THE SUEZ CANAL.
To the Editor of The Times.
Sir,—In the debate on Mr. Chaplin's motion for the adjournment of the House, on the 22nd ult., I expressed the opinion that the popular estimate as to the vital importance of the Suez Canal, especially with reference to our hold upon India, is much exaggerated; and I cited the remarkable progress made in marine engineering the past year or two, as having materially reduced the advantage hitherto possessed by the Canal over the Cape route. The importance, at the present moment, of a correct appreciation of our position in reference to this question, induces me to ask your permission to state my views in some detail, though I shall do so as concisely as I can.
Of the great commercial convenience of the Canal route, especially to Indian ports, there can be but one opinion. The large saving it effects will be seen by the following statement of comparative distances from London, in nautical miles:—
| Via Canal. | Via Cape. | |
| Bombay | 6,330 | 10,595 |
| Madras | 7,330 | 10,830 |
| Calcutta | 7,950 | 11,450 |
| Singapore | 8,345 | 11,670 |
This route has the further advantage of frequent ports of call where bunkers can be replenished—viz. Gibraltar, Malta, Port Said, Aden, and Colombo, which enables steamers of comparatively small size and power to convey cargoes at a minimum cost. The result has been a vast increase in our steam tonnage, and a diversion to the Canal route of the great bulk of our Eastern traffic, so that of the total tonnage passing the Canal in 1881—4,143,683 tons—British merchant shipping represents no less than 3,371,058 tons. Our
