states the following conclusions at which the British Government had arrived in this matter :—

"1. That the differences which arose between the "two Governments in regard to the Treaty, and "which occasioned at one time considerable irritation, "but which have long since been happily disposed "of, did not relate to the general principles to be "observed in regard to the means of interoceanic "communication across the isthmus, but had their "origin in a stipulation which Mr. Blaine still proposes in great part to maintain. He wishes every part of the Treaty in which Great Britain and the "United States agree to make no acquisition of terri

แ

tory in Central America to remain in full force, "while he desires to cancel those portions of the "Treaty which forbid the United States fortifying "the canal, and holding the political control of it "in conjunction with the country in which it is ❝located.

"2. That the declarations of the United States' "Government during the controversy were distinctly "at variance with any such proposal as that just "stated. They disclaimed any desire to obtain an "exclusive or preferential control over the canal. "Their sole contention was, that Great Britain was "bound by the Treaty to abandon those positions on "the mainland or adjacent islands, which, in their

66

opinion, were calculated to give her the means of "such a control. Nor did they in any way seek to "limit the application of the principles laid down in "the Treaty so as to exclude Columbian or Mexican "territory, as Mr. Blaine now suggests, nor urge "that such application would be inconsistent with "the Convention between the United States and

"New Granada of 1846. On the contrary, they "were ready to give those principles their full exten❝sion.

"3. That at a time when the British Government "had been induced by the long continuance of the controversy to contemplate the abrogation of the Treaty, they were only willing to do so on the con"dition of reverting to the status quo ante its conclu"sion in 1850; a solution which was at that time possible-though, as the United States Government justly pointed out, it would have been fraught with great danger to the good relations between the two "countries, but which is now rendered impossible by the subsequent events.

66

"4. That a better and more conciliatory conclusion, which for twenty years has remained undisputed, was effected by the independent and voluntary action of Great Britain. The points in dispute were practically conceded by this country, and the controversy terminated in a manner which was "declared by President Buchanan to be amicable "and honourable, resulting in a final settlement entirely satisfactory to the Government of the "United States."

The question remains on the footing of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.

The international condition of Egypt appears to be still in a state of transition and uncertainty.

On November 4, 1881, Earl Granville, in a despatch to the British Consul-General at Cairo, says :

"It would seem hardly necessary to enlarge upon our desire to maintain Egypt in the enjoyment of "the measure of administrative independence which "has been secured to her by the Sultan's Firmans.

"The Government of England would run counter to "the most cherished traditions of national history "were it to entertain a desire to diminish that liberty or to tamper with the institutions to which it has given birth. It would not be difficult, if it were necessary, to show by reference to recent events "that this Government should be safe from the sus"picions which, as you inform me, exist in Egypt "with regard to our intentions on this head. On "the other hand, the tie which unites Egypt to the "Porte is, in our conviction, a valuable safeguard against foreign intervention. Were it to be broken, Egypt might at no very distant future find herself exposed to danger from rival ambitions. "therefore our aim to maintain this tie as it at "exists.

66

66

It is

present

"The only circumstance which could force us to depart from the course of conduct which I have above indicated would be the occurrence in Egypt of a "state of anarchy. We look to the Khedive, and to "Cherif Pasha, and to the good sense of the Egyptian people, to prevent such a catastrophe, and they on "their part may rest assured that, so long as Egypt continues in the path of tranquil and legitimate progress, it will be the earnest desire of her Majesty's Government to contribute to so happy a "result.

66

"You are authorised to deliver a copy of this despatch to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, "stating that it has been written with the object of "dispelling any doubts that may exist as to the "intentions of her Majesty's Government. We have

every reason to believe that the Government of "France will continue as heretofore to be animated

66

"by similar views. It has been easy for the two "countries, acting in concert and with identical objects of no selfish character, to assist materially in improving the financial and political condition of Egypt, and so long as the good of that country is " alone the object in view, there should be no difficulty in prosecuting it with the same success. Any self-aggrandising design on the part of either "Government must, from its very nature, destroy "this useful co-operation. The Khedive and his "Ministers may feel secure that her Majesty's Go"vernment contemplate no such deviation from the path which they have traced for themselves" (a).

On January 10, 1882, the following Note was presented to the Khedive by the English and French Agents :

"You have already been instructed on several "occasions to inform the Khedive and his Govern"ment of the determination of England and France

66

to afford them support against the difficulties of " various kinds which might interfere with the course "of public affairs in Egypt.

"The two Powers are entirely agreed on this sub"ject, and recent circumstances, especially the meeting of the Chamber of Notables convoked by the Khedive, have given them the opportunity for a "further exchange of views.

"I have accordingly to instruct you to declare to "the Khedive that the English and French Govern

ments consider the maintenance of his Highness "on the throne, on the terms laid down by the "Sultan's Firmans, and officially recognised by the

(a) Papers presented to Parliament, 1882.

"two Governments, as alone able to guarantee, for "the present and future, the good order and the "development of general prosperity in Egypt, in "which France and Great Britain are equally inte"rested.

"The two Governments being closely associated "in the resolve to guard by their united efforts against all cause of complication, internal or exter"nal, which might menace the order of things estab"lished in Egypt, do not doubt that the assurance "publicly given of their formal intentions in this

respect will tend to avert the dangers to which the "Government of the Khedive might be exposed, "and which would certainly find England and "France united to oppose them. They are con"vinced that his Highness will draw from this assurance the confidence and strength which he requires to direct the destinies of Egypt and its people."

66

On February 2, 1882, the dragomans of the German, Russian, Austrian, and Italian Embassies at Constantinople communicated to Assym Pacha a verbal note, of which the following is the text :

"En réponse à la communication. que l'Ambassa"deur de Turquie a fait du télégramme adressé par "le Sublime Porte le 13 Janvier à Londres et Paris "au sujet des affaires Egyptiennes, l'Ambassadeur de sa Majesté a été chargé par son gouvernement de "déclarer ce qui suit.

"Le gouvernement de sa Majesté désire le main"tien du status quo en Egypte sur la base des arrangements Européens et des firmans octroyés par les Sultans; et il est d'avis que le status quo