§ MR. GOURLEY,who had given Notice " To ask the Under Secretary of 1300 State for Foreign Affairs, If he can inform the House of the intentions of the Russian Government relative to the observance or otherwise of the Maritime Declaration of Paris; and, if, in conjunction with other European Powers, be will endeavour to promote friendly negotiations with the Russian Government for the purpose of obtaining an assurance that the navigation of the Suez Canal shall not be interfered with by Russian cruisers," said: If the House will permit me by way of explanation, I will state my reasons for giving Notice of this Question, and, if necessary, I will conclude with a Motion. The reason why I put this Notice is because at this moment Egypt is at war with Russia. ["Order, order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is not entitled to enter into any argument. The Question he proposes to put is perfectly plain, and does not require any explanation.
§ MR. GOURLEYCan I not move the Adjournment of the House? ["No, no!"]
§ MR. BOURKEI think I had better answer the last Question of the hon. Member first—that is, that part of it which relates to the Suez Canal. I gave an answer the other day to a Question of a similar character to this, and I have nothing to add to the information I then gave; but I wish now to inform the House that last night I presented sonic Correspondence on the subject, and the hon. Member will find all the information he requires, or, at all events, all the information Her Majesty's Government can give him in that Correspondence. Then, with regard to the first part of the Question—as to what the intentions of the Russian Government are relative to the observance or otherwise of the Maritime Declaration of Paris—I have to inform the hon. Member that a ukase has just been issued at St. Petersburg giving directions to the Russsian authorities as to the mode in which they are to deal with Turkish subjects and Russian subjects in this matter, and also giving directions as to the course the Russian authorities are to pursue in relation to foreign subjects—including, of course, ourselves amongst the number; and in that ukase there will be found a declaration on the part of the St. Petersburg Government to the effect that they mean to observe the Declaration of 1301 Paris, with regard to the Powers which are parties to that Declaration; but, the House is aware, the United States and Spain are not parties to that Declaration. The Russian Government have given notice of their intention to observe the Declaration of Paris also with regard to the United States and Spain. I have a copy of the ukase and shall be very happy to show it to the hon. Member. It will be published in The London Gazette to-night, with a translation.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTI would ask whether Turkey has made any intimation of an intention to observe the Declaration of Paris?
§ MR. BOURKESpeaking from memory, I think the Porte has made such a declaration.
§ MR. GOURLEYThe answer of the hon. Gentleman with regard to the Maritime Declaration of Paris is extremely satisfactory; but his answer with regard to the negotiations conducted by the Government is, to my mind, scarcely so. I desire to state the reasons by which I have been actuated in putting the Question. ["Order"] I mean to conclude with a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member says he will conclude with a Motion. Of course, I am not here to prevent the hon. Member from taking any course which the Forms of the House will permit; but I do not think I should be doing my duty to the House if I did not point out in the strongest manner the serious inconvenience that would arise if an hon. Member should put a Question upon any subject, and, not being satisfied with the Answer he receives, should move the Adjournment of the House.
§ MR. GOURLEYI bow, Sir, to your decision; but I give ,Notice that on the earliest opportunity I shall call the attention of the House to the despatches laid on the Table of the House with regard to the navigation of the Suez Canal.
