Lords Sitting of 4 May 1877

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—First Reading—Law of Evidence Amendment (63).
RUSSIA AND TURKEY—THE WAR—NEUTRALITY OF THE SUEZ CANAL.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, in putting the Question to Her Majesty's Government of which I have given Notice, I wish to ask for such information as it may be convenient for the Government to give with regard to the neutrality of the Suez Canal, with special reference to its free navigation for vessels of commerce. At the time of the opening of the Canal it was declared by the 14th Article of the Concession that it should be neutral and open to ships of commerce of all countries. The Article runs—
  "Nous déclarons le grand Canal et les ports en dépendant ouverts á toujours comme passages neutres á tout navire de commerce traversant d'une mer á l'autre sans aucune distinction, exclusion, ni préférence de personnes on de nationalités."
  The intention here expressed is evident—it is that the ports connected with the Canal, as well as the Canal itself, should be neutral and open alike to vessels of commerce of all countries. But it is obvious that this declaration alone is not a sufficient security, and that circumstances might arise which would cause complications, and possibly result, if not permanently, yet for a time, in obstructing the free navigation of commerce through the Canal. I might, perhaps, illustrate what I mean by referring to existing circumstances. Port Said, the entrance to the Suez Canal, is a port belonging to a country which at the present moment is at war with another maritime Power. For the purposes of war it might be necessary on the one side to close the port, or on the other to blockade it; and in either case the navigation of the Canal would be stopped. What now exists on the Danube might at any time occur at Port Said. I do not mean to say it is a probable event, but it is obvious that under certain circumstances it is a possible event; and I would put it to Her Majesty's Govern-
  314
  ment as a question not undeserving of notice whether some security might not be provided against possible commercial difficulties by a joint guarantee of the Maritime Powers of Europe—if such does not already exist—or in some other way that the Canal should be open at all times and under all circumstances for the purposes of commerce. I wish to offer this explanation of the sense in which I have used the word "neutrality"—namely, as in the Article of Concession to which I have referred, and not as in any way applying to ships of war. My Question is—to what extent the neutrality of the Suez Canal is secured, and whether there is any guarantee of such neutrality by the Maritime Powers of Europe? I have further to ask, if there is any objection to laying upon the Table of the House Papers or Correspondence relative to the Suez Canal bearing date since June, 1876, to the present time?
  LORD HOUGHTONhoped that in his reply the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs would not limit his Answer to the free navigation of the Canal to vessels of commerce, but would state how the case stood with respect to vessels of war, which appeared to him to be, under existing circumstances, the most important point with which we had to deal. He believed the Russian Government had ships of war in the Chinese Seas and other parts of the world which they might wish to bring into the Mediterranean for warlike purposes. It was therefore a matter of great consideration whether those ships would be allowed to pass through the Suez Canal and consequently through territory belonging to the enemy of Russia. As the Suez Canal passed through the territory of the Porte it was not improbable that the Porte might think it right to stop the passage of Russian ships or of munitions of war through that Canal.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, my answer to the Question which my noble Friend (Lord Waveney) has put to me shall be a very short and a very simple one. No Treaty and no international act of any kind exists by which the neutrality of the Suez Canal is secured. By the Firman and the Concession to the Company from which my noble Friend has quoted in putting his Question the Canal is to be open "for ever"—that is the literal translation of the French word—as a neutral passage

  315
  for ships of commerce. The Firman, however, I ought to observe, is not in the nature of an international agreement, but is only in the nature of a concession to the Company. Moreover, the language employed in it does not imply neutralization in the ordinary sense in which the word is understood. Neutralization, as I take it, understanding the word as it is commonly employed in international documents, would mean that the Canal should not be used at all in time of war for the passage of ships of war of any belligerent; and I need not point out to your Lordships that under certain circumstances that so far from being an advantage to this country might lead to very serious inconveniences. My noble Friend will therefore see that there is no such guarantee of the neutrality of the Suez Canal by the Maritime Powers as that which he refers to in his Question. I do not think it would be convenient or desirable in reply to a Question such as that put by my noble Friend (Lord Houghton), and there being no matter of discussion before the House, that I should enter into a consideration of all the hypothetical circumstances under which the traffic of the Canal might be interfered with. Probably it will be enough if I repeat what has been said by a representative of the Government in "another place"—namely, that the maintenance of the uninterrupted communication of the Canal is in our view an English interest, one of the highest importance, and one which certainly we shall feel it our duty not to neglect. As regards the Papers asked for by my noble Friend, they are in preparation, and very shortly will be laid upon the Table.
  House adjourned at half-past Five o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.