacle of the brilliant success which had attended the opening had had such an influence upon his imagination that he had completely forgotten his previous scepticism. In this he only followed the example of the vast majority of the residents in Egypt, native as well as foreign. Within the last three weeks which preceded the inauguration of the Canal, I cannot recollect speaking to a single tourist, merchant, or official, not directly connected with the enterprise, who did not ridicule the notion that the Canal could either be opened by the date announced, or, if opened, could be used for practical purposes. Now, on the other

hand, the very same men refuse to listen to any criticism as to the absolute perfection of the Canal. The explanation of this sudden revulsion of feeling is that the opposition to the isthmus route in Egypt was based far more on prejudice than on conviction. In the first place, the Canal, if successful, must interfere with many of the most powerful interests in Egypt. It will diminish the importance of Alexandria as a harbour in favour of Port Saïd. It will deprive the railroad across the isthmus of its very lucrative transit traffic. It will tend to place Cairo still further out of the route of ordinary travel. It will decrease the value of properties which lie upon what has been hitherto the sole line of communication from sea to sea. It will interfere, in fact, with existing interests. Moreover, the Canal always has been, is to the present day, and probably will remain for some time, a purely French undertaking, and the French are disliked in Egypt by the natives because they are Europeans, and by other Europeans because they are French. The Anglo-Egyptian looks upon the FrancoEgyptian with feelings which you would have to go many a long year back to match in the old country. Owing to a strange error in our diplomacy,-an error for which Lord Palmerston must be held to be mainly responsible,England set her face against the Suez Canal from its

inception. That the Canal ought not to be made, could never be made, and would not pay if it were made, were three articles of faith with British diplomatists in the East; and there was, probably, not an Englishman in Egypt, from the highest consular dignity to the humblest shop-boy in a British store, who did not deem it a point of honour to speak disparagingly of the Canal and its supporters. This feeling had, undoubtedly, diminished as time advanced, but still enough of it remained to the last to render the public opinion of the British community in Egypt lukewarm, to say the least, in its estimate of the Canal's chance of success. To all these causes we must add the natural tendency of human nature to look coldly upon the achievements of persons with whom we are familiarly acquainted. Everybody who was anybody in Egypt knew Lesseps intimately, and had known him for years as an active, bustling, good-humoured Frenchman, somewhat given to boasting of his own achievements sanguine in his expectations, loose, perhaps, in his statements. It went against the grain to admit that this voluble adventurer could really have been the artificer of a mighty enterprise, the discoverer of a problem whose solution has puzzled the wisdom of ages.

It may be well here to pay the tribute which is justly