THE SUEZ CANAL. 4 in borrowing without his co-operation. It is not therefore unfair to assume that Egypt contributed / " <jf ' j not far short of one-half of the capital by which the canal was built. For this enormous subsidy, Egypt has never received, and will not receive for some sixty years to come, the slightest pecuniary benefit or return of any kind.

Within the last few months a case has been tried and decided before the International Courts at Cairo which throws considerable light on the early proceedings of the Canal Company, and which possesses a dramatic interest of its own. The salient points of the case are as follows : — Amongst the victims of the Kafr el Zahat accident, to which I have already referred, was a certain Khaireddin Pasha, who had been a slave of Mahomet Ali, had been liberated by the Viceroy, and had subsequently amassed a considerable fortune. By the law of Islam, as he died intestate, his lawful heirs were the three sons of his former master, the then Viceroy Said, Prince Ibrahim, and Prince Mahomet Ali the younger. The heirs in question are all dead, and their legal representatives are their Highnesses the Prince Toussoun, the Prince Djemil, the Princess Amma Toussoun and the Princess Esmet Toussoun.

The above members of the Vice-regal family brought an action last May against the Suez Canal Company, claiming that amongst the assets of Khaireddin Pasha at the time of his death in 1858 was one founders share, and 250 ordinary shares in the Company. For