§ MR. W. H. SMITHasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What authority the so-called Committee of British Shipowners possessed to represent the shipowners of the United Kingdom, and of the Colonies; whether they had any legal powers which entitled them to enter into an arrangement or convention with the Suez Canal Company which can be considered as binding on the general body of British shipowners and on the British Government as the largest shareholder; and, whether M. de Lesseps declined to accept the so-called Convention until a letter approving of it was transmitted from the Foreign Office on behalf of Her Majesty's Government?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)Sir, I will give all the information lean upon this question. As to the first part, what the right hon. Gentleman designates as the "so-called Committee of British Shipowners" is the "Association of Steamship Owners trading with the East." They do not pretend to act on behalf of any other body; but if the right hon. Gentleman will refer to Mr. Westray's letter of the 12th of October last, at page 16 of Egypt, No. 3 (1884), he will find that the members of the Association are "owners of at least three-fourths of the tonnage annually passing through the Suez Canal." As to the second part, the Association has no legal powers; and the agreement which they made with M. de Lesseps does not assume that they have. As to the third part, the request that Her Majesty's Government would express approval of the arrangements, came originally, not from M. de Lesseps, but from the Association, as the right hon. Gentleman will find on referring 1033 to Mr. Westray's letter of the 30th of November last—at page 50 of the Parliamentary Papers—forwarding to the Foreign Office the conditions agreed upon with M. de Lesseps. Her Majesty's Government always intended that the conditions of future management, the negotiation of which had been undertaken at their suggestion, should be carefully examined, and, if found satisfactory, that the Association and M. de Lesseps should be so informed. No one would, of course, expect M. de Lesseps to submit them to his shareholders until that information reached him. My noble Friend (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) has already declined to give any information as to confidential communications which may have passed between the Foreign Office and the official Directors on the subject, and I must adhere to his answer.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFI wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, How it is that Her Majesty's Government have delegated to a Committee of Shipowners the right of dealing with property, half of which belongs to Her Majesty's Government; and, also, how far Her Majesty's Government, considering the promises given last year by the Prime Minister, are entitled to deal with the property of the nation without the consent of Parliament?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS), in reply, said, that that was a Question of argument which could be only dealt with in debate; and, when the debate arose, he should be quite prepared to take his part in it.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFgave Notice that, on the Motion to go into Committee of Supply, he should ask a Question with regard to the recent dealings of Her Majesty's Government with M. de Lesseps.