On the 27th of April, Chekib Effendi, the Ottoman Minister in London, submitted to Lord Palmerston a new plan[121], which was little better than the first: the Porte offered to confer the Government of Egypt, after the death of Mehemet Ali, either on Ibrahim Pacha or any other son that Mehemet Ali might select, on condition that afterwards, the right of selection should devolve on the Porte; if that was not approved of, it was proposed that one of his descendants should be chosen by the members of his family and by the chief people of the country, and proposed to the Sublime Porte, which choice should be confirmed, and the person nominated by the Sultan; the other articles remained the same. Who could have put this wild scheme into the heads of the Divan, it is not easy to conceive; this plan would certainly have settled the succession on Ibrahim Pacha, but on failure it would have given rise to intrigues without measure, and also have put the dignity of the Porte in a worse position than at once fixing the hereditary succession in the family of Mehemet Ali as he wished. The Plenipotentiaries met in London on the 10th of May, and very adroitly passed over the new proposition of Chekib, and repeated their opinion that the succession should go in the right line, from father to son. As to the tribute, they recommended that it should be fixed at a stated sum, subject to revision at certain periods, and they conceived that the difficulty which had arisen relative to promotion, could only be considered as of secondary importance. They finish by saying that they persist in their views communicated to the Porte in the Collective Notes of the 30th of January, 13th of March, and by the Protocol of the 5th of March[120], and that they look upon the submission formally made by Mehemet Ali as absolute, and in consequence the Turco-Egyptian question terminated[122]. Footnote 106: See _Levant Papers_, Part III., p. 235. Footnote 107: See Vol. I., p. 249; Vol. II., p. 15. Footnote 108: See _Levant Papers_, Part III., p. 241. Footnote 109: Ibid., p. 263. Footnote 110: See _Levant Papers_, Part III., p. 326. Footnote 111: See _Levant Papers_, Part III., p. 321. Footnote 112: See these documents in the _Levant Papers_, Part III., pp. 341, 353. Footnote 113: See _Levant Papers_, Part III., p. 371. Footnote 114: See _Levant Papers_, Part III., p. 372. Footnote 115: Ibid., p. 374. Footnote 116: See _Levant Papers_, Part III., p. 378. Footnote 117: Ibid., p. 364. Footnote 118: See _Levant Papers_, Part III., p. 385. Footnote 119: Ibid., p. 382. Footnote 120: See _Levant Papers_, Part III., p. 389. Footnote 121: See pages 171, 244, 245. Footnote 122: See _Levant Papers_, Part III., p. 404. CHAPTER XX.