§ MR. LABOUCHEREasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he has before him any Report as to the feasibility of a Ship Canal by way of the Red Sea, and any estimate of the cost of such a Canal; whether M. de Lesseps makes it a sine quâ non of his assent to any concessions that a maximum sum of £8,000,000 should be lent by this Country to the Suez Canal Company; and, whether, in his negotiations with M. de Lesseps, he will take care to insert stipulations securing the Egyptian fellahs against all direct or indirect forced labour in the event of a second Canal being made across the Isthmus of Suez, and providing for the well-being and the adequate remumeration of those who may be employed in the manual labour of making the said canal?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)In reply to my hon. Friend's first Question, I have to say that I have heard of a scheme for a Ship Canal, not to the Gulf of Suez at all, but passing through Palestine and by the Dead Sea to the Gulf of Akaba, in the Red Sea; but the scheme has not been brought before me, at any rate, in any tangible form. As to the second Question, I do not think it would be convenient to state the relative importance which either we or M. de Lesseps attach to any particular branch of the Agreement, at any rate in answer to a Question. In debate, of course, these matters could be brought up. As to the third Question, M. de Lesseps has no longer any right to employ forced labour, nor have we any reason to believe that any attempt will be made to resort to it. The Representatives of the Government on the Board will be instructed to secure this.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether it is to be understood that M. de Lesseps has himself the exclusive right to make a Canal or Canals across the Isthmus of Suez, or that this right is possessed by the Suez Canal Company?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)My hon. Friend has asked me a Question which appears to assume that the rights he refers to must necessarily be vested solely either in M. de Lesseps or the Canal Company. 1514 The interests of M. de Lesseps and the Company appear to be so intimately connected that I cannot accept this view without much qualification; and I could not safely answer my hon. Friend without entering upon explanations which cannot be given within the limits of an answer to a Question. I feel that it may be injurious to public interests to give any insufficient or limited explanation which may be open to misconstruction. I would take this opportunity of saying that the legal advice the Government have received on the subject has been not only that of the Law Officers, but also of the Lord Chancellor.
§ MR. BOURKECan the hon. and learned Gentleman give the House any reference to any public document in which M. de Lesseps has claimed the exclusive right to make a Canal or Canals across the Isthmus of Suez, either by himself or by a Company?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir. HENRY JAMES)Every Paper in connection with this subject is, I believe, before the House, and the right hon. Gentleman can look at them. If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to them, he will be able to answer the Question himself better than I can.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFIn reference to the reply which the hon. and learned Attorney General has just given, may I ask him whether the Lord Chancellor has given his opinion as Lord Chancellor, or as a Member of the Government, or as a Law Officer of the Government. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL made no reply.] If the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot answer the Question now, I will repeat it on a future occasion.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)Perhaps it would be convenient for me to state, in reference to the suggestion that was made to me on Friday as to the re-printing of certain Papers, that I have directed that those Papers shall be reprinted.
§ MR. BOURKEI should like to know whether the Paper "Egypt No, 6, 1876," is to be re-printed? It contains the Firmans and the concessions with regard to the Suez Canal made to the late Government.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)The Paper "Egypt, No. 6, 1876," was laid upon 1515 the Table in 1876; and, as I have stated, the Papers and the concessions to which the hon. Member refers will be re-printed in extenso.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEHow soon will that be done?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)I have ordered that the printing shall be proceeded with as speedily as possible.
§ MR. BOURKEI am quite sure it would be for the convenience of the House if "Egypt, No. 6, 1876" were to be distributed immediately to hon. Members. It practically contains all the information that is necessary upon this subject.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)I have not the least objection, if there are copies enough to distribute. But that Paper contains a great deal that does not bear upon this question at all.
§ MR. BOURKEVery little.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)A great deal, I think. I stated on Friday the Papers which did bear upon the subject.
§ MR. GIBSONWill these documents show whether M. de Lesseps, on behalf of the Company, has made this exclusive claim?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)The Papers will speak for themselves.
§ MR. A. ELLIOT (for Mr. FRANCIS BUXTON)asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the "agreement" as to the new Suez Canal, Whether it is intended by Clause 6 that one of the English Directors shall be appointed Vice President of the Company as soon as a vacancy occurs on the Board of Directors, or only when a vacancy occurs in the Vice Presidency itself; who is the present Vice President, and is there any likelihood of his speedy retirement; whether the English officer who, according to Clause 9, is to be appointed "Inspecteur de la Navigation," is to have the inspection of the present Canal at once, or only of the proposed Canal when made; what will be his official head-quarters; and, what powers is he to have?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)In reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that the appointment will take place when a vacancy occurs among the Vice Presidents. There 1516 are three Vice Presidents by the Statutes, and they vacate their Office every year. The "Inspecteur de la Navigation" will be appointed immediately on the completion of the Agreement, and his duties will have reference to the present Canal. Those duties will be at once defined in agreement with the English Directors, and expressed in the Resolution of the Conseil d'Administration, which will be the extension of the Provisional Agreement. His official head-quarters will be on the Canal, and he will probably reside at Port said; but upon that I can give no undertaking.
