It has also been said that if a considerable number of European workmen, or agricultural labourers, were taken to the Isthmus of Suez, there would be some fear of their forming a colony of natives of one single country—of France for instance—which might have a prejudicial effect on the policy of England. In the first place, there is no motive for a universal company to employ, for a special political object, workmen of any one country in preference to those of any other. Again, it is not necessary to demonstrate that a company of capitalists will attend to their own interests, and they will certainly have an incontestable advantage in employing Egyptians only, as workmen and agricultural labourers. The _fellah_ of Egypt has alone constructed, under the direction of skilful and experienced engineers and foremen, all the extensive works undertaken in that country, and no nation can more easily, or on more favourable terms, furnish disciplined armies, of robust, active, and intelligent workmen, equally fit for the construction of canals, for hydraulic and for agricultural operations.[2] But what is of greater moment, and indeed alone deserves the consideration of a people who have the fortunate custom of interesting themselves in their political affairs, is the apprehension conscientiously entertained by statesmen, whose right and whose duty it is to ask themselves and maturely to consider:— 1. Whether shortening the distance by 3000 leagues for all the countries of Northern Europe, and by 3400 leagues on an average for the ports of the Mediterranean, including Malta, may not in future, in case of war, menace the safety of the British possessions in India. 2. Whether the commercial and maritime relations of Great Britain will not be disadvantageously affected by the opening of a new route, which, while shortening the distance for her own navigation, will at the same time facilitate and increase the navigation of all other nations towards the extreme East. The following passage from a recent publication replies to these objections:— “The power in possession of Aden opens and shuts at its will the Red Sea, and if it is true that the influence of nations and governments chiefly depends on the good they can do to their friends and the harm they can do to their enemies, that revolution would be of no slight advantage to England which would lead the principal current of the world’s commerce under the guns of her ships and the batteries of her fortresses. Besides, is it from the naval armaments of the Mediterranean that England has most reason to fear an invasion of India? It requires no more than ordinary foresight to perceive, that if her Indian possessions were ever seriously threatened, it could only be from Russia by land, and from North America by sea. In either case, the safety of her possessions would depend on the shortening of her line of operations.