HC Deb 13 August 1883 vol 283 cc273-6
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to a telegram, in nearly all the newspapers of the 9th instant, to the following effect:— The Directors of the Suez Canal Company held their monthly meeting in Paris yesterday, M. de Lesseps presiding, and the three English members of the Board being present. They gave their unqualified approval to the Letter of M. de Lesseps to Mr. Gladstone of the 20th of July; whether the three English Directors concurred in this unqualified approval of a Document which contends that the existing Suez Canal Company enjoys For ninety-nine years the exclusive monopoly of excavating any maritime Canal through the Egyptian isthmus; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government have taken any steps to show to the Canal Company that such expression of opinion on the part of the three British Government Directors of the Canal does not necessarily imply the concurrence of the Government in the contentions of M. de Lesseps?

MR. GLADSTONE

The paragraph which the hon. Gentleman has quoted did attract my attention; but we have had a report of what took place at the meeting, and the language of that paragraph is certainly not accurate. What was asked of the Council of the Suez Canal Company was an approval of the letter generally, which I do not understand would cover anything beyond the general scope of the letter; but a special approval was asked of the last paragraph of the letter, and that last paragraph had no relation to any disputed or disputable question, but referred entirely to the intention to give increased accommodation along the line of the present Canal. With regard to the apprehension of the hon. Gentleman that the acceptance without any protest of this proposal by the British Directors might have committed the British Government, I think he will have seen by this time there was no such committal on the part of the Council itself. However that may be—I do not wish to enter into any argument—the opinions and pledges of the British Government must be taken from their own written and spoken declarations; and I may remind the hon. Gentleman that on the 24th of last month I referred to this subject, and I said I believed that the exclusive power to which reference had been made in these discussions by us was a power to prevent others from piercing the Isthmus, and did not touch the question, either affirmatively or negatively, whether the present Company was authorized without any further concession to make a second Canal.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

said, that, as the right hon. Gentleman had said the Board of Directors were asked to pass a general approval of the whole letter and a special approval of one part of it, he would ask how far the right hon. Gentleman could allow the Canal Company to go under the impression that the general approval of the letter which contained the words he had quoted was concurred in by the British Directors? He would also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any steps would be taken, in accordance with the assurance given by the Secretary of State for War, that the English Directors would be warned not to mix up in political

MR. GLADSTONE

Sir, we shall give such instructions to the English Directors from time to time as may seem to us to be necessary. I think the hon. Gentleman is not quite under a correct impression. He seems to think that the Directors of the Canal Company are under the supposition that every expression and argument of that letter has been adopted by the Company and by its Directors. We have no reason to know or believe that such is the case; and the hon. Gentleman will observe that, if such were the case, the distinction between the general approval given to the letter, as a whole, and the special approval given to the last paragraph would altogether disappear and be of no account.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

asked whether the three English Directors who were charged with the negotiations with the Canal Company, and who in their negotiations pledged themselves to conserve the monopoly of M. de Lesseps and the Company, were entitled, after the decision of the House and after the general expression of feeling in the House and in the country, even to join in a general approval of a letter which contained the words quoted in the Question to the right hon. Gentleman?

MR. GLADSTONE

Sir, they had no character as negotiators whatever, and I am not aware they have done anything which commits the Government.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

asked if they were not negotiators between this country and M. de Lesseps and the Company?

MR. GLADSTONE

Sir, I must distinguish between the two characters. If the hon. Gentleman has a difficulty in distinguishing between the character of these gentlemen as Directors and their character as negotiators, or, at least, the political effect of their action as negotiators, that is a matter which it would have been well to consider at the time they were made Directors, and when the original arrangement was made. So far as the negotiations are concerned in which they were engaged, that matter is now entirely dropped, and their action must now be judged as that of Directors, and not negotiators. I can only repeat I do not believe that by acquiescing in the general acceptance of the scope of M. de Lesseps's letter, they have done anything that in any manner limits or commits the action of the British Government.