HC Deb 14 March 1856 vol 141 cc162-9
MR. LAYARD

said, that at the beginning of the preceding week he had called the attention of the House to the question now pending between this country and Persia, in the hope of eliciting some expression of opinion from hon. Members on that important subject. Nothing had struck him so much, since he had had the honour of a seat in that House, as the indifference of Parliament to Eastern questions. He had hoped that the melancholy fate of Kars would have had the effect of inducing the House to take more interest in those questions, and he was strengthened in that hope by the impression that they might have to pay a large bill for operations in Central Asia. Upon the occasion to which he had alluded he stated the facts of the unfortunate quarrel which had taken place with Persia, and his conviction that that quarrel might lead to unhappy results in Central Asia. He had not seen reason since to change that opinion; on the contrary, from private information he had received, as well as from information published in the daily journals, he thought the Persian quarrel was becoming more inveterate. It had been stated that the wife of Mirza Hashim was not a relative of the Shah. He believed she was both his wife's sister and a member of the royal family. It had also been stated that Mirza Hashim himself had a right to protection. Undoubtedly he might be entitled to take refuge in the British mission; but to say that this right of protection extended to all his family, whether in or out of the mission, or even to himself when he left that asylum, was perfectly absurd. It had been further stated that we had a right to appoint a Resident at Shiraz, although not a Consular agent. Upon that point he wished to call attention to the exact words of the article of the treaty relating to the appointment of agents. As there was only one other article, it was evident that the Persian Government must have laid great stress upon the subject to which he referred. The second article says— As it is necessary for the purpose of attending to the affairs of the merchants of the two parties respectively, that from both Governments commercial agents should be appointed to reside in stated places; it is, therefore, arranged that two commercial agents on the part of the British Government shall reside, one in the capital and one in Tabriz, and in those places only, and on this condition, that he who shall reside in Tabriz, and he alone, shall be honoured with the privileges of Consul General; and, as for a series of years a Resident of the British Government has resided at Bushire, the Persian Government grants permission that the said Resident shall reside there as heretofore. And, in like manner, two commercial agents shall reside, on the part of the Persian Government, one in the capital, London, and one in Bombay, and shall enjoy the same rank and privileges which the commercial agents of the British Government shall enjoy in Persia. That treaty plainly excluded either a Consular agent or a political Resident elsewhere. But it had been said that we had formerly an agent at Shiraz. Such was the case a few years ago, but that gentleman was appointed before the conclusion of the treaty to which he had referred, and was moreover, he believed, a native of India, and consequently a British protected subject. It had been stated that two small vessels had been sent to the Persian Gulf to protect British interests there. He believed, however, that those vessels were two of the largest, if not the largest, in the service of the East India Company—that they were vessels of war—and that others of the same class were to follow. He observed, too, that the Persian Government were actually taking steps to meet us in the Gulf, fortifying Karak, and assembling troops at Bushire, and that they were also preparing an expedition against some part of Central Asia. He, therefore, entreated the House to endeavour to obtain from the President of the Board of Control some explanation of those facts. While concluding a peace at Paris we might find ourselves involved in another war, and one, moreover, in which he most conscientiously and solemnly believed we should not have right on our side. Before he sat down he might perhaps be permitted to say a word or two on a subject in which he felt a good deal of interest—he referred to the question of the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. French) with respect to the attack on the Redan. He thought that the persons engaged in that attack had been most unjustly treated. It was true that the attack failed, but no blame could attach to the regimental officers who took part in it, and whose gallantry was not exceeded throughout the whole campaign in the Crimea. He understood that it had been decided at the Horse Guards that no reward should be given to the regimental officers concerned in that attack. That, he considered, was most unfair and ungenerous, and he trusted the authorities at the Horse Guards would revise their decision, and confer some honorary distinction upon the brave and gallant officers engaged in the attack upon the Redan. He should conclude by asking the right hon. President of the Board of Control the names and armament of the vessels of war which had proceeded to, and were to proceed to, the Persian Gulf from our Indian possessions? Whether the Court of Directors, or Indian Government, had been called upon to prepare an expedition against Persia? Whether any information had been received to the effect that Persia was preparing or contemplating an expedition against Herat, or any part of Central Asia? Whether the expenses of any demonstration against Persia, or of a war with that country, were to be borne by the revenues of the United Kingdom or of India?