§ MR. E. JENKINSI beg, Sir, to move the Adjournment of the House. My hon. Friend has put a Question of the deepest importance at this moment to the maritime interests of England, and I earnestly hope that some further explanations on the subject will be given by the Government. This morning one of the weightiest Papers presented to 1302 Parliament this Session has been placed suddenly in the hands of Members, and it so happens that that Paper relates to a subject which is in harmony with the question which my hon. Friend has brought before the House. My hon. Friend stated that he intended to conclude with a Motion. Mr. Speaker, I of course feel with the rest of the House that any expression of opinion which falls from the Chair ought to be received by both sides of the House with the greatest respect; but, on the other hand, I cannot feel the slightest doubt that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) has said, there are occasions on which it is not only proper, but necessary, that Members should break through the ordinary Rules of the House; and I cannot help feeling, Sir, that on the present occasion my hon. Friend was justified in asking the House, as has been done by hon. Members on much less important occasions, that some consideration should be given to him in proposing to move the Adjournment, in order that he might call attention to this important matter. Now, Sir, I had intended to follow my hon. Friend; but, as he has for the moment dropped the question, I wish to call the attention of the House to the importance of the Declaration which is to-day submitted to us. Of course, we have only had a few hours to consider it; but I hope the House will not have any doubt of the importance and gravity of the subject, and of the fact that it is not open to private Members to force on a debate with any rapidity in this House, in any other way except that which is now being adopted. I trust the House will feel that I am not going too far in, for a few moments, asking that some further explanation should proceed from the Ministerial Bench with regard to the Correspondence which has been laid before the House this morning. I do not know whether many hon. Members are aware of the important subjects dealt with in these Papers; but what I wish to call attention to is this—that it appears from these Papers that M. de Lesseps, the managing director of the Suez Canal, went to the Foreign Office on the 10th ultimo and had a very important interview with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who was assisted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the course of that interview a 1303 project was laid before the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman which, looking at it simply upon the surface, and taking the first view of the case, I cannot but feel was a project which was in consistence with the interests of England, and in consistence with the general interests of the Continent of Europe; and it is a matter of the very deepest gravity that Her Majesty's Government should have felt themselves compelled to object to the proposition which was laid before them. That proposition is contained in the second In-closure to Despatch No. 1 printed in these Papers, and I would call attention to the two most important paragraphs of it—
§ MR. PULESTONI rise to Order, Sir. I should like to ask whether it is convenient or prudent to discuss this important matter before hon. Members have had an opportunity of reading the Papers on the subject, which have only been delivered to hon. Members this morning?
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member asks me whether it is convenient to discuss this matter now? I have already stated my opinion on this proceeding, and the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley), in deference to my suggestion, gave Notice that on a future occasion he would bring the matter before the House. The hon. Member for Dundee, however, has thought proper to move the Adjournment of the House, and I have no power to interfere.
§ MR. E. JENKINSI can only assure the House that if I had not felt that it was a matter of the very deepest importance I should not be occupying its attention at this moment, and I trust that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Puleston) will not again intervene with interruptions which are scarcely in accordance with Parliamentary usage.
§ MR. PULESTONI rise to explain that it is because of the grave importance of the matter referred to by the hon. Gentleman that I rose to Order.
§ MR. E. JENKINSIt is only for the purpose of getting a little further information from the Government that I have taken this course. I think we are entitled, when a matter of this importance is before the country, to have full information of what the line is which they wish to take; and, possibly, it may save further debate. The proposal which was 1304 laid before the Government was this—that the Governments of such and such States should agree together to maintain the same liberty to every ship of war and commerce, whatever may be its flag, and without any exception; and there is another proposal which has in view simply the prevention of the landing of men and munitions of war upon any part of the territory of Egypt. Now, Sir, what I would ask from the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is, what is the objection which Her Majesty's Government have taken to the proposal, which appears to me to be so equitable, and to have in view the reserving of the rights of all the Navies of Europe? What Her Majesty's Government say is, that to blockade or interfere with the Suez Canal, or its approaches, would be regarded by them as a menace to India, and as a grave injury to the commerce of the world. Now, Sir, I am not here for one moment to say that Her Majesty's Government are not right in laying it down as a principle that it would be a menace to India, but they go on to refer to the commerce of the world; and I want to understand whether Her Majesty's Government, before they made this declaration, had considered in conference with, or by communications with, other States, how the commerce of the world was to be best protected in relation to the passage of the Suez Canal. I think we are entitled to know whether our Government, occupying as they have always done during the whole of these negotiations, an isolated position in Europe, and simply putting forward British interests in the face of the interests of the whole of Europe, are doing that in this case, or whether there have been any previous communications with other Governments which are undoubtedly concerned, equally concerned with ourselves, in this matter? We, I hope, are determined at all events that the arrogance of British pretensions—["Oh!"]—with regard to the Suez Canal, to the Mediterranean, and to other matters in relation to the Eastern Question, shall not be put forward in such a way as to call upon us the general protest, and, perhaps, the forcible resistance of Europe. ["Oh!"] I have spoken — I hope the House will not be angry with me for having done so—from a conviction that a matter of this importance 1305 does render it necessary that we should have some early and immediate information of what are the real feelings of Her Majesty's Government upon this question; and I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give us some more clear and satisfactory explanation of what the line of their policy is, than anything that we find in these Papers which have been presented. I beg to move the Adjournment of the House.