§ MR. M'COANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the proposed arrangement with the Suez Canal Company for the construction of a second Canal is based on the recognition by Her Majesty's Government of the right of monopoly claimed by M. do Lesseps under his concession from said Pacha; whether the concession for a second Canal will, to be valid, require to be ratified by the Sultan, as was necessary in the case of that under which the existing channel was constructed; whether the new Canal will, like the old one, be subject to Egyptian law, and to the ultimate sovereignty of the Porte; whether any, and what, security or guarantee will be given by the Canal Company for the repayment of the proposed loan of £8,000,000; and, whether such security will be subject to the same conditions of jurisdiction and sovereignty as attach to the existing Canal?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEThe first of these Questions, Sir, was answered by the Prime Minister on Monday last. In reply to the second Question, the answer must depend as to how far the second Canal is held to be a separate undertaking, requiring a second concession, or only to involve the sale of additional land for the extension of the first and existing Canal. The new Canal will have the same legal status as the first. The loan of £8,000,000 will rank pari passu with the other loans of the Company before the share capital. The conditions of Sovereignty and jurisdiction will be the same as attach to the existing Canal.
§ MR. M'COANIs it not a fact that the concession of 1854 gives M. de Lesseps the right to construct only one Canal?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEThat is a Question which I must ask the hon. Member to place upon the Paper.
§ MR. BROADHURSTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If it is a fact that the Government of Mr. Disraeli in 1875 consented to Great Britain being represented by three British Directors on the Board of twenty-four Directors which manages the Suez Canal Company?
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTBefore the noble Lord answers that Question, I should like to ask him whether it is not a fact that the amount of English capital under the proposed arrangement will be £12,000,000 instead of £4,000,000; whether the £4,000,000 invested by Lord Beaconsfield is not now worth more than double its original value; and whether the purchase by Lord Beaconsfield of £4,000,000 of Stock in 1876 did not save the Egyptian Government from bankruptcy?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEI cannot answer the Question of the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) without Notice. The Question upon the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) I have to answer in the affirmative. The right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) stated the fact to the House in February, 1876; and in reply to a Question as to the influence thereby acquired in the administration of the Canal endorsed the words of the Foreign Secretary, that—
If anybody doubts that the possessor of two-fifths of the Shares in this Canal obtains no influence, it is as difficult to argue with him as with a man who says that two and two do not make four.The right hon. Baronet then added—It is not merely the number of votes our representatives may possess which will give them influence, but the fact that they will be present as the representatives of England, and, as has been well said, votes in such cases are not only counted but weighed."—(3 Hansard, [227], 283–4.)
§ MR. BOURKE,who had the following Question on the Paper:—namely—
To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, If he can now state whether Her Majesty's Government has come to any arrangement with the Suez Company, and what is the nature of that arrangement?said, that be had put that Question on 1518 the Paper 10 days ago, and, perhaps, the time had passed for answering it; but if the Prime Minister had any further information to give they would be glad to hear it.
MR. GLADSTONEThe right hon. Gentleman himself has said that the time is past for the Question; and I must say I think it would be very convenient if hon. Members, especially those who have held Office, having given Notice of a Question to a Member of the Government, would be kind enough, when they deem that it is unnecessary to put it, to intimate that it has been withdrawn.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEThe Question which my right hon. Friend placed upon the Paper before the statement had been made by the Government was one of importance, but one which is rendered obsolete by the state of the case. What my right hon. Friend substituted was the Question whether Her Majesty's Government have any further information, or whether they are prepared now to proceed upon the lines upon which they have invited the House to proceed?
MR. GLADSTONEI beg pardon. The right hon. Gentleman has added words of great importance to the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bourke) which that right hon. Gentleman did not use. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn did not ask whether the Government were prepared to proceed upon the lines which they proposed. Those are the important words added by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon. Of course, that is a Question which it is perfectly legitimate to put; but it is for the Government to consider at what time they should think it consistent with the public interest to answer that Question. The right hon. Gentleman will, however, see that it is a Question which had better have been put with Notice than without Notice. I suppose I had better answer the Question which follows.
§ MR. BOURKEI put down this Question some days ago, after a conference with Members of Her Majesty's Government; and, considering that it was only on Friday last that we received the information which makes this Question now obsolete, I think that the observations of the right hon. Gentleman 1519 are entirely uncalled for and undeserved. I now, Sir, beg to ask the next Question—namely, What Courts of Law will have jurisdiction over the proposed new Suez Canal which is to be made with British capital; and what security will there he for the completion of the proposed new Canal?
MR. GLADSTONEThe right hon. Gentleman appears to say that it is his opinion, when a Gentleman has put down a Question to a Minister which has become obsolete, it is not his duty to make any intimation to that Minister. Sir, I differ from that opinion. With reference to the Question, the jurisdiction over the proposed new Suez Canal would, according to the Agreement as it stands, be exactly the same as that over the existing Canal. With respect to the second part of the Question—what security there will be for the completion of the proposed new Canal—I apprehend that the security, as it stands, will be upon the whole estate and effects of the Company prior to the division of any profits of the Company. But, of course, it is in the power of Parliament to require any further specification, or to attach any conditions that they please to that arrangement.
§ MR. BOURKEThat is no answer to my Question. In consequence of the reply I have received, I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is not aware that it has been a disputed point what Courts have jurisdiction over the Suez Canal? It was with a view to obtain some opinion from the Government on the question that I put down this Question; and it is no answer for this House to receive from the right hon. Gentleman—[Cries of "Order!"] Then I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman does not know that these disputes have existed for some time, and that M. de Lesseps himself has disputed, not only the rights of the Courts in Paris, but of those in Egypt and of the Consular Courts?
MR. GLADSTONEThese are Questions which, as to my knowledge on the subject, have nothing whatever to do with the issue now before us. What I have desired to convey is that the question of jurisdiction is entirely untouched by the Agreement with M. de Lesseps.
§ MR. BOURKEThat is not an answer to my Question. ["Order."]