[BILL 89.] COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 3 March 1876)

§ MR. RYLANDS
said, he wished to take that opportunity of asking the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to give an explanation of the circumstances under which the correspondence between Sir Daniel Lange and Lord Granville had been laid upon the Table of the House. He presumed it had been done by inadvertence; but, in any case, it was a most objectionable and ill-advised proceeding. The letters of Sir Daniel Lange were of a private and confidential character, and were written to subserve English interests; and in consequence of their publication, that gentleman had been deprived of his position as the British representative of the Suez Canal Company. The motives which actuated Sir Daniel Lange were distinctly expressed in one of his letters, where, in speaking of his co-operation with M. de Lesseps, he said— We have worked together to unite the two seas; he for the glory of France, and I for the interest of England. In 1871, when the Suez Canal Company were in great difficulties for want of sufficient capital. Sir Daniel Lange urged upon M. de Lesseps that he should look to Great Britain for the means of raising additional capital, and with that view, he prepared to concede the entire management of the Canal to English capitalists, retaining, at the same time, his position as President of the Canal in France. Sir Daniel Lange, in his private letter to Lord Granville detailing this interview, stated that— M. de Lesseps recoiled with aversion from this proposition, and declared that he never would he a party to the transfer and management of the Canal to other than French hands, and trusts to the introduction of a few English directors on the French Board, who would share the responsibility and strengthen and uphold its present management in Prance, which would defeat the object [of English influence] sought to be obtained; at the same time giving an appearance of influence, without its actual possession. 1400 Now he (Mr. Rylands) wished to call particular attention to this passage, because it proved that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was not justified in supposing that the offer made by M. de Lesseps, to place three English directors upon the Board, was dictated by any desire to promote English influence, but on the contrary, as he himself said in 1871, it was "to give an appearance of influence, without its actual possession." And it was an account of the communication to Lord Granville of this important conversation between himself and M. de Lesseps, that Sir Daniel Lange had been summarily dismissed from his post: he had been sacrificed simply in consequence of his devotion to British interests, and of the indiscretion of the Foreign Office in publishing his confidential letters. But if that were so, what course did the Government intend taking in the matter? The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) claimed that the purchase of these shares would give England great influence in the management of the Canal; but would it enable the Government to insist upon the re-instalment of Sir Daniel Lange in his office? That was a fair test of the influence which the transaction carried with it; but, in any case, it was a remarkable fact, that immediately after our having paid these £4,000,000, a gentleman, devoted to English interests, was summarily dismissed from his office by the President of the Canal Company, simply because he had sought to promote those interests. Before sitting down, there was another point to which he (Mr. Rylands) wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In Lord Derby's despatch of December 6th, he instructed Major General Stanton to remind the Khedive, in courteous terms, that the 5 per cent interest on the purchase money of the Suez Canal shares, as provided in the contract signed on the 25th November, formed a "primary charge "on the revenues of Egypt; and in his reply, General Stanton said that he had reminded His Highness that the 5 per cent guaranteed interest was a primary charge upon the revenues of Egypt; but, on referring to the contract of the 25th November, the 5 per cent was made simply an ordinary charge on the revenues of Egypt; and he (Mr. Rylands) wished to know on what grounds Lord Derby had assumed that it was a pri- 1401 mary charge upon the Egyptian revenues?

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
repeated the explanation which he stated he had already given with reference to the sum of £200,000 forming a primary charge upon the revenues of Egypt. With regard to the correspondence of Sir Daniel Lange, it was not a matter upon which he had any official knowledge.

§ MR. DISRAELI
said, that the Government had received no communication from Sir Daniel Lange, and he therefore did not know what he complained of, as no Member of the Government was in possession of any statement from him. With regard to the correspondence addressed to Lord Granville, it was published by no inadvertence, but according to the recognized rules which regulated the publication of despatches.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, that the question as it affected Sir Daniel Lange could not be adequately discussed upon a clause in the Bill before the House, and he would, therefore, postpone what he had to say in the matter. The dismissal of that gentleman was looked upon as a matter of great importance, and he should have something to say about it on a future day. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the letters of Sir Daniel Lange had been published in due course; but as he had been in communication for some 15 years with that gentleman on matters connected with the Suez Canal, he could state that these letters addressed to the Foreign Secretary were marked "private and confidential." Yet it now appeared from the statement of the Prime Minister that it was the regular course to publish such letters without even first communicating with the writer.

§ MR. DISRAELI
said, that they were not sent to the present Government, but were addressed to Lord Granville.

MR. GLADSTONE
Yes, but they were addressed to him as Foreign Secretary. Lord Palmerston used to say that you took over a Government as you did a racehorse, "with all its engagements." He could not but think that these letters must have been published by inadvertence. [Mr. DISRAELI: I beg your pardon. It was no inadvertence.] If so, it could not be too widely trumpeted forth that when a person unconnected with the Foreign Office, and not under 1402 its superintendence or control, wrote to the Foreign Secretary he must expect to see his letters printed and laid before Parliament without communication with him and although his letters might be marked "private and confidential." This must be matter for further consideration, because the dismissal of Sir Daniel Lange bore upon the question of the great interest and influence we were said to have acquired by the purchase of the Canal. He did not approve the manner in which the money was proposed to be raised under the Bill, because it involved the principle of a Sinking Fund without previous appropriation, which had been so often tried and failed. That point, however, was raised last year, and as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had carried his measure, there was no great public object to be served by discussing the same question substantially on the present occasion. Would it not be well to state in the Act that the power of borrowing was not to be exercised in the open market? He presumed it was intended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this should be a domestic transaction between the National Debt Office and the Exchequer, and it might be an advantage to embody that in the Bill. He understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state that he was about to keep this matter out of the annual accounts, but he saw nothing in the Bill to that effect, and he trusted that his right hon. Friend had altered his mind. It was essential that the entire expenditure of the country should be brought within the purview of Parliament, and he trusted that the £200,000 would distinctly appear in the annual account.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that when he spoke of keeping outside the finances of the year he used a misleading phrase, and did not propose to raise £4,000,000 by a charge upon taxation within the year, or to create stock, but he considered the payments would be such as virtually to provide the sums required. In point of fact, as the Bill was drawn, the matter would come regularly on the accounts of the year; and when he produced the other Bill of which he spoke it would be seen that it prescribed a form for a Return to be laid before Parliament which would show the nature of the transaction and the amount paid off from year to year. It might happen 1403 that in some years the £200,000 would not be forthcoming, and in that case it would be a charge upon the revenues of the year, and the £200,000 to be received from Egypt would be carried to miscellaneous revenue. It was certainly intended that these should be domestic transactions. At present the National Debt Commissioners were in funds, as money they had advanced for the purpose of the Irish Church was being returned and was seeking investment, and it would be convenient to make use of this money. Although strictly bonds would not be obtainable to be negotiated, and it was intended the National Debt Commissioners should hold them, it would not be convenient so to tie them up as to render their negotiation absolutely impossible. The proposal was that sums making up the £4,000,000 should be received from the Commissioners at such times as it would be convenient to them to pay them, and the payment would be made on three instalments, two of £1,500,000, and the last of £1,000,000.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, it was calculated the bonds would be redeemed in about 35 years, and it was proposed that a certain sum should be redeemed every year.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
said, that a statement ought to be produced showing the intended operation of the scheme.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he would promise that the scheme should be laid before Parliament.