§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What course he intends to pursue in order to bring the question of the new provisional arrangement under the consideration of the House; and, whether he can say when it will be brought forward?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)Mr. Speaker, the course I propose to pursue is that which is usual in such cases—namely, to obtain authority in Committee of the Whole House for charging on the Consolidated Fund a sum not exceeding the advance we have provisionally agreed to make to the Company. On that Vote the whole question must come before the House. As to the second part of the Question, I can say nothing until we approach the conclusion of the Committee stage on the two Agricultural Holdings Bills.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will give the reference to the instruments under which it is held that the Suez Canal Company has an exclusive right to cut through the Isthmus?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)Sir, the Instruments are the concessions of the Viceroy of Egypt, dated at Cario, the 30th November, 1854, and the 5th of January, 1856; the Convention of the 22nd of February, 1866, reciting them, and confirming them with certain amendments which do not touch this point; and the Firman of the Sultan of the 19th of March, 1866, ratifying that Convention. They are to be found at pages 1, 4, 34, and 44 of Parliamentary Paper, Egypt, No. 6, c. 1,416, of 1876.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEI beg to give Notice that it is my intention, when the proposition is made by the right hon. Gentleman, to divide and take the sense of the House against the proposals of the Government. I give this Notice subject in all humility to the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett). I do not think the time mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for taking the Vote—namely, after the Committee on the two Agricultural Holdings Bills—will be very convenient, and I hope an earlier time will be given. As the matter is one of the greatest importance, and ought not to be left till the end of the Session, I shall renew the Question as to the time on Monday.
§ MR. GIBSONWill the Chancellor of the Exchequer consider the expediency of printing and circulating the documents relating to this question in a separate form?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)These documents are very lengthy. They are in the Library at the disposal of hon. Members. However, I will consider whether they are worth reprinting.
§ MR. BOURKEMay I ask a Question of the Prime Minister, arising out of the answer given yesterday on the subject of the concession? The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that he said yesterday that it was not certain that the land which M. de Lesseps possesses is sufficient to enable him to make this second Canal; and that being so, and the land being the property of the 1353 Egyptian Government, it would be necessary for him not to acquire a new political concession—that is the point—but to acquire land from the Egyptian Government for the purpose. That, the right hon. Gentleman said, would be a proper and primary subject of any negotiation which would be necessary for the construction of a second Canal. In the preliminary arrangement which was communicated to the House the day before yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as having been come to between Her Majesty's Government and the Canal Company, I find it is stated that Her Majesty's Government are to use their good offices to obtain the necessary concessions for the land required for the new Canal and its approaches, for the Sweetwater Canal between Ismailia and Port Said, and for the extension of the term of the original concession for so many years as will make a term of 99 years from the date of the completion of the second Canal. I want to know whether Her Majesty's Government are still of opinion that no political concession is necessary, as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned yesterday, or whether it is the fact that this new Canal can be made and new rights be given over it without any political concession?
MR. GLADSTONESir, it appears to me to be rather a question of words than anything else. My impression yesterday was that the public believed, or a portion of the public believed, that any demands now to be made upon the Egyptian Government with regard to the privileges for the Canal Company would be analogous in their nature to the original demand, and my object was to dissipate that belief, which I think is erroneous. No doubt the word "concession" has been used in the written document, and I am not aware that I disavowed it yesterday; but I distinguish, or I meant to distinguish, between a concession, such as the original concession, and one like the present. The sale of more land to the Company might be called a concession; the extension of the term of years might, perhaps, still more properly be called a concession, the other being a transaction in the nature of business; but it was distinctly different in our opinion from the nature of the concession originally asked, which involved political questions of high order and importance.
§ MR. BOURKEAre we to understand that the concession which Her Majesty's Government has bound itself to use their good offices to obtain is to be confined entirely to the question of land, and that they contend that the new Canal may be used, and dues levied upon the Canal, without any further concession either from the Porte or the Khedive?
