This latter point was made clear by a discussion in
the Lords on Thursday. Lord Granville, who on Monday made the same statement as Mr. Gladstone, had by some error used the word " neutralisation," as regards the Canal, which Mr. Gladstone did not do, and had stated that the Government rejected the advice of the Committee which advised the plan of January 3rd. As this word might be interpreted to mean, as in the Swiss case, that troops passing through might be disarmed, he on Thursday apologised for his mistake,-and stated that he intended to advAte the arrangement "recommended in the Circular dated January 3rd, 1883, which would make the Canal free instead of neutralising it in time of war." The point is of high importance, not only because of the Canal, but because it may be needful, if Egypt is ever neutralised, to reserve to Europe, in case of a blocking of the Canal, a right to transmit troops by railway. Otherwise, if Egypt were friendly to England, the Canal might be blocked when a French Corps d'Armee was on its way to China ; and Egypt, being protected by a Great Power, could not be punished. The proposal of neutralisation, however, besides being rather prophetic than actual, will be studied in all details with the greatest care by professional experts. We doubt its realisation, Egypt being without the materials for a good 'Government ; but that is a question for the future.
