HC Deb 08 February 1884 vol 284 cc309-13
SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether there is any foundation for the statement in the "Daily Telegraph" of February 6th, that the recent monetary advances by Messrs. Rothschild to the Khedive were "recommended, if not by the Cabinet as a whole, by certain of its most influential members;" whether any communication was made on the subject in writing either to the Khedive and his Government, or to Messrs. Rothschild; and, if so, whether a Copy of such communication can be laid upon the Table?

MR. GLADSTONE

As to the Question of the right hon. Baronet, I have to ask the indulgence of the House, as a portion of it refers to matter with which I am not personally concerned, but which I have had to inform myself upon. I have to say that the best answer to the Question about the statement in The Daily Telegraph—which I have not seen—is to detail what has been said, according to my information, upon the subject, and likewise to detail the letters which have been written on the part of Her Majesty's Government. Certain statements have been made by Lord Granville upon this subject, which are founded on certain other statements which had reference to certain other statements which preceded them. [Opposition laughter.] Gentlemen seem to know more about these statements than I do. Lord Salisbury declared that the Khedive, as I learn from Lord Granville, could not legally raise a loan, and that the house of Rothschild could not lend money on insufficient security, and that he was therefore driven to the conclusion that Her Majesty's Government had, if not by a direct guarantee, at least by an indirect guarantee, by an announcement of policy to the Messrs. Rothschilds, practically assured to them repayment of the loan. Lord Salisbury considered it necessary that an immediate announcement should be made to Parliament of this exceptional, if not illegal, act. Of course, I do not undertake to bind Lord Salisbury to the particular words; but this is the understanding upon which Lord Granville made his statement. Lord Granville, in answer, said that, speaking personally and not officially, he believed that the Khedive, under the Law of Liquidation, which was an European agreement, had the power of raising money; that, at all events, this was a subject on which Messrs. Rothschild were competent to judge. Of course, Lord Granville never said that the Khedive had the power of raising money to an unlimited extent under the Law of Liquidation. Lord Granville denied the other declaration of Lord Salisbury, that any special declaration of policy had been made to Messrs. Rothschild, who were aware, like others, that successive announcements of policy had been made by the Government which Lord Granville himself had reason to quote. The issues raised by Lord Salisbury's statements did not embrace the question whether Her Majesty's Government were not cognizant of the loan, and were glad that the Messrs. Rothschild had undertaken to meet it. On this point I can read the written statements made by Lord Granville with the authority of the Cabinet, and this is really the authentic part of the matter, beyond all doubt or question, and not dependent upon memory or reporting so far as the Government is concerned. I shall read two letters addressed by Lord Granville to Sir Nathaniel Rothschild. There is an intermediate letter from Sir Nathaniel Rothschild, but it is no part of my duty, or province, or power, to read it, and it is not material to the purpose in view; and, at any rate, whether it is or not, it is a matter, I think, in the discretion of the gentleman who wrote the letter— Jan. 22.—Dear Sir Nathaniel,—I have informed Mr. Gladstone and my Colleagues of what you had told me yesterday, that Mr. Vincent had applied to you on behalf of the Egyptian Government for a loan of £1,000,000, to be paid in six months, that you were not desirous of lending the money, but would do so if Her Majesty's Government expressed a favourable opinion of your doing so. I have also ascertained that Sir Evelyn Baring has expressed himself in favour of the proposal. The Cabinet expressed itself in favour of Sir Evelyn Baring's having done so, and we are glad at your agreeing to the request if you find that you will be able to come to terms with the Egyptian Government. Then comes the letter of January 28— Dear Sir Nathaniel,—I need not trouble you to call again. I have communicated with Mr. Gladstone and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are obliged to you for the information which you have given to us as to the progress of the negotiations between you and the Egyptian Government. We think that the difference which has arisen as to the condition of the repayment of the provisional loan is a business detail, which will easily be settled between you and Mr. Vincent. Then a postcript adds— I am quite aware that the promptness of your action has been caused by your desire to be of use to the Egyptian Government at this important moment. This, I think, contains the full answer to the Question.

SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE

Will these letters be laid on the Table of the House?

MR. GLADSTONE

I have made the matter known to the public; and I will inquire of my Colleagues as to whether the Papers should be submitted to the House. I am not quite at liberty to go further.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask you a Question on a point of Order arising out of the answer which the Prime Minister has just made. You, Sir, will have noticed that the Prime Minister, in responding to the Question of the right hon. Baronet, quoted verbatim from speeches delivered by Lord Salisbury and Lord Granville in the House of Lords on the day of the opening of Parliament. I wish to ask you, on the point of Order, whether I shall be in Order in quoting verbatim from speeches of Lord Granville delivered on the same day with reference to Tewfik Pasha, Khedive of Egypt, and the charges which I made against that Khedive; and, whether I shall be justified in quoting those words verbatim, and exposing their scandalous inaccuracy?

MR. SPEAKER

It occurs to me that the cases are very different. The right hon. Gentleman, in order to make his answer plain to the Question put to him, was called upon, it appears to me, to read or to cite the documents in question.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

Is the House to understand then, Sir, that there is one law for the Prime Minister and another law for private Members? ["Order!"] I am quite in Order. I am asking respectfully a Question of the Speaker. I wish to know, Sir, whether, if a private Member of Parliament is impugned by a Member of the House of Peers—if the statements made by a private Member of Parliament are impugned by a Member of the House of Peers—whether a private Member of Parliament has not the same facility for quoting the language of the Peer that the Prime Minister has for quoting the language of the Foreign Secretary?

MR. SPEAKER

I have only to say that it is my duty to carry out the Rules and practice of this House, and I shall adhere to my duty. In doing that, I make no distinction between the Prime Minister, or any official Member, and any other Member of the House.

MR. ONSLOW

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman for what purpose this loan is made; and whether Her Majesty's Government have any idea, now that Egypt is in a bankrupt state, how the money will be repaid?

MR. O'DONNELL

On a point of Order arising out of the recent Question of the noble Lord, who asked whether there was one law, according to you, for the Prime Minister, and another law for private Members, I wish to know whether that method of criticizing the Speaker's ruling is equally open to every other Member of this House?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I wish to ask the Prime Minister a Question, arising out of the answer which he has just given with reference to the Egyptian loan. I should like to know if the Government have any information as to whether the £1,000,000 which the Messrs. Rothschild are going to lend, or have lent, is not in excess of the borrowing powers of the Egyptian Government under the Law of Liquidation?

MR. GLADSTONE

I cannot undertake to give the full information about this transaction, because what has passed has been chiefly by telegraph, and no doubt we shall hear much more on the subject. I, therefore, guard myself from accepting the statement of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Onslow). I do not think that we have any detailed account of the purposes of the loan, and we are waiting for further information with regard to the particulars of the finances of Egypt. I have no doubt I am safe in saying, on the face of the case, that the loan is required, in consequence of the expenses which the Egyptian Government have been put to by recent occurrences in the Soudan. With respect to the point put by my hon. Friend opposite, I think I have answered it. This sum is not unnaturally termed £1,000,000, because people speak in round numbers on such subjects; but I believe the sum is exactly £950,000. I am likewise given to understand that the borrowing of this sum is within the powers conferred by the Law of Liquidation.

VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE

wished to ask a Question on the point of Order just raised. Were they to understand from the Speaker that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was actually out of Order, although he was permitted to refer to a speech delivered lately in the House of Lords, that speech not having been alluded to in the Question put to him?

MR. SPEAKER

I consider that the point of Order which has been now raised by the noble Viscount has been disposed of.