§ MR. BOURKEsaid, that the Prime Minister had expressed surprise that his right hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford North-cote) had not made mention of the debate on the Suez Canal; and he appeared to be perfectly satisfied with the result of that debate. There were many Members on his (Mr. Bourke's) side of the House who would have been pleased if a direct Vote of Censure had been moved on that occasion; but their regret at the failure in that respect was, to a certain extent, mitigated when they found that a supporter of the Government proposed himself to move what amounted practically to a Vote of Censure, and that the Government were themselves actually prepared to support that Vote. The Resolution proposed by the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) certainly amounted to a Vote of Censure, for he proposed that the House should not pledge itself to a particular measure when the Government had just before pledged themselves to a direct course which the House repudiated. The right hon. Gentleman said that at the time of the purchase of the Suez Canal shares the then existing Government were not aware of the claim of M. de Lesseps to a monopoly. It was very difficult to say whether the Government were aware of it or not; but the Foreign Office was then certainly in possession of the despatches in which the claim was made, and it was repudiated by the Representatives of that Office (Colonel Staunton and Sir Henry Elliot), who treated it as absurd and not worthy the attention of the Government. The claim was put forward in the most shadowy way by M. de Lesseps, perhaps for the purpose of trying what the credulity of Her Majesty's Government would bring forth; but we were represented by very able agents, who at once repudiated the claim, and no more was heard of it. Then the Prime Minister said—"If this monopoly was not claimed, why did you buy the Suez Canal shares?" This showed an extraordinary want of information on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. If the right hon. Gentle- 1545 man would apply himself to the most elementary principles of the purchase of those shares he would see that it would have been impossible for the question to be raised at that time. The negotiations for the purchase of the shares were entered into by Her Majesty's late Government, not with M. de Lesseps, but with the Khedive, who was the holder of those shares. They were bought for political considerations, and they had been a great success from a political point of view. No one had dared to say anything in the last debate against the policy of the purchase of the shares, although a great deal was heard at Mid Lothian about the bargain being an unfortunate and foolish one, both commercially and politically. Every commercial man knew that if the Government were to sell the shares tomorrow, they would gain £7,000,000 or £8,000,000. One of the most regrettable results of the arrangement recently entered into by the Government with M. de Lesseps was that it left in a most unsatisfactory position negotiations which might be set on foot by different persons in England for a second Canal. As long as there was only one Canal, and as long as that Canal was in the hands of the French Company, so long would it be impossible for the commercial classes of this country and of the world to obtain any redress. In fact, the only means of redress was by a second Canal either in esse or in posse. Supposing a second Canal were decided upon, and £8,000,000 or £9,000,000 had been advanced by this country, in seven years the traffic would amount to 12,000,000 tons. Six million tons at 6 francs per ton—this would produce 30,000,000 francs, or £1,200,000 revenue. If the expenditure had been £300,000, this would leave a balance of £900,000, and in about 14 years this would form a Sinking Fund, which would redeem the whole cost of the Canal. As long as a monopoly was recognized by Her Majesty's Government, so long would there be an end of all hope of any improvement in the way in which the Suez Canal was conducted. He had no desire to take away any of the just rights of M. de Lesseps. Let M. de Lesseps be treated in a most liberal manner. He had performed a great service to commerce; but for him to set up this monopoly, which was never contemplated at the time the Canal was 1546 made, was an intention utterly inconsistent with the greatness of those views which he claimed for himself when he recognized that the work which he had performed had been of great service to the world.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman opposite had alluded more particularly to the affairs of the Suez Canal, and had not attempted to follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) in that wide survey of mankind from China to Peru which he had laid before the House. He desired, in the first place, to answer the right hon. Gentleman upon the specific points he had raised. First of all, with regard to the monopoly of the Suez Canal, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that, in his opinion, the Prime Minister was not justified in the observations which he made in regard to the transactions of the year 1872, because in that year, as the Papers presented to Parliament showed, not merely, as the Prime Minister stated, was the claim of M. de Lesseps brought to the notice of the Foreign Office, but also it was clearly shown that the Foreign Office did not agree to the view of M. do Lesseps; and that being so, although in the year 1872 the present Prime Minister was Prime Minister, nevertheless in the year 1875 the successors of the right hon. Gentleman were justified in saying that the view of M. de Lesseps had been repudiated by the Government of the country, and that, therefore, they were not under any obligation to notice it then. He thought there was a fundamental misconception on the part of the right hon. Gentleman of what was said by the Prime Minister, who pointed out not merely that the monopoly claimed by M. de Lesseps in the recent negotiations had been claimed by him in 1872, but that a monopoly of something far more had been claimed—namely, an exclusive monopoly of all water communication between the Red Sea and the Mediterranean. It was that large and exclusive monopoly that they found repudiated. The reply to the right hon. Gentleman's argument that the purchase was made from the Khedive, and that M. de Lesseps had no opportunity of advancing his claim, was that in a matter of that kind the Government must have had the whole of this transaction, with all its circum- 1547 stances and conditions, before them. It Lad been their duty to consider these subjects; and he would even be prepared to say this—that they did consider M. de Lesseps had an exclusive right. If the contention which was now held by the Party opposite was sound, then what was to be thought of their action in putting money into an enterprize the value of which might be reduced one-half, or almost to nothing, by the making of another Canal or other Canals through the Isthmus of Suez; in that case they were guilty, according to their own showing, of what they called an act of financial folly. He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) was anxious not to accuse them of that; but, at the same time, he must ask them to abandon a line of argument which would compel him to accuse them of that which he had no wish to accuse them of. He was perfectly satisfied to meet the hon. Member for Eye on his own ground, and begged most emphatically to deny that the relations between this country and Germany were of anything but the most satisfactory character. At no period of history had the relations of England and the German Powers been more cordial than now. He had no wish to talk about alliances and understandings with particular Powers. There was no reason for this country to be thinking or talking about exclusive alliances; and when the hon. Member detected signs of some unfortunate change of policy he could assure him that he was entirely mistaken. The hon. Member had attempted to pay him certain compliments at the expense of his Predecessor in Office; but he was sure he was expressing the feeling of the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) when he declined to talk about a policy being the policy of one or the other. The policy was that of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville), under whom they had both had the honour to serve; and he felt perfectly certain that his right hon. Friend, as well as himself, had felt it a great advantage to serve under so distinguished a Chief. He believed that his right hon. Friend had never attempted to draw distinctions between France and Germany, and that, acting under the Secretary of State, it was his constant effort to establish perfectly cordial relations with both of those Great Powers.