MR. VERNON SMITH

in reply said, that the hon. Gentleman was not quite right in one point; that was in reference to the right of appointing commercial agents in Persia. It was true that under the treaty we had no right to have a commercial agent at Shiraz, but it had always been customary to maintain an agent there, and with the consent of the Persian Government. He considered that two out of the four questions put to him by the hon. Member were more applicable to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs than to his department. In reply to the hon. Gentleman as to the names and armaments of the vessels sent to the Persian Gulf, he would state, the vessels were two lightly armed steamers, one of 500 and the other of 220 horse-power, and they had been sent, not to make a demonstration against Persia, but to protect British residents at Bushire, to whom it was thought possible some insult might be offered in consequence of the dispute between the British Minister and the Government of the Shah. The names of the steamers were the Adayah and the Victoria, but the former being required to bring home the late Governor General of India, another vessel had been substituted. There had been no additional vessels sent. It was a mere substitution of one for another. With regard to the second question, he hoped the hon. Member would excuse him if he declined to give an answer, on the ground that it was unusual to give information in respect to communications that passed between the Government and the Court of Directors of the East India Company, and he should be sorry to transgress the rule which had been always acted upon by his predecessors. In reply to the third question, he had to state that rumours had reached this country, and he believed they were true, that the Persian Government were preparing some sort of expedition, or rather that they were increasing their troops by 10,000 men, which might possibly be intended as a demonstration against Herat; but there was no positive information of that fact. To the fourth question, as to the expenses of the war, should war take place, he had to say that no arrangement had or could have been come to on that point. In those eastern wars it was customary for the Court of Directors and the Treasury to bear the burden according to the extent to which the war was undertaken in the Imperial interests or in the interests of the Indian Government. That had been the course in the Chinese war and in the Affghan war. It depended upon whether the objects of the war were strictly Indian, strictly Imperial, or Imperial and Indian mixed, whether the cost was borne wholly by the Treasury, by the East India Company, or by both together. Those questions were always taken into consideration when the expenses of the war came to be discharged, which in the present case may never occur.

