HISTORY. The plan of a water connection between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea goes back to early Egyptian history. Such a canal seems to have been constructed in the reigns of Seti I. and Rameses II. (about B.C. 1350-1300), extend ing from the Nile to Lake Timsah and thence to the Red Sea. When this had been choked up by the sands in the course of ages, a new canal was begun by Necho, a son of Psammetichus 1. (about B.C. 600). between Bubastis on the Nile and the Red Sea• but was left unfin ished till the time of Darius Hystaspis (B.c. 521-180), who completed the work. About the beginning of the Christian Era the canal was no longer navigable, but it was probably restored under Trajan. The last restoration was made in the seventh century by Amru, the Mohammedan conqueror of Egypt, who connected Cairo with the Red Sea. During Napoleon's invasion of Egypt (1798-99) the project of piercing the isthmus was carried to the extent of preliminary surveys being made. but, owing to a miscalculation on the part of the engineers which seemed greatly to enhance the difficulties of the work. the execution of the plan was delayed till the French were forced to abandon Egypt. An international com mission of engineers made a preliminary survey in 1846 to ascertain the practicability of a level water canal. The English engineer on the commis sion, George Stephenson, strongly opposed a canal and recommended to his Government a railroad from Cairo to Suez. and this was constructed by British capital in 1858. By the terms of the De Lesseps concession (see above) the canal was to be constructed without expense to Egypt. which w•as to receive 15 per cent. of the gross receipts for ninety-nine years. at the expiration of which period the canal was to revert to the Egyptian Government. When. however. De Lesseps found it impossible to enlist the large amount of capi tal necessary, he turned to Said Pasha. secured from him a large loan for preliminary work and promoting, and later a subscription for nearly half of the stock, which was about £17,000,000.
Said was not able to pay his subscription and his warrants had to be cashed in London. The Egyptian Government had agreed to furnish labor at a nominal price, the fellalmen to be well treated and their health to be cared for. The violation of the latter condition on the part of the canal company aroused a protest in the name of humanity, especially from England. which had never looked with favor on the canal and sug gested to the Sultan that the work be stopped. His approval of the concession, as suzerain, which had been prodded for in the original contract with Egypt, had never been obtained. lie now approved the but decided that the fellaheen must not be forced to do the work. The company complained of the Egyptian Govern ment's compliance with this order from Constan tinople as a breach of contract• made heavy claims for damages, induced the Khedive to ac cept Napoleon III. as arbitrator, and on this and a later claim wrung from the exhausted resources of Egypt over eighty million francs. The direct and indirect cost of the canal to Egypt is esti mated at about $85,000.000. In 1875 Ismail Pa sha (q.v.) appealed to Europe for aid in his financial difficulties. Among other measures that were taken was the sale of his canal stock to England. 176.602 shares, for £4.000,000. This made England, which had originally opposed the canal project, the heaviest owner in it, and com bined with the general financial assistance ren dered to Egypt gave that power a direct interest in Egyptian affairs. A very short time sufficed to show that the canal was of the utmost value as the passageway between England and her Oriental possessions, England and France at first exercised together that tutelage over Egypt which the financial situation rendered necessary.. Later events led England to assume this respon sibility alone. The Suez Canal was the key to this political development, as it has become in part to the complicated situation in the near East. See EASTERN QUESTION; EGYPT.