§ MR. GIBSONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the opinion of the Law Officers with reference to the alleged exclusive rights of M. de Lesseps and the Suez Canal, under the concessions relating thereto was given before the instructions were given by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the British Suez Canal Directors to enter upon the recent negotiations, or after those negotiations were entered upon or were concluded?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)Sir, I fear that, with no want of respect for the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson), I must adhere to the answer which I gave him yesterday. Her Majesty's Government are entitled to ask for the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown, and they did so in this matter. But, for the reasons I gave yesterday, I must decline to give the date of their advice, for, by so doing, I should establish a precedent of a very dangerous character. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) will, perhaps, be good enough to accept this as an answer to his Question, No.16.
§ MR. GIBSONHaving regard to the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote), this question becomes of greater importance than before, and I desire to state that I shall, on Monday, again refer to it, and present it in the form of a Question.
§ SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDAnd I shall, at the same time, ask the Prime Minister, Whether there is any precedent for having stated that there was an opinion by the Law Officers, and given the effect of it, and then refusing to produce it or give the date on which it was delivered?
§ MR. J. LOWTHERI will also ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether it is not the usual practice, when a quotation is made from any document, that that document is laid upon the Table?
§ MR. STUART-WORTLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, What details of the scheme for the construction of a second Suez Canal there are which have as yet been laid before Parliament, but which cannot have reached the Governor of Queensland by the ordinary telegraphic agencies; what length of time would be required for the transmission by the mail of a letter or despatch from the Colonial Office to the Governor of Queensland; and, whether any such letter or despatch, containing any information as to the details of the scheme above-mentioned, has, in fact, been as yet written or sent; and, if so, when?
§ MR. EVELYN ASHLEYSir, as far as I understand the meaning of the Question, it is intended as a rebuke to me for having said yesterday that, in my opinion, the Premier of Queensland was in rather too great a hurry to express an official opinion on the Suez Canal arrangement. Well, considering the deluge of Questions which have been put down on the Paper by hon. Members opposite on this matter during the last week in this House, we are landed in this dilemma. Either Sir Thomas M'Ilwraith, who asks no Questions, has more intelligence than hon. Members of this House, or else there is some additional information to be obtained beyond the short statement made on the 11th instant. Now, the first hypothesis is, I am sure the hon. Member will agree, absolutely untenable; so we are driven to the second, and that was all I said in the House yesterday. The telegram is dated the 14th; and with respect to the part of the Question as to Papers laid before the House since that date, I may mention, among other statements before Parliament, which the Queensland Ministry could not have had before them at the date 38 of their telegram of the 14th, the Report of the British Directors, a document which certainly contains some considerations of importance as regards the Question; and further, the account of the deputation that waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and his statement, both of which are subsequent to the telegram of Sir Thomas M'Ilwraith. But I would rather appeal to the view of the Victoria Government, who certainly does not, from a telegram we have received, entirely unsolicited, this morning, appear, like the Queensland Government, satisfied with the abundance of their knowledge. I will read it, as I promised to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn I would read any telegram that I might receive on the subject. It is thus—Mr. Service, the Premier of Victoria, sends as follows to the Agent General, a day later than the Queensland telegram:—"As to Suez Canal quite in the dark." The telegram proceeds to say that the Chamber of Commerce has passed a resolution that Great Britain should have preponderating influence in the management, and that they—that is, the Chamber of Commerce—will support action for that object.
§ MR. STUART-WORTLEYI wish to know whether the hon. Gentleman seriously wishes the House to believe that he has any doubt that the Governor of Queensland knew as much as this House about the terms of this arrangement?
§ MR. EVELYN ASHLEYI am not only not in great doubt, but I am certain he did not. The date of the telegram was the 14th, and the first statement in this House was made on Wednesday the 12th.
§ MR. STUART-WORTLEYCould the hon. Gentleman state how long it would take for a despactch to reach Queensland?
§ MR. EVELYN ASHLEYIt will take five weeks to communicate by despatch with Queensland. As to the last part of the Question, no communication has been made, and, at this stage, it is not proposed to make any communication to the Colonies.
§ MR. BOURKEWill my hon. Friend state what possible practical object could have been gained, if the Governor of Queensland had waited for details?
§ MR. EVELYN ASHLEYThat is not a Question I can answer now.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERHow long will it take to communicate by telegraph?
§ MR. EVELYN ASHLEYWell, electricity destroys time. We could telegraph in a day, of course.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Firman of the Sultan, dated 1873, in which the Khedive is granted power to enter into Commercial Treaties and Conventions without their confirmation by the Sublime Porte being necessary in order to give them validity; and, whether it is not a fact that since this Firman numerous concessions in regard to Canals and other industrial undertakings have been granted by the Egyptian Government, without reference to or confirmation by the Porte?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICESir, the Firman of 1873, to which my hon. Friend refers, has been already laid upon the Table of the House in a Paper presented in 1879 (Egypt, No. 4, p. 47); and I may remind him that the subsequent Firman of 1879 (Egypt, No. 1, 1880, p. 51) contains an additional provision respecting a communication to the Porto of all such acts before their promulgation. The second portion of my hon. Friend's Question is in too general terms to allow me to give a reply at such short Notice.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government will lay upon the Table a Copy of the Note addressed, on the 6th of April 1863, by the Sublime Porte to the Courts of London and Paris opposing the continuation of the works on the Suez Canal?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICESir, it would be entirely misleading to present this despatch in a separate shape, as the state of things to which it refers has been entirely superseded by the Firmans of 1873 and 1879.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked, whether the concession which bore upon the question of granting land could not be given?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEThe document is of no value for the reasons I have given.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFIn consequence of the answer of the noble Lord, I shall, on Monday, ask the Prime Minister, Whether the land which is now to be applied for by Her Majesty's Government in conjunction with M. de Lesseps, as a concession for the new Canal, is not part of the same land which, on account of the arbitrary decision of the Emperor of the French, the Egyptian Government purchased at a very large price from the Canal Company in 1876?
Subsequently,
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can state to the House the reasons which have induced Her Majesty's Government to recognise an exclusive character in the concession of the Suez Canal Company?
MR. GLADSTONESir, in reply to the Question, I am afraid I cannot say more than this—that the privileges of the Canal Company are, of course, defined by the concession. We found ourselves on the language of that concession. Our interpretation of it is an interpretation which we arrived at without any doubt, and we conceive that we are supported in that interpretation by very great authority, and by all the facts which make up the history of the case.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFI beg to ask, Whether it is the intention of the Government to give the House any information as to the reasons which induced them to come to this decision before the question is debated in the House? It is usual for the Government, I believe, to do so. Does the right hon. Gentleman not intend to give us any guidance in this matter?
MR. GLADSTONESir, I am not aware that it is usual to make a statement of one side of a case before there is an opportunity of stating the other side of the case. I am afraid that would be the result of the practice which the hon. Gentleman recommends.