SUEZ CANAL.

Colonist, Volume III, Issue 266, 8 May 1860, Page 4

SUEZ CANAL.

[From the Free Frets.) From Paris we learn that the Suez Canal Company (to meet the inventions of the Morning Pqst) propose the. regulation for inhibiting any construction on their own ports of the nature of defence, whether at the enclosures or along the banks of the canal, or from e.stablising or introducing colonists or agricultural establishments other than those of the native subject.

From Constantinople we learn that the Turkish Government is begioning to perceive, and regret the error it has committed in sufferany interference of the European Governments in this its own domestic concern. The first step is to know that one has been a fool the second is to correct the folly, the third to sin no more. Those who have studied the article on the Suez Canal in our No. of December last will apprehend the importance of these two pieces of intelligence. [We shall reprint the article alluded to shortly.] Lord Palmerston is a man walking through the streets with a halter round his neck, so that any one treading on the end of the rope can choke him, ami throw him down. But every one has taken the rope for a snake and lits only fear has been to tread on it. It is true that some,.but these very few in numbers, Members of Parliament, and Writers in the press, sharper than the rest, have discovered that the rope was no snake, and have handled it—not, indeed, to lasso the wearer—to cultivate it.profitably for themselves, out of which to extract diplomatic, consular, and other posts, and other similar products. These, however, who represent interests injured or ruined by this noose, have never, while knowing the rope to be a rope, dared to touch it, lest they themselves should be lassoed. Emperors, Kings, great Statesmen, Poles and Hungarians, agents and representatives of merchants, ruined by illegal blockades, by piratically bombarded towns; men of enterprise thwarted and ruined —such as the Canal of Danube, the Railway of she Euphrates, &c.,—none of these have ever ventured to use their knowledge of Lord Palmerston for the benefit of the country or concern they represented ; but, on the contrary, by fawninj and cringing, have sought to buy off his hostility, and so have degraded themselves into his most efficient, because his basest, instruments. An exception to this rule has been recently afforded at a meeting at Newcastle on the Suez Canal, when Mr. Lange is reported to have spoken as follows :— : " By what process had the Suez Canal been rendered objectionable to those whom he waa addressing? Let them go into the matter, and not shun discussoin. For fifteen years Lord Palmerstpn had secretly opposed the Suez Canal project. If we were the government we were told we were, then it followed that for fifteen years every man in England had b>eu

without his knowledge, opposing the Suez

Canal. But it was more extraordinary that Lord Palmerston had been able for fifteen years to conceal this, opposition both from his own Colleagues and the preseut Secretary for Foreign Affairs, either as the head or member of a government. One had a right to ask why he had thought it necessary to conceal his opposition. It might be said, hovv was it known

that Lord Palmerston did not convey to L'>rd John RusselJ the fact of his opposition ? We knew from the words of Lord John Russell, on

the Ist of Juue, 1858, when Mr. Disraeli niado an observation with regard to a question put to him as to Lord Palmerston's opposition. Lord John Russell then said, " I cannot admit that

for many years the power and influence of this country has not been exercised to induce the Sultan to wifchold his assent to this projeot." Here was an admission of the concealment. This was sufficient to excite suspicion. There must be something in this concealment that Lord Palmerston could nor convey to another.

If the concealment were in the interest of this country, he could have had no scruples in con-. veyiug it to his Colleagues. Was there not someihing wrong ? Could not that concealment be for another country hostile to England? Or was it some preconceived understanding with another country ? Then let them come to a most singular circumstance which took place not many years ago with regard to Xord Palmerston—a charge of impeachment which had never been properly replied to. The charge was that the Princess Lieven had paid Lord Pal merston a large sum of money, and that

from that moment he had undertaken to serve Russia. He (Mr. Lauge) said nothing about whether this were true or not. But putting together this secret opposition to the Suez Canal, and those facts which had been brought forward^ there naturally arose a suspicion whether or not we were properly steered by Lord Palmerstoo. He (Mr. Lange) knew these remarks might not be tasteful or acceptable to many; but it was because few men dared to say these thiugs. But there were men in the cabinet who had not scrupled to state openly what they

thought about Lord Palmerston. To understand the conduct of Lord Palraerston. we must refer to the well-known faqt of the Queen taking him to task in 1852, as to the altering, of,foreign despatches." : ......