THH SUEZ CANAL PUROHASE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 2531, 4 May 1876, Page 3

THH SUEZ CANAL PUROHASE.

(Spectator, 1 "Feb. 20.) Tho debate on tho purchase of tho Suez Canal Shares cam© off on Monday night. Mr Lowo openod tho ball wifch a rather weak,booauao over minuto speech, in whioh ho argued that tho shares had boon purohasod in an oxtravagant way, muoh inferior to tho way in whioh ho had raised the monoy for tho Gonova Award, and by a Govornmont ignorant thafc tho shares did not carry votes. The main drift of his speech was, howovor, a criticism of Mr Cave's mission, whioh is nofc a portion of tho transaction known os " tho Purohase." Mr Lowo was answorod by Sir I). Wolff, aud then Mr Gladstone roso, and in a vory powerful spoeoh, delivered in his bost mannor, provod that the Government had borrowed tho money of Messrs Rothschild at tho rato of 15 por oont. por annum, and endeavoured fco provo, first, that ifc had acquired no influence hy fcho purohaao, its power boing limited fco ton votes, and its interest being low fares, and nofc high dividends t secondly, that it ran the risk of boing oorapollod to buo in Fronoh Courts, of having to advanoo money fco lbo Canal, und of finding its interest severed from that of othor maritime Powers j and thirdly, that ifc had no sound soourity for fcho Khedivo's 5 por oont, whioh was only promised by a Govornmont as profligately oxponuivo aa that of Turkey, and

out of reiouroes mortgaged to prior creditors. He doubted if it would not be better for the oountry to divide these shares amosg the members of the Cabinet, than to risk so many embarrassments. The first important speaker in roply w«»b Sir Stafford Nortboote, who, in a dull, but weighty speech, affirmed that Governmont knew it would havo no right to vote, but trusted to influence the company, wbioh had already offered to allow votes on the shares, and agreed to admit three English Direotors to the Board j and defended the payment to Messrs Kothsohild, because part of it was made by the Khedive— whioh is not tho oaso, as we havo shown elsewhere— but deolared that if tho transaction were purely oorameroiul, it " would not be justifiable." After several smaller people had risen, among thorn Lord Or. Hamilton, who made a point by showing that India had been asked for no contribution to a transaction dictated by regard to her interests, Mr Disraeli finished the debate in a dashing and rather reckless speech. Tt was at all events dear, he said, that Mr Gladstone would not have purchased the shares. He defended the payment to Messrs Rothschild, oa the ground of the risk they had run, of losses caused by the sudden realisation of securities, and of possible disturbance of tho money market- alleged that it was illegal for the Bank to make an advance to Government, and ridiouled the idea that a Government waa not to aot because its action might cause stockjabbing. Tho Government hao\ been compelled to aot suddenly, but it was on ma< ure knowlodgo, for the quostion of the Canal had beon constantly boforo it. The arguments of Mr Gladstone were "a string of assumptions which experience would falsify," and for himself he had never recommended the purchaso as an investment. If it gave ten per cent, 'no Minister would justify it, but bo justified it as a politioal transaction calculated to strengthen the Empire. The peoplo were "really sea sink of the silver streak;" thty " wanted the Empiro to be maintained and to bo strengthened, and would not be alarmed if it woro inoreased," The vote was passed without a division.