HL Deb 19 June 1882 vol 270 cc1550-4
LORD LAMINGTON,

in rising to call the attention of the House to the balance sheet of the Suez Canal, said, that he was anxious not to say one word that might embarrass the Government in the present serious state of Egyptian affairs; but the shareholders of the Suez Canal had recently held a meeting in Paris, and the Report submitted to them was so remarkable that it seemed to him desirable to bring it under the notice of their Lordships and the country, in order that the Government should state what amount of control they exercised over the Canal. As the House knew, the Canal was opened in 1869. In the following year 490 ships passed through it, with a gross tonnage of 486,000 tons. In l879, 1,477 ships passed through, of a tonnage of 3,236,000 tons; in 18a0, 2,026, of a tonnage of 4,344,000; in 1881, 2,727, with a tonnage of 5,794,000. The result of all this was that the net profit, after deducting 5 per cent for the reserve fund, amounted to about 14 or 15 per cent. The Report went on to say that last year's figures showed an increase on those of 1880 of 34 per cent in the number of vessels and the tonnage, and of 28¾ per cent. in the amount of the receipts, and he (Lord Lamington) supposed that altogether such a balance-sheet of such an undertaking was never presented before. Seven new permanent services for the Canal were inaugurated last year—the British India, the German, the Thames and Mersey, a French one to Mauritius and Reunion, a Dutch one to Java, an English one for the same destination, and a Chinese line, the China Merchants' Steam Navigation Company. The vessels bound direct for Australia numbered 98, as against 51 in the year 1880. This steady increase had been maintained in spite of the fact that freights to India and the East had been so low as hardly to yield the barest profit to the shippers. The Canal, in fact, tended more and more, year by year, to become the sole International highway between the East and the West, as well as between Europe and Australasia. Now, as 78 or 79 per cent of the total number of ships passing through the Canal in 1881 carried the British flag, that fact was sufficient to show the enormous importance of the Canal to the trade of Great Britain. There was, however, another reason which made it specially necessary at the present moment to draw the attention of the Government to this part of the Egyptian question, and it was this—half the Canal, the part connecting I smailia with Port Said, depended for its water supply on the freshwater canal which passed Ismailia, turned southward, and ended at Suez. This supply was both precarious and insufficient, and if it were interrupted would render Port Said uninhabitable, and would necessitate the abandonment of many stations on the Canal. That was exceedingly important, especially as he found that the officials of the water company that supplied Alexandria had given notice of the suspension of their works in consequence of the state of the country. It thus appeared that the water supply of Alexandria might be cut off at any moment, from which the most serious consequences must follow, to say nothing of the fact that the proposed new fresh-water canal, which, according to the Report, had become very desir- able, and as to which measures had been taken for its construction, had now been suspended owing to the troubled state of the country. He had taken upon himself to point out, 15 years ago, that the Suez Canal would eventually become the high road between England and India, where we had 250,000,000 subjects, and the prediction had been fulfilled. Therefore, it was impossible to exaggerate the importance of this question, as regarded our interests in it; and in order to show what others thought of it, he would ask their Lordships' attention to a despatch of M. Barthelemy St. Hilaire, who said that England furnished nearly all the custom, and that the Canal was the indispensable route which placed her in communication with that incomparable Colony which she possessed in India. It was said that there was to be a European Conference, and he (Lord Lamington) believed that the assembling hereafter of all the Powers at a Conference, with Turkey sending her Representative, would be attended with beneficial results; but to hold one at the present moment would be like building a lifeboat whilst the vessel was hurrying to destruction, or constructing a fire-escape when the building was in flames. With or without allies we were bound to protect our interests, independent of any other country. The result, so far, of our interference seemed to be that all the Powers were afraid of each other. Prance was afraid of the Sultan, England would not act without France, Italy would not act without the other Powers—and, in fact, the only person who was not afraid was Arabi Pasha, who set everybody at defiance. There was no time for a Conference, because in one week the Suez Canal might be in jeopardy. He did not say there should be any interference in the internal affairs of Egypt, because he was not sure that it was within our right to do so; but trying to protect the Canal could in no way be said to be interfering with the general policy of the country at all; and when our own interests were at stake, together with the lives and property of Her Majesty's subjects, they were bound to interfere when necessary. If France had gone before us, so much the better; but, come what would, we were bound to protect the rights of our countrymen and the trade of our country. We ought to act in independence of other countries, stating that we did not wish to interfere with any internal arrangement. What had been done by the Government in sending ships to Alexandria without troops on board was of as much utility as— A painted ship Upon a painted ocean, and like sending a body without a soul. What the Government ought to do was to take such measures as would prove effectual in the protection of the Canal, and not in this matter to rely on France or any other Power, but to see that the interests of England, which were paramount above all others, would be duly considered and conserved. In conclusion, he would ask Her Majesty's Government whether they possessed any control over the management and maintenance of the Canal?

EARL GRANVILLE

My Lords, I should be the very last person to charge the noble Lord opposite (Lord Laming-ton) with introducing Questions merely with a view of embarrassing Mer Majesty's Government. The noble Lord puts Questions and discusses subjects in which he takes an interest always in the most courteous manner. I must say I can conceive no subject of greater interest than the one the noble Lord's Question is upon, none your Lordships take a deeper interest in, or to which Her Majesty's Government attach greater importance. At the same time, I must point out to my noble Friend that his Question hardly led me to anticipate the exact line he was going to take. The Notice on the Paper is— To call attention to the balance sheet of the Suez Canal, and to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they possess any control over the management and maintenance of the Canal. The noble Lord himself gave some figures—some very striking figures, and I believe he gave them quite accurately—as to the balance-sheet of the Canal. As to the control Her Majesty's Government have over the management and maintenance of the Canal, no doubt the noble Lord knows exactly how the matter stands. We receive no share of the earnings of the Canal until 1894; but we receive from the Khedive 5 per cent upon the purchase money of our shares. We have nominated three competent men as members of the Board of Directors, who represent the British Govern- ment on the Board—Colonel Stokes, Sir Rivers Wilson, and Mr. Stanley. The two former gentlemen watch all financial matters, and attend every monthly meeting of the Board, and the latter is the resident director in Paris, a member of the managing committee, and sends the Government information of everything that occurs 'there. In fact, they all three report constantly to Her Majesty's Government upon all matters affecting either the financial or the general interests of this country, and I am informed that they have great influence upon the Board, and are treated with great consideration by the French directors. The noble Lord went into a much larger question, one which very properly occupies the public mind to a great extent at the present moment. I can only say as to that question that it does not escape the attention of Her Majesty's Government, and we attach absolutely the same importance that the noble Lord does to the enormous interest England possesses in the Suez Canal.