§ MR. WHALLEYrose to second the Motion. He thought the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Jenkins) entitled to the support of every independent private Member. Unless there were some modifications of the Rules of the House to permit private Members to bring forward important questions, there should be freedom in a case like this to take advantage of the Forms of the House. If it were said that these matters should be left to the Front benches, he replied that those who had had, like him, the advantage of attending public meetings at Birmingham would quite understand that the country did like to see individuals, however insignificant or unpopular they might be in the House, in their places discharging their duties; because it was recognized that in this matter the Leadership of the Opposition was in commission. There was yet to be found that organization of Her Majesty's Opposition which was essential for the protection of the interests of the country. He complained that a very simple Notice for Returns in connection with the Tichborne prosecution which he had placed upon the Paper had been by every possible device and obstruction put off from time to time. He thought the Government ought to give some undertaking that, either by keeping a House at the Evening Sittings, or in some other way, private Members should have an opportunity of bringing forward grievances.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. E. Jenkins.)
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFtrusted the Government would abstain from taking any notice of the question which had been put to them by the hon. Member for Dundee. The question was one of very great importance, and one which might very fairly be brought before the 1306 House; but the Papers had only been issued that morning, and Her Majesty's Government had had no Notice that they would be called upon to make any defence of the despatches which they had written. He thought it scarcely fair that they should be called upon to do so at a moment's notice, and before hon. Members had had time to study the Papers. He fully appreciated the anxiety of the hon. Member for Dundee to bring this question before the House; but he trusted the Government would not upon that occasion enter into any further discussion.
§ MR. T. E. SMITHconcurred in what bad fallen from the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir H. Drummond Wolff). He regarded the Suez Canal as one of the most important subjects of the day; but he felt that it would be most unfair to the Government and the House that either the Government or the House should be called upon to express an opinion at this moment upon Papers which had only been published that morning. However important the subject might be, the House had reason to have every confidence in Her Majesty's Government that they would be willing within a day or two to give ample information upon the question. He earnestly hoped the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would decline to give further information until proper Notice had been given of the Question, and an opportunity afforded to the House to deal with it by a debate.
MR. MAC IVERwished to say a few words in opposition to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Dundee. In his own (Mr. Mac Iver's) and neighbouring constituencies, whose trading interests were really involved in such matters, they felt the most entire confidence in the course the Government had pursued in respect to the Eastern Question, and that it was wrong merely for party purposes to endeavour to raise these delicate questions with no other object than to embarrass the Government. If the Government had done right in the past, and he had not the slightest hesitation in affirming that they had, they should be allowed to conduct these matters in their own way without too much hypercriticism.
§ MR. WHITBREADsaid, he desired to express to his hon. Friend the Mem- 1307 ber for Dundee (Mr. Jenkins) the extreme inconvenience of bringing questions of this sort forward without Notice. The inconvenience was two-fold. First of all, they had not present many Members of the House who would like to take part in the discussion on the very important question that was raised. In the next place, they could not obtain from the Government those full explanations which were required, and they had a sort of desultory conversation in the House which led to no result. If that were the only mischief, it would be enough to prevent questions of this kind being brought forward without Notice; but it must be remembered that this was a subject which was watched very keenly outside the House. Now, when they had a conversation of this character on a subject of importance, without either the question being put in the formal manner in which it ought to be put, and without having that full explanation which the hon. Member required, people outside were apt to be misled into thinking that the House treated this question as not being a large and grave one. They would think the House had not made up its mind on the gravity of the subject, or, for some reason or other, desired to pass it over without notice. It was very hard upon the whole House that they should not have Notice of such an important question being raised. If the question could be said to be one of urgency, his hon. Friend would be justified in raising it by the unusual mode of moving the Adjournment of the House; but he thought his hon. Friend would not for a moment contend that this was a question of such urgency that he could not have given the ordinary Notice of his intention to ask the Question.
§ MR. E. JENKINSsaid, he would gladly, in accordance with what appeared to be the feeling of the House, withdraw the Motion for its Adjournment. He begged to say he had not really raised a debate. He had simply asked a Question—he had asked for further information; and if the Government did not choose to give it, he could not compel them to do so. He thought by the course he had taken he had not laid himself open to the animadversions of his hon. Friend.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTI understand the hon. Member for Sunder- 1308 land (Mr. Gourley) has given Notice of his intention to bring this question before the House. Everyone recognizes the importance of the subject, and I do not suppose that the Government will decline for a moment to give the information that may exist. I hope my hon. Friend will fix an early day on which this matter may be discussed.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.