§ MR. FRESHFIELDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can explain how it happened that, in reprinting the Papers relating to the Suez Canal, under the Order of the House of the 16th July last, the Convention between the Khedive of Egypt and M. Ferdinand de Lesseps of the 23rd April, 1869, which was one of the documents comprised among the Papers ordered to be reprinted, was excluded from the Papers actually returned, and laid upon the Table of the House; whether the Convention so omitted contained an article in French to the subjoined effect:—Art. 3. By consent of both parties it is understood that the Company has no other object but the working, management, and development of the Maritime Canal. It therefore returns to the common rights, and renounces every exceptional faculty or special privilege; whether, by subsequent articles in the same Convention, the Company cedes to the Khedive lands dependent on the Canal, and other properties; and, whether, in consideration of these arrangements, the Khedive paid to the Company the sum of thirty millions of francs in the manner set forth, the receipt of which was acknowledged under the hand of M. Ferdinand de Lesseps?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICESir, the Paper referred to was not laid by the Foreign Office as a Command Paper, but was a reprint, ordered by the House, of a portion of Parliamentary Paper C. 1,416 of 1876, in accordance with an undertaking given on the 13th of July by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would cause to be reprinted the documents he had quoted in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon. The Convention of April 23, 1869, is in the original Blue Book, of which I placed 10 copies in the Library of the House.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, that there was an Order of the House that the Paper relating to the Suez Canal, "Egypt, No. 6, 1876," presented on the 17th February, 1876, should be reprinted. He wished to ask the Speaker whether, in response to an Order of that kind, a Public Department was entitled to furnish a portion of those Papers only?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that he was not responsible for the omission of the Paper in question. The information which he had given was information which he had obtained, out of respect to the hon. Member, from the Authorities of the House. He was responsible only for the original Papers which were laid on the Table.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUER (Mr. GUILDERS)said, that if anyone was responsible for the printing of the Papers he was. He was asked some time ago by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon upon what documents a certain statement was founded, and he quoted the documents in question. He was then asked whether the Government would consent to reprint those particular Papers which formed part of a Blue Book, and he assented. No formal Motion was made on the subject, and the Clerks at the Table took down what passed with a view to the reprint of the Papers he had named. The particular Papers which the Government were asked to reprint were accordingly reprinted, and he had thus fulfilled his pledge. It was well understood at the time that it would not be convenient to reprint the whole Blue Book, as this would have involved delay.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked whether it was not a breach of Privilege, 1750 when a Return was ordered to be made by the House, to make what was practically a falsified Return? He maintained that the present Return deserved that epithet, because the full Papers were not given.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe point is not strictly one of Order. The Question of the hon. Gentleman I cannot possibly answer without an examination of the Papers, and I have not examined them. Whether the Order of the House has been obeyed fully or not is a matter for the consideration of the House.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFIs not a Question of this kind a Question of Privilege?
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, it was a question of fact if the Order of the House had been obeyed, and was for the House to consider.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFgave Notice that he should draw attention to the matter on the Motion for the Third Beading of the Appropriation Bill.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not disclose a very gross irregularity—namely, that without Motion made, and simply on a note taken by the Clerk at the Table, certain Papers had been printed, and distributed as Parliamentary Papers?
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the Question was not one for the Chair to determine. If the House should think that a Member had not acted as he ought towards it, the matter could be made the subject of a Motion.
§ MR. FRESHFIELDasked how it was that a Return, which purported to be a Return of the Papers marked "Egypt, No. 6, 1876," did not contain all the Papers in that Blue Book.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUEE (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he was very sorry if he was supposed to have done anything irregular. All he had to do in the matter was to see that his promise that certain Papers should be reprinted was carried out, and that he had done. Having named some particular Papers in his reply to a Question, he was asked whether they might be reprinted, and he replied that he would have no objection, if they were worth reprinting, and he undertook to see that this was done. He had nothing to do with the words of the Motion ordering the reprint.
§ MR. FRESHFIELDsaid, that the Return which had been made was not in accordance with the Order of the House. Did the right hon. Gentleman intend to complete the Return? He asked that Question, because he knew that great inconvenience had resulted in consequence of the nonappearance of all the Papers. Everyone was most anxious to know what the real facts were. [Cries of "Order!"]
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he must repeat that he was not responsible for the Motion for the reprint. All he was responsible for was seeing that the Papers he quoted from were reprinted, and that had been done. He had no objection whatever to the rest of the Papers being reprinted, nor, so far as he was aware, had anyone else; and the only question which arose at the time was the delay which would be occasioned if the whole were reprinted.
§ MR. FRESHFIELDThe document omitted is a Convention of the utmost importance, by which M. de Lesseps renounced exclusive rights in the Isthmus of Suez. [Cries of "Order!"]
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFI wish to ask whether, considering the document that was suppressed was one—— [Cries of"Order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKER,interposing, observed that the hon. Member was now referring to a matter of controversy.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFI would ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will reprint the whole of those Papers, including the Convention tending to show that M. de Lesseps had no exclusive monopoly?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDEES)The hon. Member imports into his Question a matter of controversy on which I say nothing; but I shall arrange with my noble Friend that the whole of the Papers shall be reprinted.