MR. GLADSTONEAs far as we are acquainted with the matter I am not certain that the legal details have been thoroughly investigated. My belief is certainly to the effect the right hon. Gentleman has supposed, that no new concession will be required to levy dues on the new Canal; but that is a mere impression, by which I do not undertake to be absolutely bound. Undoubtedly, I apprehend that the extension of the term would be a political act, and there can be no right to levy dues beyond the term when the Canal will revert absolutely to the Egyptian Government.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEI do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will be in a position to tell us whether it is contemplated that the new Canal should have a separate entrance and a separate exit from the pro-sent Canal, or whether it will be in the nature of a loop-line with the same entrance and exit, but giving an additional line?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)Whether there will be one or two entrances will be a question which will be discussed by the engineers, who are about to consider the whole of the professional questions involved. The works ultimately decided upon will require to be approved by our Directors.
§ MR. BOURKEHas any arrangement been made for a new pier at Port Said, if there is to be a new entrance?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)No, I think not; but that is an engineering question, which will have to be discussed carefully by the engineers.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEThe question of a separate entrance is not an engineering question merely, it is to a certain extent a political question. There is considerable difference between allowing a divergence from the Canal in the nature of a loop line, and a new 1355 departure altogether from a new point of entrance.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)The intention is that the new Canal shall be as far as possible parallel to the present one.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFBut how, if the engineers had not been consulted as to these matters, have the Government been able to fix upon the estimate of £8,000,000, as being the cost of the Canal? It must have been necessary to consult engineers as to the estimate.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)That really is a Question which hardly requires an answer. In all great works a provisional estimate has to be made. In this case we have provided that the sum to be lent shall not exceed £8,000,000. When we come to details, it may cost considerably less. [An Hon. MEMBER: Or more.] It is impossible to go into these details now.
§ MR. CHAPLINI hope I may be allowed to add my appeal to that of my hon. Friend, that the documents to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred may be printed.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)I have already promised to look into the matter.
§ MR. STEWART MACLIVERI wish to ask whether at the meeting held yesterday of the Directors of the Suez Canal Company the proposals of the Government were accepted; and whether, that being so, the contract is not now complete?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)I have no information on the subject of the meeting of the Company; but, even if that had been so, if my hon. Friend will refer to the Papers I have laid on the Table he would see that that does not complete the contract, because the details have to be settled in concert with Her Majesty's Government, and the approval of Parliament will be necessary.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFI should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether M. do Lesseps has contracted to finish the new Canal for £8,000,000; and whether, supposing £8,000,000 is not sufficient, Her Majesty's Government would be liable to 1356 be called upon for any further contribution to complete it, or would the Canal remain unfinished?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)I am afraid the hon. Member has not read the Papers, or he would have seen that it was expressly provided that Her Majesty's Government should not be called upon to contribute more than £8,000,000, and that after that the Canal would have to be completed by the Company with money raised in another way.
§ MR. W. FOWLERI wish to give Notice that on the Motion for a grant of money to carry out the provisional Agreement with the Suez Canal Company, I shall move that no arrangement for the grant of public money for the purpose of assisting the existing Suez Canal Company to complete a second Canal will be satisfactory to this House, unless due provision is thereby made for the protection of British shipping from excessive charges, and for a due representation of British interests on the governing body of the Canal Company.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will inform the House, as to the Suez Canal, what are the total number of directors, and the number of English directors under the proposed arrangement; what are the total number of members on the Comité de Direction, and the number of English members; and what are the total number of members on the Finance Commission, and the number of English members?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEThe total number of Directors is 24, of whom three are English. No change is proposed under the new arrangement. The Comité de Direction is at present composed of five members, and three extra members (membres adjoints), one of whom is English. Eventually this English Director is to fill a vacancy. There are nine members on the Finance Commission, and one extra member; one of the members is Sir John Stokes, and the extra member is Sir R. Rivers Wilson. Under the proposed Agreement the English extra member is to become a member on the first vacancy.