§ BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he had read Colonel Stanton's despatch of the 14th of September 1872, in which he states, with regard to M. de Lesseps' claim to the exclusive right of ship communication between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea—
A pretension which the Khedive is, however, by no means prepared to admit, as he maintains, and I imagine justly, that no such construction can he attached to the terms of M. de Lesseps' Concession, and that there can he no doubt as to his own right to make canals or carry out any other public work within Egyptian Territory,before he received the deputation of shipowners on the 13th of July this year, and stated, with reference to the monopoly claimed by M. de Lesseps—We (the Government) came to the conclusion that M. de Lesseps, or his Company, had an exclusive right by water through the Isthmus to the Gulf of Suez;and, whether he still adheres to that statement?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)Yes, Sir. When I met a deputation of shipowners in July last, I was cognizant of the Correspondence in 1872, which related to a claim supposed to have been set up by M. de Lesseps for a monopoly of all waterways between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea, both as against the Khedive and any Company. The question discussed with the deputation was not the power of the Khedive to make 62 Government Canals in Egypt, but his power to grant a Concession to an English Company for a parallel Canal through the Isthmus, as urged by several deputations and Memorials of shipowners. It was with reference to this proposal that I used words to the effect—but not the exact words—quoted by the hon. Member, and I see no reason to depart from that statement.