QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS. (Hansard, 5 June 1885)

§ EARL STANHOPE,
in rising to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Whether he could now give the House some information respecting the proceedings of the Suez Canal Commission; whether Earl Granville's Circular, dated 1330 3rd January, 1883, had been accepted as the basis of the arrangement; and, if not, what course he proposed to take, said, that he thought no apology was necessary for bringing this subject before their Lordships. Considering the vast interest which this country had in the question, the Suez Canal was our shortest route to India; and any interference with its free navigation would be a calamity to England which might lead to the disruption of the Empire. By a Parliamentary Return the other day it had been shown that of the whole amount of shipping which passed through the Canal 76 per cent belonged to this country, while that of France only amounted to 9.6 per cent. He would remind their Lordships of the Declaration signed by the Great Powers on the 18th of March, 1885, relative to the finances of Egypt, which contained 20 Articles, preceded by the three declarations. The third declaration was as follows—namely:— III.—It has been agreed between the seven Governments above-named that a Commission composed of delegates named by the said Governments shall meet at Paris on March 30 to prepare and draw up this Act, taking for its basis the Circular of the Government of Her Britannic Majesty of the 3rd of January, 1883. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated these terms on the 18th of March in the House of Commons. What was, then, the main purpose of the Foreign Office despatch of January 3, 1883? It had had for its main object the free and unimpeded navigation of the Canal at all times, to all nations, for the passage of all ships—to neutralize the Canal. But by the 6th clause it had been proposed that— Egypt should take all measures within its power to enforce the conditions imposed on the transit of belligerent vessels through the Canal in time of war. The Sub-Commission had now drawn up a Report, dated May 28, which was, at the present moment, being considered by the full Commission; and one Article of the Report was, he contended, of a most dangerous character to the interests of this country. It was to the effect that— A Commission of the signatory Powers, to whom shall be added a delegate from the Egyptian Government, shall watch over the execution of the Treaty. It seemed to be framed for the evident intention of injuring England; but the 1331 English Commissioners had proposed amendments. There was also a Sanitary Commission sitting at Rome, which had recommended that quarantine should be carried out in regard to vessels coming from places where cholera existed, and they should be detained for five days; but that was not before the consideration of the Government at that moment. As to the Suez Canal, there was the greatest possible difference between neutralizing and internationalizing it. He trusted the noble Earl might give an answer to his inquiry. It might be said that the Question he had put was premature, or that the subject had not been decided; but he contended that if decided steps were not now taken, he did not know what might happen to the great interests involved. Unless the Government, through their Representative at Paris, immediately insisted on the amendment of this clause, or threatened to withdraw from the arrangement, the greatest possible danger might arise to India, leading to the disruption of the Empire. He was, therefore, in hopes that the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary would rather be glad of an opportunity of showing for once a little more firmness and decision than they were accustomed to expect from him, by giving to the House and the country an undertaking that England would not allow the Suez Canal to be under a Board of International Control.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
My Lords, although I do not go the fall length of the noble Earl in saying that the closing of the Suez Canal will lead to the disruption of the Empire, yet I entirely agree with him that the subject is of the greatest importance. The Commission which has been sitting has very nearly arrived at the close of its proceedings; I believe they will conclude their labours before the close of next week. The Commissioners have bound themselves not to publish the proceedings, and therefore I am not able to give all those details which the noble Earl has invited me to do. I may state with regard to the bases on which the proceedings have gone that they are the bases of the English Circular of January, 1883, which have been adopted. There have been some clauses introduced in the draft Treaty to be submitted to the Powers, and, a discussion having arisen as to 1332 whether they do or do not pass the limits of the Circular, the English Commissioners made all necessary reserve.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
I quite understand the necessity of preserving a discretion as to the proceedings of the Commission while the Commission is still deliberating; but I wish to ask whether the draft Treaty, before being signed by the Powers, will be published, so that Parliament may have an opportunity of expressing its opinion concerning it?

§ EARL GRANVILLE
We are anxious to give the information to Parliament as soon as possible; but I do not think it proper to answer further at a moment's warning. In adhering to the rule of not answering Questions without Notice, I do not mean in the slightest degree to invalidate the declaration that Parliament would have the information before we committed the country to any proceedings with regard to the Suez Canal.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
I would draw the attention of the noble Earl to the fact that there is a considerable difference between asking a Question without any Notice at all and asking a Question on a subject as to which duo Notice has been given and which is under discussion. If the noble Earl says that our debates should never take an interrogatory form, and that he will carefully close his mind against receiving any suggestion of that kind, I think he is introducing a restriction which they certainly do not practice in the other House, and which would be inconvenient in this.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
I guard myself against the desire attributed to mo by the noble Marquess. On the contrary, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his suggestion; but I think I am right as a general rule in answering Questions not to give pledges. With regard to the doctrine which the noble Marquess has laid down as to a Question arising out of Questions, I am not sure that I am or am not controverted by the practice in "another place" at this moment. When I was in the House of Commons a long time ago it was contrary to usage, after a Question had been put and answered, for Member one after another to put Questions more or less in connection with the original Question.

§ EARL STANHOPE
I should like to ask the noble Earl whether the Report 1333 of the Sub-Commission which appeared in the newspapers is authentic or not?

§ EARL GRANVILLE
I have nothing to do with the publication. It is contrary to the express understanding entered into by the Commission. The noble Earl must see that if I answer a leading Question like that he puts mo in the position of tolling him that which I have already declined to tell.