MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS. (Hansard, 3 August 1883)

§ EARL DE LA WARR
said, he rose to ask what the intentions of Her Majesty's Government were with regard to the proposed New Suez Canal, and to move for Papers. Since the Agreement which load been arrived at by Her Majesty's Government, with regard to the Suez Canal, had been withdrawn, there remained the question as to the course which, under existing circumstances, would be adopted in view of the interests of this country; and, so far as he had been able to follow the Papers which had been laid before Parliament, he did not see that they were in possession of what the Government now proposed to do. It was evident that the question was attended with many difficulties. 1458 Legal opinions of weight had been expressed entirely in opposite directions; there had been hasty action on both sides, as well as hasty statements; and it was much to be regretted that Parliament was not consulted, and the feeling of the country ascertained, before coming to any conclusion upon a question so materially affecting great commercial interests. He did not, however, wish to dwell now upon what was past; but he did think that, as the Session was drawing to a close, Parliament and the country ought to know what the Government, under certain circumstances, proposed to do. He was not one of those who believed that the interests of this country had been very materially injured by the Agreement that had been made and broken off. The case, it was true, load become a complicated one; but, when considered on its real merits, it was not so much so, perhaps, as it had been sometimes represented. The Suez Canal Company, if he rightly understood, did not claim the exclusive right of a waterway between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea; all that they claimed under the Concession was the exclusive power — pouvoir exclusif—to make a communication through the Isthmus of Suez to the East of the Damietta branch of the Nile. He did not wish to enter upon the legal points which had been raised, neither did he suppose for a moment that the Legal Advisers of the Crown claimed infallibility; but he could not see, even granting that the Legal Advisers of the Crown were right in their opinion, that the interests of this country were materially jeopardized; for what was the actual position of the Suez Canal Company? They were very much like any other Company. It was true the original chief promoters of it were Frenchmen; and the mercantile world were greatly indebted to the distinguished person, M. de Lesseps, by whose energy, ability, and perseverance this great work was accomplished. But this did not make it a French Company exclusively. The Canal was not a French Canal; it was an Egyptian one, which at the end of 99 years, the period of the Concession, would revert to the Egyptian Government unless the Concession was renewed. The President was not of necessity a Frenchman. M. de Lesseps was appointed originally Director or 1459 President for 10 years, and the power of nomination was vested in the Egyptian Government, the selection being made, as far as possible, from among the principal shareholders. That being so, it was evident that at any time the Egyptian Government might, if it were so disposed, nominate a Director or President of any nationality, and the majority of shareholders might also be of any nationality. There was, consequently, nothing to prevent the mercantile interests of this country being represented to any extent on the Board of Directors. He could not, therefore, see in what way this or any other country was likely to be much injured under the original Concession granted by the Viceroy Said Pasha in 1854, or under the Convention of the Khedive, Ismail Pasha, in 1866. But as they were informed in the Papers before the House that another Canal was likely to be commenced very shortly, he thought their Lordships and the country ought to be made aware, before the close of the Session, what the intentions of Her Majesty's Government were with regard to it. M. de Lesseps, in a letter to Mr. Gladstone, dated July 20, 1883, referring to the Agreement which had now, it appeared, been cancelled, said— I formally declare that if our Agreement should be suspended or even cancelled, the excavation of a second Maritime Canal will be immediately carried out, and all the reductions of tolls provided for in that Agreement will take effect. Were they, then, to understand from this that the Government would secure for this country, as far as possible, all the advantages, whether of tolls and dues or otherwise, which were provided for under the late Agreement, or were other negotiations being carried on? He wished to put this to Her Majesty's Government. He had one word to add with reference to Papers and Correspondence on this subject. He regretted that the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) had not thought it well to lay further Papers on the Table of the House. There was one very noticeable omission. So far as he had been able to follow the Papers which had been issued, there was a total absence of all Papers or Correspondence with, or relating to, the Government of the Porte and the Egyptian Government. It was very remarkable, as regarded the Ottoman Government, inasmuch as the ratification of the Sultan as 1460 Sovereign of Egypt was required before any concession could take effect. If such Correspondence existed, he would ask the noble Earl whether it could be laid upon the Table of the House, as well as any which had reference to the Egyptian Government? He might add that in the Correspondence and Papers presented to Parliament there were none which gave the views of other Powers who must be interested in this question.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
My Lords, I am really surprised at the Question of the noble Earl. Using the phrase of the late Prime Minister, I may say that a good many things have happened since Notice of this Question was first put upon the Minutes of this House. There I have been important statements in both Houses of Parliament, and the original scheme has been abandoned. In the other House a Vote of Censure has been recently dealt with; and, with respect to Papers, they have been presented to Parliament up to the latest date to which they extend.

§ EARL DE LA WARR
said, the noble Earl had not answered his Question relating to the intentions of the Government.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
I have no further statement to make in addition to the statement made in both Houses of Parliament the other day.