But the report of the Committee, after a very full inquiry, was not definite on the point of the really best route. It was, however, resolved, and the Committee could hardly have done otherwise, notwithstanding the lukewarmness of the Court of Directors, that a regular and expeditious communication with India by means of steam-vessels was an object of great importance both to Great Britain and to India; that the practicability of steam navigation between Bombay and Suez _during the north-east monsoon_ had been established by the _Hugh Lindsay_; but that further experiments were necessary to establish the practicability of the Red Sea route at all seasons of the year. They further recommended that a grant of 20,000_l._ should be made “with the least possible delay,” to examine and test the (steam capabilities of the Euphrates route; the line contemplated being that from Scanderoon on the coast of Syria to Aleppo, and thence to Bir on the Euphrates, the distance between these towns (170 miles) being not greater than that across Egypt. From the evidence adduced and from the correspondence in the public journals of the period,[314] it is, however, evident that political rather than commercial reasons favoured the Euphrates route. It was then thought, looking to the probability of the opening up of the Indus, to the state of our relations with Persia, and to the necessity of maintaining a squadron, as we then did, to protect our interests in the Persian Gulf, that this line could, while increasing the safety of our East Indian possessions, be maintained at less cost than the Red Sea one.[315] [Sidenote: Decision of House of Commons Committee influenced by political considerations.] The other reasons assigned in favour of the Euphrates route were the comparative cheapness with which this object could be accomplished, the channel of the Persian Gulf and the River Euphrates being preferable to that of the Red Sea for steam communication between Bombay and the Mediterranean; moreover, in the then existing state of things it was thought that the route by Syria, Mesopotamia, and Babylonia would be safer than by way of the Red Sea and Egypt. In reference to the dangers which might be encountered from the wandering tribes of Arabs who had so long infested a large portion of the Euphrates route, it was stated that arrangements could easily be made by negotiations with the Porte, Mohammed Ali, or the chiefs of the tribes, who, at a small annual cost, would insure the necessary protection, while it was held that an armed mail-steamer with only letters and ordinary stores on board, would offer no attraction to marauders, as it was not then contemplated to carry either treasures or valuable merchandise by the overland route.[316]