§ MR. OTWAYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the equality between the French Representative, and his British and Italian Colleagues, on the Financial Commission of Tunis, has, or has not, been disturbed by the recent notification of the French Representative there; and, whether he accepts the position assigned to Her Majesty's Government and British subjects, in the notification of the French Minister Resident, with reference to 649 their future communications with the Bey and Government of Tunis?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEThere may be said to be "two Financial Commissions"—the Executive Committee, composed of two Tunisians, and a French Inspector of Finances, appointed by the Bey on the recommendation of the French Government; and the Control Committee, composed of two French, two English, and two Italians, representing the bondholders. The French Government has already been informed (Tunis 6, page 55) that Her Majesty's Government expect that, before any change is made in the existing constitution of the Financial Commission, an opportunity will be given to the creditors of expressing their views on the subject. The agreement as to the Financial Commission does not appear to be affected by the recent communication of M. Roustan. Instructions have been sent to Mr. Reade with regard to his relations to the Governor of Tunis, which will be included in Papers which are shortly to be laid upon the Table.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLWill the hon. Gentleman state, Whether, as a matter of fact, the British Consul at Tunis has access to the Bey on public matters; and whether, so far as the British Consul is concerned, the Circular of M. Roustan is invalid and ineffectual?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEThere are already on the Paper two Questions, one of them for to-morrow, on this matter; and perhaps it will be more courteous to the hon. Gentlemen who have given Notice of them that I should make the answer to them.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLThere is no Question on the Notice Paper of the same nature as the one I have just put.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEThe Question for to-morrow is to ask whether, under existing Treaties, the British Consul has not access to the Bey on public matters? That I take to be precisely the Question which the noble Lord has asked.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLNot at all. What I wish to know is, Whether the British Consul has access to the Bey of Tunis on public matters; and whether, so far as the position of the British Consul is concerned, the Cir- 650 cular of M. Roustan is invalid and ineffectual?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEThat, in my opinion, is precisely the same as the first paragraph of a Question on the Paper for to-morrow. It is—
Whether the appointment of M. Roustan as sole intermediary between the Bey of Tunis and the Foreign Representatives there is in contradiction with M. St. Hilaire's assurances that the treaty rights of England should be 'scrupulously respected?'
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, that the Question was whether at this moment the British Consul at Tunis had or had not access to the Bey on public matters?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEThat Question is precisely the Question that is placed upon the Paper for to-morrow, and I will answer it then.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFThen, Sir, I shall move the adjournment of the House. I am very sorry to say that I am obliged to do so because we can never get an answer from him. The Question I ask is whether the British Consul has or has not access to the Bey on matters connected with British interests? There have been several Questions lately on this question, but none of this character; one, for instance, refers to the invasion of English merchant ships by French cruisers. The Question I will ask on Monday is not a question of Treaty right. It is a question of the right of the British Consuls in the East under capitulation. It is true that another Question is on the Paper for tomorrow; but it is not exactly the same; and I want to know at this moment whether the British Consul is or is not debarred from access to the Bey? I am sorry to do this; but in order to put myself in Order I take a course which has been forced upon me by the interruptions which have come from below the Gangway opposite. I move the adjournment of the House.
§ MR. SPEAKERDoes any hon. Gentleman second the Motion?
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI do.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir H. Drummond Wolff.)
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSregretted that his hon. Friend should have felt obliged to move the adjournment of the 651 House; but he must say that he thought the reason assigned by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for refusing to answer the plain Question which the hon. Member had put went far to justify the course which he had pursued. The Under Secretary appeared to him to have put a construction of his own on the Question which was to be asked to-morrow in bar of answering the Question now put by the hon. Member for Portsmouth. The hon. Baronet the Under Secretary would, perhaps, permit him to say that, though the construction which he put upon the Question to be put to-morrow might appear to be obvious to him, it was not necessarily obvious to other Members of the House. The Question put was a very simple one; and, therefore, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would have the kindness to answer it without delay.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEThe noble Lord has stated that the reason why I did not answer the Question was that there was a similarity between it and another Question that is to be put to-morrow; but I may point out that there is no occasion to find any such reason. But I may say, further, it is not usual to answer Questions without Notice, especially Questions of delicate pending negotiations. [Sir H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Pending?] Yes, pending; because we are actually in communication with foreign Governments on this very question. I stated just now that we had sent a despatch this very day to Mr. Reade on the subject. It is not usual to answer Questions on delicate matters of this kind without Notice; and it is only about a week ago that I appealed to the House in regard to Notices of Questions on foreign affairs. I am speaking within the recollection of many hon. Members who will remember what took place last Parliament in matters relating to foreign affairs. Such Questions were not often put without Notice. The practice of putting such Questions without Notice began in the last Session of Parliament, and has received a great extension in the present Session. If hon. Gentlemen will look back to the records of the last Parliament, they will find that there was rarely any Question put on foreign affairs without a Notice of from four days to a week; but in the present Parliament such Questions are usually put at one day's Notice, 652 or without any Notice at all, and this gave extreme difficulty to those who had charge of these matters. I ask for time to answer this Question; and I still say that the first paragraph of the Question to-morrow, if it means anything at all, means exactly the same as the Question which has been put to-night. As to what was stated by the noble Lord, I may say that I gave that reason, and I might have given this one also.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEThere can be no doubt that the hon. Baronet is right in saying that it is usual that Notice should be given on Questions on foreign affairs; and if he had given that reason first, in answer to my hon. Friend, I feel perfectly sure that not a word more would have been said. The reason which the hon. Baronet gave was of quite a different character; and I must say he did rather provoke an examination in contrasting the terms of one Question with another as the reason for not giving an answer.
