So also the ‘Quarterly Review,’ which believed the scheme to be “commercially unsound,” and set forth a number of objections to it in categorical form. The great expense of building the masonry harbours at the two outlets of the canal, the difficulties and dangers of the navigation of the Red Sea, the cost of the embankments and the expense of maintenance, the “probability of steamers like the _Great Eastern_ being built to perform the voyage round the Cape to the island of Ceylon in less time than would be occupied in performing that through the Suez Canal,”[160] and the impossibility of ensuring the maintenance of the canal and necessary locks in proper working condition, were marshalled in battle array as a phalanx of obstacles that could not be overcome. But the opponents of the canal went further, and declared that, as a vessel using the canal would take about three days to get through,[161] would require one day to coal, and another to sail from Pelusium to the meridian of Alexandria, the saving on goods, as compared with the railway, would only be one to two days, while on passengers and mails there would be a loss of four to five days. The British shipping interest have had some reason to complain of the way in which they have been treated from first to last by the Suez Canal Company. It is perfectly true that England did not contribute anything to the building of the canal, but English shipping has provided the shareholders with much the larger part of their revenue. France, which practically owns the canal, only contributes from 6 to 9 per cent. of its income, as against from 75 to 80 per cent. of the whole contributed by Great Britain. The shipowners of the latter country not unnaturally thought, some years ago, that they should have a larger share in the management of the canal, and threatened the construction of a rival waterway if the existing canal were not deepened, and other arrangements made for facilitating the shipping that used it. After a good deal of negotiation between the canal company and the shipowners, a commission was appointed in 1884 to determine what new measures, in respect of works and navigation, should be undertaken to enable the ship canal to meet fully the exigencies of a traffic exceeding 10,000,000 tons per annum. Its report was presented in February 1885. The commission considered three methods of increasing the carrying capacity of the canal, namely:—(1) widening the existing canal; (2) construction of a second canal; and (3) doubling the capacity of the canal by a combination of the first two methods.