The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1883-07-28 00:00:00

ABANDONMENT OF THE PROPOSED SURZ CANAL

SCHEME.

In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, Mr. Gladstone made his pro-
mised statement in reference to the Suez Canal Agreement,
prefacing it by a brief retrospect of the circumstances
which had induced the Government to enter into negotia-
tions with M. de Lesseps, and which had ended in the Pro-
visiona Agreement. Of this document he remarked that
wha was given and what was obtained under it were con-
siderable. On the one &de a double canal was to have been
made in the shortest possible period, and there would
have been a great reduction of rates coincident with a
correspondingly large increase in the dividends of the corn-
pans. By a rough estimate, the tonnage would have been
Increased from six millions to 12 within a limited number of
years, and the dividend would have been raised to such a
point that a reduction of tolls to the amount of one million
a year would have been possible. In addition to this, there
would have been a considerable increase of English influ-
ence over, the government and administration of the
Canal. On the other side, a considerable sum would
nave been lent to the company at the lowest rate
possible with safety, which was to be regarded in the
light of a pecuniary advantage to the company, and
there would have been a prolongation of whatever
exclusive rights M. de Lesseps possessed under the
original concession. The question for the House and the
country tc consider was whether we got by this agreement
a sufficient quofor our quid (at this there were loud cries of
"No ") and though he admitted it was an arguable one,
the Government thought the agreement fair. He went on to
state that on Thursday Sir R. Wilson was sent over to Paris
by the Government, net to reopen negotiations, but to
ascertain how fa rthe field was open to the Government to
deal with the agreement. The result of this mission was
stated in letters from Sir R. Wilson and M. de Lesseps
of which he read the material portions, to the effect that M.
de Lesseps and his son did not hold the Government bound
to propose the agreement to Parliament: but they an-
nounced their determination to propose to their shareholders
to take immediate steps for the commencement of a second
canal within the limits of the land they already possessed,
the capital to be raised either by new shares or debentures,
but with the possible risk of retarding the fall in the
dues. Passing next to the position of the Governmen-,
Mr. Gladstone remarked that an agreement of this
kind, to be satisfactory, must obviously meet with
general assent, and to attempt to force it on Parliament
on political grounds would be a departure from public
duty. The first reception had been a vehement condemna-
tion but since then the Government had received many
communications from influential centres of commerce ex-
pressing an opinion that something better might be done
and recommending delay. The Government did not intend,
therefore, to ask Parliament to give its sanction to the
agreement (at this there was much cheering, mainly from the
Conservative benches) for the reasons he had already men-
tioned, and also because, having regard to the actual state of
things and the language which had been used and the argu-
ments which had been put forward, they thought that a hostile
issue could not fail to have a most mischievous effect on our
international relations, and a discussion on it would have
weakened rather than strengthened the position of
this country in any future negotiations. Mr. Gladstone con-
cluded his statement by an eloquent tribute to the genius of
M. de Lesseps and to the frank and cordial spirit which he
had displayed through the negotiations. He disclaimed
also all sympathy with those who seemed disposed to assert
an English domination over the waterway, and declared
that the Government would never use our temporary and
exceptional position in Egypt to invade rights or to violate
the principle that the Canal had been made in the interests
of mankind at large. He added that if it were desired to
discuss the conduct of the Government they would give
every facility in their power.
Sir S. Northcote remarked that it was absolutely essential
that, in some form or other, the House should have an oppor-
tunity of expressing an opinion on this important question.
The Government had, in the exercise of a very wise discre-
tion, determined to withdraw the agreement, and for the
present had no intention of taking any further step in the
matter to which it related. At the same time, there were
several indications in the right hon, gentleman's speech
which made him (Sir Stafford) uneasy as to what the action
of the Government might be hereafter.
Mr. C. Palmer having asked whether Ministers proposed
to continue negotiations with the present Canal Company,
or to take any step of an international character,
Mr. Gladstone replied that at present they did not con-
template immediate action of any kind. It would be their
duty, however, to inform themselves as well as they could
upon the views entertained by those who were chiefly in-
terested in the question.
THE AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL.
The House then went into Committee on the Agricultural
Holdings Bill, and resumed the consideration of Sir M.
Hicks-Beach's amendment to Clause 5. which proposed that
for the compensation secured by the Bill the landlord and
tenant may substitute some other particular agreement
settled by the umpire.
Mr. Dodson opposed it as a transparent method of enab-
ling the parties to contract themselves out of the Act, and
on a division it was negatived by 13 to 97.

Clause 6, which recites the set-offs of benefit to the farmer,
was discussed in much detail and many amendments were
moved, but none were carried of any consequence. Clauses
7,8, 9, and 10 were agreed to, and on Clause 11 an amend-
ment moved by Mr. Arnold, making a twelve months'
notice in all cases compulsory, was negatived by 225 to 50.
On Clause 15 the Committee adjourned, and some other
business baying been disposed of the House adjourned at
half-past one o'clock.

In the llousE OF LOADS, July 24, Lord Aveland, as Lord
Great Chamberlain, brought down a message from the
Queen, acquainting their lordships that Her Malesty had
appointed Admiral Sir James Drummond Gentleman Usher
of the Black Rod; and Sir James having been called to the
Bar, the Lord Chancellor desired him to take his place
accordingly.
Lord Winmarleigh moved the suspension of the Standing
Order of March to enable the Manchester Ship Canal Rill to
be read a second time, notwithgtanding the late period of
the Session at which it had come from the Commons.

The motion was opposed by Lord Redesdale, bat supported
by Lord Derby, and carried on a division by 87 to 21. The
second reading was then agreed to.
The Merchant Shipping (Fishing Boats) Bill was read a
second time.

Lord Waterford, in moving the second reading of the Sea,
Fisheries (Ireland) Bill, explained that it was one for apply-
ing £250,000, the surplcs of the Irish Church Fund, to the
development of the Irish fisheries, and that it had been sup-
ported by all the Irish members.

Lord Fitzgerald, in giving a hearty support to the Bill,
mentioned that in one part of the West of Ireland he found
fishermen packing large numbers of conger eels in boxes, and
on askiug them where they were sending those eels to, the
reply was, "To London, to make turtle soup."
The Bill was read a second time.
In answer to Lord Salisbury, who asked whether any
intelligence had been received as to the extent to which
the cholera had affected our troops In Egypt, Lord Morley
stated that there had been in all four deaths, two in the
Black Watch, one in the Hospital Corps. and one in the
Cameronian Highlanders. Every precaution was, however,
taken to insure the health of the troops, one being to
move them about in small bodies.
The orders having been disposed of, their lordships_ad-
journed at ten minutes past seven o'clock.