held by the Khedive. As the policy of England was in favor of free and equal commerce, the international status of the canal, so far as it related to times of peace, seemed fairly well settled, although it was secured by no treaty stipulations.

The great question, however, and that which was most difficult of solution, related to the position which the canal should hold in time of war. The International Commission at Constantinople in 1873 had made no provision for this. It had not prohibited belligerent acts within the limits of the canal; it had neither authorized nor proscribed the building of fortifications upon its banks; neither had it secured the entrances of the canal against a blockade in case Egypt should become a belligerent Power. Hitherto, the condition of Europe had, it is true, presented no serious occasion for settling these questions. During the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71 the canal had been threatened by no belligerent acts.

But at the outbreak of the war between Russia and Turkey in 1877, a new condition was presented. Egypt was properly a part of the Ottoman Empire. It was one of the possibilities of the war that the Mediterranean entrance to the canal might be blockaded by a Russian fleet. In view of the danger which thus threatened the commerce of England and of Europe, Lord Derby, in 1877, addressed to the Russian Ambassador a note containing these words: "An attempt to blockade or otherwise to interfere with the canal or its approach would be regarded as a menace to India, and a grave injury to the commerce of the world. The mercantile and financial interests of European nations are so largely involved in Egypt that an attack on that country, or its occupation even

temporarily for purposes of war, could scarcely be regarded with unconcern by the neutral Powers, certainly not by England." To this unambiguous note the Russian government made the following discreet reply: "The Imperial Cabinet of Russia will neither blockade nor interrupt nor in any way menace the navigation of the Suez canal. They consider the canal as an international work, in which the commerce of the world is interested, and which should be kept free from any attack." (Quoted, Quar. Rev. Vol. 165, P. 447.)

On account of the bold stand thus taken by England it became evident that Egypt was to be treated as a quasi-neutral territory, at least during the period of the Turco-Russian war. Both England and Russia had recognized the fact that this channel of the world's commerce could not be treated as a mere piece of corporate property, subject to the jurisdiction of any territorial power. It certainly possessed an international significance, and in it all nations possessed an equitable interest. But there were no existing rules of international law which applied to it. Its position was unique. Nothing like it had been known since the modern law of nations had come into being. It could not be treated like the open sea, because it was not a res communis. It could not be regarded as a natural strait, because it had been artifically constructed by the investment of private capital. It could not be considered as a navigable river, because it was worked for profit under concessions from a territorial power. The progress of international law had evidently not kept pace with the growth of international relations and interests.

§ 4. ACADEMIC DISCUSSIONS AS TO ITS INTERNATIONAL STATUS

In view of the peculiar and problematic features which the canal presented, the question as to its proper legal position became for a few years the subject of an interesting academic discussion on the part of eminent European publicists. The question came before the Institut de Droit International, which included in its membership such distinguished jurists as Sir Travers Twiss of England, Professor Bluntschli of Germany, Professor Martens of St. Petersburg and Professor Neumann of Vienna. The Institut was unanimous in the belief that the interests involved in the canal made it the proper subject of international control; that it should be open at all times to the merchant ships of all nations; and that it should be exempt from any hostile attack in time of war.

But upon other questions, relating to the extent to which the principle of "neutrality" should be applied to the territory, there was great difference of opinion. Professor Martens claimed that the canal should be neutralized in the sense that it should be "inaccessible to the war ships of belligerents.' Professor Bluntschli wished the passage free to all private vessels, even those belonging to a nation at war with the Porte. The most complete form of neutralization was advocated by Professor Neumann, who desired the creation of what he called a "marine Belgium," in other words, the erection of territorial limits, which would be immune from hostile attacks, exempt from the presence or passage of belligerent forces, deprived of fortifications, and protected under the guarantee of

the great Powers. But all these proposals to "neutralize" the canal in any strict sense of that word were met by Sir Travers Twiss, who showed that England could never become a party to any agreement that would cut off or restrict her marine communication with India in time of war.

After four years of discussion extending from 1877 to 1880, during which time it was admitted that the international status of the canal could not be determined by any existing law, but must be settled by treaty-stipulations, the Institut recorded its conclusions in the following brief and general statements:

(1) It is to the general interest of all nations that the maintenance of the canal and its use for communications of every kind shall be as far as possible protected by treaty.

(2) With this object in view it is desirable that states should come to an arrangement with a view to avoid, as far as possible, every act by which the canal and its dependencies might be damaged or endangered even in time of war.

(3) If any Power should damage the works of the canal, it shall be bound to repair as speedily as possible the mischief done, and to reestablish the liberty of the navigation of the canal. (Quoted, Fortnightly Rev., Vol. 40, p. 47.)

The chief result of this long academic discussion and this summary of the views of international lawyers, was to emphasize the inadequacy of the existing law. The present problem showed very clearly that existing international law does not necessarily furnish the ultimate basis for the settlement of all international questions that may arise; but that it must be continually supplemented by new expressions of inter

national authority obtained through diplomacy and treaty-stipulations. To use the words afterward employed by Professor Lawrence: "Here was an instance of the breakdown of a legal system for want of rules applicable to a new set of circumstances." (Lawrence, Disputed Questions, p. 57.)

§ 5. DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS TOWARD A WORLD POLICY

Events soon occurred which caused this whole question to be transferred from the level of academic discussion to the higher plane of international diplomacy. How closely these events were related to the financial troubles of Egypt to which we have already referred, it would not be difficult to trace. But it must not be supposed that the financial distress of Egypt was due solely to the fact that its rulers had been victimized by the managers of the Suez Company. It was due quite as much to the excessive extravagance of the rulers themselves, especially to that of Ismail Pasha, who was by way of distinction a prince of prodigality. All the wealth that he himself possessed and all that he could obtain by the issue of bonds to European bankers, he lavished upon Egypt, hoping to make that country a rival of the second French Empire. By his passion for display he impoverished his people and made his country a bankrupt. It is said that during his rule from 1863 to 1879 he succeeded in increasing the Egyptian debt to 80,000,000 pounds sterling, or about 2,000,000,000 francs, one-fifth of which was incurred in connection with the construction of the Suez canal. This debt was held mostly by European investors.

The time came when Egypt was no longer able to