LORD ELLENBOROUGHasked the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is the present opinion of Her Majesty's Government that the Suez Canal is not within the purview of the Conference now being held at Constantinople, as previously stated in another place by the First Lord of the Treasury? He trusted that the language which had been used by the right hon. Gentleman was not a mere hasty expression intended to meet the exigencies of the moment.
§ EARL GRANVILLEMy Lords, I have no doubt that the noble Lord opposite will remember a story told of a minor courtier of Louis XIV., who, in reply to a frequent question from His Majesty as to how many children he had, always replied that he had two, until on one occasion, he replied that he had eight. "Eight," said His Majesty, "why you told me the other day that you had only two." "Yes, your Majesty," replied the courtier; "but I thought perhaps that your Majesty might be tired of hearing me always say the same thing, and, therefore, I have altered the number." My Lords, I am a little in the same position. The noble Lord has asked me a Question which I answered a fortnight ago, and I must either invent something new or only weary your Lordships by repeating what I have already stated—that is, that neither Sir Charles Dilke nor myself said that the Suez Canal was outside the reference to the Conference, and that Mr. Gladstone, although he gave in general terms an Answer to a Question put without Notice, made very soon afterwards an explanation to the House to the effect that whereas the question of the neutralization of the Suez Canal was outside the reference to the Conference, yet in regard to the Canal itself it was impossible to separate it entirely from the question called the Egyptian Question proper.