MR. GLADSTONEI am not at all surprised that the right hon. Gentleman recognizes the duty of covering, as well as he can, the consequences of any general miscarriage on the part of one of his political Friends. I find, therefore, no fault with his speech. But how does this matter stand? It stands thus—a Question is put to my hon. Friend, without Notice, on foreign affairs, on a matter of extreme delicacy, and on which communications are actually going on. The right hon. Gentleman opposite admits that the Under Secretary announced a perfectly just reason for not answering the Question to-day, but says he gave a wrong reason at first, and for giving this wrong reason the hon. Member for Portsmouth moves the adjournment of the House. I must say, and I do not say so as reflecting upon the hon. Member, that of all the unreasonable occasions—[" Oh, oh !"]—this appears to me the most unreasonable, or the least reasonable, if you like so to take it. It is an attempt to force an answer now, at this moment, to a Question on foreign affairs without Notice. It is not a question as to whether my hon. Friend gave a right or a wrong reason. That is not the position of the hon. Member. He insists upon an immediate answer, without any postponement, and says that if he cannot have an immediate answer he will move the adjournment of 653 the House. That is the position of the case—
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFI beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. My reason for moving the adjournment of the House was the discourteous interruptions of hon. Members opposite.
MR. GLADSTONEI must apologize to the hon. Member if I have misunderstood him; but I am unable to understand why interruptions from this side of the House, if there were any interruption, should be a reason for a Motion of Adjournment. He insisted upon an immediate answer; and I want to know whether the insistance of an immediate answer is to be persisted in, and whether it has the countenance of the right hon. Gentleman opposite? It has, unfortunately, the countenance of the noble Lord (Lord John Manners). He rose with an aspect of general mildness; but he also insisted upon an immediate answer. Now, for a moment, and for argument's sake, I waive the question whether my hon. Friend gave the proper answer. I maintain he gave a most courteous answer. Instead of asking generally and largely for Notice of the Question, he said that there is a Question standing for to-morrow, which is the shortest Notice there can possibly be, in which he considered the Question that had been put is included, and he proposed to answer both Questions together to-morrow. Therefore my hon. Friend made a most reasonable request. But the noble Lord opposite asks an immediate answer, and justified this Motion for Adjournment. I beg to suggest to the House that this Motion for Adjournment ought not to be allowed to be dropped, but that we should go to a division, in order to mark our sense of the Motion which has been made to the House.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLMr. Speaker—
§ MR. DILLWYNI rise to Order, Sir. The noble Lord has already seconded the Motion, and I wish to know if he is again entitled to speak?
§ MR. SPEAKERAccording to the strict Rule of debate, the noble Lord having seconded the Motion for the Adjournment, is not in Order in speaking again.
§ EARL PERCYsaid, no one could have a stronger objection to Motions for Adjournment at this time of the day than 654 he had; but at present that was the only way by which Members on his side of the House could obtain a hearing, owing to the intolerance and interruptions of hon. Members opposite—he must say, chiefly on the part of those hon. Members who had had the least experience in that House. When those who sat beside him were met by clamour and disturbance when they addressed the House, and when they were clearly within their legal rights, then they ought to move the adjournment in order, as far as possible, to put their foot upon this sort of interruptions. That was the intention of his hon. Friend, and not any desire to force an answer. He hoped that Motions for Adjournment would not often become necessary; but he hoped they would always be made until hon. Members opposite were prepared to treat them differently.
§ MR. MONKsubmitted that the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) moved the adjournment of the House to put himself in Order in making his speech, and that he was making a speech instead of asking a Question when he was called to Order. He trusted the House would, in accordance with the suggestion of the Prime Minister, show its opinion of these frequent Motions for Adjournment by going to a division.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHcould not but hope that more moderate and wise counsels would prevail, and that the time of the House, which had so often been stated to be extremely valuable, would not be further wasted. An explanation had been given and accepted, and the proper course would be to proceed at once with the Business of the House.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFI beg to withdraw the Motion. [" No, no!"]
MR. GLADSTONEI shall be unwilling to place any difficulty in the way after what has been said; but I must honestly say—and I hope the hon. Member will not think it unreasonable—that I think he ought to state that he withdraws his demand for an immediate answer.
SIR H: DRUMMOND WOLFFI do not for a moment regret the course I have taken; but I beg to withdraw the Motion. ["No, no!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERDoes the hon. Member desire to withdraw the Motion?
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFMay I say one word? I withdraw the Motion in consequence of the demand which has been made by the Under Secretary for time to answer the Question. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!]
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.