ENGLAND AND THE SUEZ CANAL.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR,"] SIR, It is Mr. Milner's argument, not mine, to which your reviewer (Spectator of September 9th) of my article on "England's Right to the Suez Shares" objects. I expressly stated that if there had been a sale for a sufficient con- sideration by a vendor—even if a trustee—the profits would belong to the purchaser, however great. Mr. Milner pleaded that a portion of the profits ought to be utilised for Egypt, because they were excessive. My contention is strictly limited to the transaction itself. It was not a sale. The ex-Khedive Ismael was not authorised to create the annuity of 2200,000 a year, and England took the shares with fun knowledge that they were pledged, not sold. It must be remembered that the question is not whether England is to hand back the sheets of paper in the Treasury, or pay any sum of money out of the £600,000 after she has received it. The issue to be fought out, in Paris or in Cairo, will be as to who is entitled to receive the dividends after they cease to be payable to the holders of the Delegations. The creditors of Egypt will have, in my opinion, a, right to test this in the Courts.—I am, Sir, &a , 8 Cleveland Row, St. James's. COPE WHITEHOUSE,
Previous page
