HC Deb 24 July 1883 vol 282 cc299-301
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

Sir, I placed a Question on the Notice Paper last night to the following effect:— To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, after the withdrawal of the Agreement with the Suez Canal Company, in consequence of the general dissatisfaction which has been expressed as to its provisions, the Government adhere to their opinion that M. de Lesseps has a well-founded claim to an exclusive monopoly in respect of communication by canal between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea? Since I placed this Question on the Paper, it has occurred to me that it is one of a somewhat argumentative character, and might lead to an argumentative answer, and probably require some discussion. I have, therefore, thought, having made up my mind as to a Notice which I wish to give as re. Bards a future discussion, that it would be better for me, instead of putting this Question, to give the following Notice:—I propose on Monday, if the right hon. Gentleman can give me that day, or some other day which may be convenient to him, to move— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that, in any negotiations or proceedings with reference to the Suez Canal Company to which Her Majesty may be a party, She will, while respecting the undoubted rights of the Company in regard of their own concession, decline to recognise any claim on their part to such a monopoly as would exclude the possibility of competition on the part of other undertakings, designed for the purpose of opening a water communication between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea.

MR. GLADSTONE

Sir, I do not rise for the purpose of commenting on the Notice of the right hon. Gentleman, further than to say that I will carefully examine the state of Business, and shall be prepared at an early day—perhaps to-morrow, certainly not later than Thursday—to make a communication as to the precise date upon which it might be convenient to take it. This Question having been placed upon the Paper, I think I ought to make the answer which I was prepared to snake. The first part of that answer was to exclude from my view the preamble which the right hon. Gentleman has inserted, and which is expressive of his opinion as to the reasons which we have given for the withdrawal of the Provisional Agreement—an opinion which I do not seek now to question; and, in answering the Question, I will simply say that I do not adopt that opinion. I must also observe that the Question contains a statement which is quite erroneous—no doubt unintentionally erroneous. It asks whether the Government adhere to their opinion that M. de Les-sops has a well-founded claim to an exclusive monopoly in respect of communication between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea? No opinion to that effect has, at any time, been expressed by the Government. With regard to the substance of the Question—which I suppose is intended to apply chiefly to the Isthmus of Suez—the Government have never, in any communication relating to the Canal, placed any construction—by communication, I mean not what has been said in this House, but communication with persons abroad—upon the instrument of concession with regard to any exclusive right or claim. Nor have they done anything to bind this country to any particular view of the concession. The Question includes the inquiry whether we have altered the opinions which we have expressed to Parliament? We have not seen cause to alter those opinions. Those opinions are upon record, and, in the judgment of the Government, it would not be attended with public advantage, but the reverse of public advantage, if we gave any further exposition of them. I may also observe—for the sake of greater clearness—that the exclusive power, to which reference has been made more than once in the course of this discussion, was a power to prevent others from piercing the Isthmus by a Canal, and did not touch the separate and distinct question whether the present Canal Company, without any fresh concession, have power to make a new Canal.

MR. GIBSON

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether any public inconvenience can result from giving the date of the opinion of the Law Officers with reference to the alleged exclusive rights of M. de Lesseps and the Suez Canal Company, bearing in mind that the First Lord of the Treasury has given publicly the fact and the effect of that opinion?

THE CHANCELLOR. OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

Yes, Sir. As I have already stated, it would be a matter of public inconvenience to establish the precedent of giving the dates of the Law Officers' opinions, any more than the cases submitted to them, or the language they employ. Her Majesty's Government are responsible for acting or not on these opinions, and all that it has been usual to state is their general effect. This my right hon. Friend did in the present case.

MR. GIBSON

wished to know whether any precedent existed, after the Prime Minister had stated the fact and effect of the opinion, which justified the refusal to state whether that opinion was given before or after the negotiations?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

Sir, in the Office which I hold I am rarely in the receipt of the opinions of Law Officers; but I have consulted those of my Colleagues who are more in the habit of consulting the Law Officers, and the answer which I have given is the result of that inquiry.