§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he can state which of the Powers have consented to the Conference on the affairs of Egypt; and, whether, before issuing invitations to a Conference at Constantinople, Her Majesty's Government and the Government of France had taken steps to ascertain whether such conference was acceptable to the Sultan, the Sovereign of that capital? The hon. Member further asked whether the French text of the Circulars published in The Times and addressed by the Sultan to the other Powers was authentic; if so, when where the Circulars received, and had any answer been sent by Her Majesty's Government?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKESir, my hon. Friend asks which of the Powers have consented to the Conference? All of them have expressed themselves favourable to the idea, except the Porte, which, without declining, has expressed the belief that the Conference is unnecessary. The text of the Circulars which appears in The 'Times is no doubt accurate, as it corresponds pretty closely with the purport of a conversation which Musurus Pasha had with Lord Granville yesterday evening, and which was the first expression of the opinion of the Porte on the matter which we have had before us. The hon. Member also asks whether, before issuing invitations to a Conference at Constantinople, we have taken steps to ascertain whether the Conference was acceptable to the Sultan? No, Sir; we did not. I find from examination of the latest precedent—that of the Constantinople Conference of 1876— that the late Government took the initiative in proposing it, without taking steps to ascertain whether it was acceptable to the Sultan. All the Powers expressed themselves favourable to the idea, except the Porte, which objected to it. The preparations were actively pushed on all the same, and the Porte only agreed 14 days later. As my hon. Friend may be inclined to agree with me that the precedent is an interesting one, I will give him the exact dates. The invitations to the Conference of 1876 were sent out on the 4th of November.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFWere they laid before Parliament?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEYes; I am quoting from the Blue Book. On the 8th of November Lord Salisbury was named British Plenipotentiary. On the 8th of November the Porte made its first answer, stating that—
The meeting of a Conference would be too disadvantageous for us not to wish that the desired understanding be obtained without the meeting of foreign Plenipotentiaries, having as their mission the discussion of the internal administration of the empire.On the 13th of November, the Porte again protested against the Conference. On the same day the reply sent somewhat intimated that the Conference might take place, whether the Porte joined in it or not. It was not until the 18th November that the Porte agreed to the Conference.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFIs the hon. Baronet not aware that the result of that Conference was entirely futile, and does he anticipate a similar result from the proposed Conference?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEThe hon. Member might obtain information as to the result of the Conference of 1876 from right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEI wish to ask whether the answers received from the other Powers except the Porte, which are said to have been favourable, were distinct acceptances?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKENo, Sir; I take it that the Powers are following on this occasion the precedent of 1876. In 1876 the Powers informed us that, while they were generally favourable to the idea, they should keep back their formal answers until they had agreed amongst themselves upon the terms. That was the answer of Germany, and I think it probable that the same course is being taken on this occasion.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEHave the Government received any communication from any of the Powers to the effect that they think a Conference unnecessary?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKENo, Sir.
MR. JOSEPH COWENHave the Government received any intelligence as to the arrival of Dervish Pasha in Egypt, or as to the instructions he has been empowered to carry out?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEThe conversation between Musurus Pasha and Lord Granville has placed generally before the Government the instructions given by the Porte to Dervish Pasha, and they are substantially on the same bases as those proposed for the Conference. With regard to the arrival of Dervish Pasha in Egypt, judging from the distance, which is only 800 miles, I think he would probably arrive to-night or to-morrow morning.
§ MR. O'DONNELLI should like to ask whether the instructions to Dervish Pasha contained any instructions to the effect that the terms of the recent Anglo-French Ultimatum should be insisted on—with respect, for example, to the exile of Arabi Pasha and other matters?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEI do not think it would serve any good end 232 to go largely into discussion on this subject, and I could not answer without entering considerably into discussion. I have already stated that the document in question is not an Ultimatum, and I have given certain reasons why it is not an Ultimatum. The instructions given to Dervish Pasha have not been communicated in detail to Her Majesty's Government, but only general terms; and they resemble those that have been placed before the Powers as the bases of the proposed Conference.
§ MR. M'COANI beg to ask the hon. Baronet, whether, in the instructions given to Dervish Pasha, the expulsion of Arabi Pasha from Egypt was included?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEI do not think we know the exact nature of the measures which the Porte is prepared to take. The measures are, generally speaking, the restoration of order in Egypt, and of the authority of the Khedive.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked when the promised Papers relating to Egypt would be distributed to Members'?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKECommunications with the Government of Franco with regard to them have now ceased, and the Papers went to the printers this morning. I think it will take two days to get them printed, but they will probably be distributed on Friday morning.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONinquired if this referred to the distribution of all the Papers?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKENo, Sir; these are only the first set down to February 5. We are still discussing with the French Government with respect to others, and I think, as I said yesterday, we shall obtain their assent to the production of the remainder.
§ BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the hon. Baronet whether the fortified works at Alexandria had been discontinued, because the statements in that day's newspapers on the subject were contradictory?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEI am sorry I cannot give any additional information on the subject. Sir Beauchamp Seymour may have telegraphed further particulars to the Admiralty since I came to the House; but, so far as I know, he has not yet telegraphed.
§ MR. O'DONNELLWas it on the authority of the Government that Admiral Seymour applied to the Sultan for the protection of the British Fleet against the fortifications?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKENo, Sir. I stated the facts yesterday, and I have nothing to add to the statement.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked whether, in view of the gravity of the Egyptian crisis and the dangers that threatened the interests of England in that country, the Government would fix an early day for the discussion by that House of the policy to be pursued with regard to Egypt and the Ottoman Power?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEIn reply to the Question of the hon. Member, I can only repeat what I have already stated, that Her Majesty's Government desire to place the House in possession of all the facts, by laying on the Table the Correspondence up to the end of May, and they have asked the French Government for their consent, which, as I have also stated, has been partially given. Her Majesty's Government must decline to enter on a fragmentary discussion.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTAre we to understand that when the Papers are on the Table an opportunity will be given for discussion?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEI have no doubt that if a Motion of Want of Confidence in the Government in relation to their foreign policy is proposed by the responsible Leaders of hon. Gentlemen opposite, a suitable opportunity for its discussion will be given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.