§ MR. VILLIERS STUARTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the words of the Concession from Said Pacha to M. Lesseps, made on the 30th November 1854, are—
Nous avons donné a notre ami M. Ferdinand de Lesseps pouvoir exclusif a l'effet de constituer et diriger une Compagnie Universelle pour le percement de I'Isthme de Suez, I'exploitation d'un passage propre a la grande navigation," &c.;and, whether he understood the Law officers of the Crown to convey anything more than that, in their opinion, an exclusive privilege had been conferred on Monsieur Ferdinand de Lesseps, for the term of his natural life, to form and to preside over a Company for the above purposes?
MR. GLADSTONEIn answer to the Question of my hon. Friend, I have to state that the privileges referred to in the Question do not, according to our view, determine with the life of M. de Lesseps, but pass to the Company formed by him.
§ MR. RITCHIEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will lay upon the Table the instructions given by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the British Suez Canal Directors referred 1907 to in the first paragraph of their report; if he will inform the House whether the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, on the question of the exclusive concession to M. de Lesseps, was asked for and obtained prior or subsequent to the conversations between the British Directors and the President and Vice President of the Suez Canal Company, which, in the second paragraph of their report, the British Directors state resulted in so near an approximation between the views of Her Majesty's Government and those of the President and Vice President of the Suez Canal Company; and, if he could state what were the points of difference which the British Directors, in the fourth paragraph of their report, state remained to be removed at the time of the visit of the Messrs. do Lesseps to London?
MR. GLADSTONESir, to answer the first part of the Question would require a comparison of dates, and I am afraid that I am not able at the moment to do that. I understood that the Question was practically answered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but if I am mistaken I will put myself in a position to answer hereafter. With regard to the last part of the Question, in respect to the points of difference which the British Directors, in the 4th part of their Report, stated remained to be removed at the time of the visit of M. de Lesseps, I do not think it would be possible to give those details. But my right hon. Friend would be able to answer that Question with more authority than I could. I do not think it would be possible to give the details of a long and complicated communication in answer to a Question, although the substance of them might be brought out in debate.
§ MR. RITCHIEsaid, he would repeat the last part of the Question tomorrow.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked, Whether Her Majesty's Government would lay upon the Table a Memorandum containing the reasons which induced Her Majesty's Government to come to the conclusion that M. de Lesseps and his Company had an exclusive concession?
MR. GLADSTONEIt appears to me that to do that would be virtually to produce the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown. We are prepared to defend 1908 that opinion if need be; but we cannot produce it.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFIn most Blue Books despatches sent to the British Ambassadors embody the opinions of the Law Officers, though they were not given as such. I would ask whether Her Majesty's Government refuse to give the House the reasons why they came to the conclusion to which I refer?
MR. GLADSTONEWe shall not refuse to give to the House any reasons; but this is a Question of a somewhat novel kind, and I am not prepared at a moment's notice to establish a precedent for the production of an official document.
§ MR. RITCHIEwished to know whether the Prime Minister saw the same objection to laying before the House the case which was submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown?
§ MR. BOURKEI beg to ask whether any Protocols of these conversations and negotiations with M. de Lesseps and his son have been kept; and, if so, whether, as we have been informed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Instructions were verbal, those Protocols will be presented to the House?
MR. GLADSTONENo, Sir; there are no Protocols, no records of those conversations, which were conducted in the usual manner, and not in the form usual in the case of an International Congress.
§ MR. BOURKEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether anything has passed, during the recent negotiations, as to who is to be the successor to M. Ferdinand de Lesseps, as President of the Suez Canal Company?
MR. GLADSTONESir, nothing has passed during the recent negotiations as to the question who is to be the successor of M. Ferdinand de Lesseps as President of the Canal Company.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can now name a day for submitting the provisional agreement with the Suez Canal Company to the judgment of the House?
MR. GLADSTONESir, the right hon. Gentleman is not unreasonably 1909 desirous to put an end to the suspense of the House upon a question of much public interest at the present moment, and we join with him in that feeling; but, at the same time, as to practically giving effect to his desire, we must have regard to the state of Business and the engagements under which we lie. I mean, with regard to the passing of the two Tenants' Compensation Bills through the stage of Committee in this House. Forming the best judgment we can as to the progress of these Bills, we do not think that they will extend beyond a certain number of days—not a very large number—but I think I had better not define more precisely, for fear that any date which I might name as the extreme limit should be taken for granted as the earliest possible day for finishing the discussion on these Bills. I think, however, that I can meet the substance of the right hon. Gentleman's Question by saying that I will state definitively on Monday the course which the Government propose to pursue with respect to the provisional agreement which has been entered into with M. de Lesseps. As, perhaps, this declaration, taken alone, may not be sufficient, and as there is an apprehension in some quarters, at any rate, that the House may be asked to consider this question at too late a period of the Session, I shall likewise give this assurance to the House—that in no case will we submit the proposition later than some day before the expiration of the present month.
§ BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, before the Heads of the Agreement referring to the second Suez Canal were signed, any communication was made to M. de Lesseps on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to the effect that it admitted his claim to the exclusive right of cutting a second Canal through the Isthmus of Suez, and whether, in fact, the negotiations with M. de Lesseps were throughout conducted on that basis?
MR. GLADSTONEThat is a Question, Sir, with regard to which, I think, an explanation has been already given in "another place," but I will repeat it. No communications in the nature of information or engagement was made to M. de Lesseps in regard to his exclusive rights of cutting a second Canal. The description given by myself in this House, 1910 was given entirely as a matter of explanation to the House with respect to the opinions which we entertain, and the basis, therefore, on which we proceeded in the carrying on of the negotiations which we have had in hand. I may say, of course, that that was drawn from us by the strong objections taken to the plan, which plan was a plan essentially dependent upon the view which we had taken with regard to the privileges of M. de Lesseps.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is true, as stated in the "Times" of June 5th, that Mr. Plunkett, the Secretary of the British Embassy in Paris, attended the annual meeting of the Suez Canal Company on the 4th June "as representative of the English Government;" and, if so, what was the object of his so attending, and what instructions were given to him?
MR. GLADSTONESir, with respect to this Question I have made inquiry in the proper quarters, and in substance I believe I may say that Mr. Plunkett did so attend, and that he so attended under the arrangement made by the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues. Consequently, the right hon. Gentleman should be quite as well able to answer this Question as I am. There is nothing unusual, therefore, in the attendance. The question of the right of the country to be represented and to vote at the meetings was raised under the late Government at the time, or about the time, of the purchase of the shares in the Suez Canal, and an arrangement was made in 1877 whereby Her Majesty's Government are entitled, as shareholders, to the right of deliberation and vote, and, according to custom, they have been represented by the Secretaries of Embassy at Paris on the occasion of the general meeting.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEWere there any instructions?
MR. GLADSTONEI am not aware of any special instructions. I feel confident that there were none; but, of course, that can be ascertained.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERasked whether, as there was no register of shareholders of the Suez Canal Company, and the information as to the domicile of shareholders could, therefore, not be obtained from that source, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to obtain a 1911 copy of the list of the shareholders whose shares were deposited at the office of the Company prior to the last general meeting?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)If the right hon. Gentleman gives me Notice of the exact information he requires I will see whether I can get it.