SIR DE LACY EVANS

said, he was desirous of saying a word on the subject raised by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Layard); and he confessed it was not with entire satisfaction that he heard the statement of the right hon. President of the Board of Control with regard to our relations with Persia. That right hon. Gentleman had let slip an expression which seemed to imply that an Indian war might be looked for as a probability. Looking to the very doubtful nature of the cause for such a war, which would be unworthy of England, he thought that the Government ought to prevent even the appearance that hostilities were about to ensue between the two countries, or show any hesitation in bringing the matter to a pacific solution. He could not help calling the attention of the House to the very unsatisfactory and trivial causes from which many of our Indian wars had sprung; for instance, the war with Burmah, which arose from some English vessels of war going to Burmah to ask for restitution of a small sum to one of our merchants; and a difficulty having arisen about some point of etiquette on the governor not returning the commodore's visit a war followed, which the Governor General of India was said not to desire. Then the last war at the Cape was caused by the theft of a hatchet, or some such valuable commodity. He hoped, therefore, that we were not about to slide again into a useless and expensive war; and the Government ought to send out the most decisive orders to the Indian Government on that point. If Persia was really planning an expedition to Herat, he hoped that the Indian Government would not send an army into Affghanistan, for he thought we had had enough of that.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he wished to say one word upon the observations made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Layard) in relation to the apparent commencement of a quarrel with Persia. The House would recollect that, when the hon. Member originally drew the attention of the House to that question, he gave a recital of facts, and was followed in the discussion by his noble Friend at the head of the Government. His noble Friend stated to the House that the hon. Member for Aylesbury did not appear to be well informed on the facts, and he proceeded to make a statement which he said was perfectly correct; but the impression made upon his (Mr. Gladstone's) mind, and he thought on the mind of other hon. Members, was, that there was no very material difference between the two relations, and that the statement of the hon. Member for Aylesbury was in its substance correct. Although the House had judiciously observed that reserve which the noble Lord at the head of the Government had so strongly enjoined, yet he (Mr. Gladstone), for one, could not help thanking the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Layard) for taking up the question, because the short discussion that had taken place in the House must clearly show the Government that there was some uneasiness in the House on the subject. It was right that, at the commencement of such matters, which, at their origin, seemed little, but afterwards became great, that they should be left in the hands of the responsible advisers of the Crown. But, at the same time, when they heard of the departure of vessels of war and expeditions, and of the departure of the Queen's representatives from the Court to which they were accredited, it was no wonder that such a sentiment of uneasiness should gain ground, unless there was on the face of the facts a presumption that there was an adequate and reasonable cause for such a state of things. Now, so far from that being the case in this instance, it appeared to him, from all he had seen of the papers relating to it, that this quarrel, if quarrel there was to be, was founded altogether on questions and matter of the most insignificant and trumpery character. There was another point which—important at all times—became of the more importance after the answer which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control had given to the hon. Member for Aylesbury, because he had let slip words which were of the greatest weight, and called for observation in that House. The second question asked by the hon. Member for Aylesbury was, "Whether the Court of Directors or Indian Government had been called upon to prepare an expedition against Persia?" That question was met with silence on the part of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. V. Smith), but he (Mr. Gladstone) could make no complaint of that silence. The fourth question was, "Whether the expenses of any demonstration against Persia, or of a war with that country, were to be borne by the revenues of the United Kingdom or of India?" To that question the right hon. Gentleman stated that was a matter which, if war should arise, could not in the first instance be decided either by the Government or by reference to that House. It was a question which must stand for future consideration, and which might lead to delay, discussion, and correspondence between the Company and the Government. In that statement the right hon. Gentleman was justified by the facts, for it was only recently that the expenses of the Chinese war were settled—if settled they were—sixteen years after its termination. [Sir J. W. HOGG: They were not settled.] His hon. Friend the Member for Honiton said they were not settled. He believed the fact to be that they were settled to the satisfaction of the Government, but not to the satisfaction of the Company, of which the hon. Member for Honiton was a director. But he wanted to call attention to the importance of that answer as affecting the constitutional privileges of that House. It was true that the power of declaring war was confided to the Crown, but when war was once made, that House must be called into Council at an early stage, because the means of making war must be applied for to that House; so that, when war was made, the House might know what resources were to be provided for carrying it on, and also he satisfied as to the adequacy of the causes which led to it. Now, they were told that when this war took place—if there was to be war—the whole question of who was to defray the costs of that war should stand over for future consideration, as also who was to be responsible for the war. He would not go into the question of how far the British people should be exempted from the cost of Indian wars; but he entirely denied that they had a right to charge the Indian revenues for British purposes, and then hold themselves exempt from the consequences. But he would point out that if they were to take the declarations of his right hon. Friend (Mr. V. Smith) to the letter, war may be made, expenditure to any amount may be incurred, and the intention might be ultimately to charge the whole upon the taxes of the people of England, and yet they might never hear of it when it was made, during the time of its continuance, nor after its close; it might stand over, like the operations of the China war, for many years after the transactions had taken place. He entirely acceded to the doctrine of the First Minister of the Crown that they ought not to interfere prematurely or in any manner calculated to embarrass the Government. But, on the other hand, he hoped that after what had taken place the Government would feel that before the country was involved in any of those Eastern quarrels, which could not be regarded as merely affecting the East India Company, but were British, and British only, the House of Commons might have an opportunity of giving its opinion of the importance of the question and the justice of the quarrel.

MR. VERNON SMITH

said, he must deny that he had said that the question of the responsibility for the expenditure of the war would he postponed until after the war. What he had said was, that it would he settled after a consideration of what interests—British or Indian—were concerned, and the probability was that it would be settled when the war, if war there should be, was commenced.

SIR JAMES HOGG

said, the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) were calculated to mislead the House as to the real facts of the case which he had quoted. Before the Chinese war began, before a single soldier was moved, before a single expense was incurred, and before a single order was given by the Indian Government, the Court of Directors had a written declaration from the Minister for India, given with the assent of Her Majesty's Government, regulating and determining the persons who were to pay the expenses of that war, and the resources from which every item of expenditure was to be drawn, whether from the Imperial or the Indian Treasury. It would ill become him to enter at any length into that question, but with regard to the Chinese, the Affghanistan, and, if his memory served him, every war on account of which the revenues of India had been subject to any charge, the responsibility had been clearly and distinctly ascertained and stated beforehand, and not left in so unsettled a condition as might be inferred from the observations of the right hon. Gentleman.