§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will lay upon the Table any more Papers connected with the proceedings on the Afghan frontier, before he asks for the Vote of Credit; and, whether he can state what is the exact point at issue between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Russia?
MR. GLADSTONEI have given the consideration which I promised to give to the subject of the telegrams preceding that important telegram—the detailed telegram—of Sir Peter Lumsden, which has been laid upon the Table, and the result is this, that we have not found that we could convey valuable information by the dispersed statements, contained in former telegrams, and which are mixed with a good deal of extraneous matter. It is not, therefore, our intention to lay further Papers on the Table connected with the proceedings on the Afghan Frontier before we ask for the Vote of Credit. I have given careful consideration to the second part of this Question, and have consulted Lord Granville and others of my Colleagues, and although we should gladly, if we could, lay open precisely what is going forward, the fact is that we are engaged in a Correspondence of extreme gravity, and to make a complete statement of its nature and particulars would be impossible, while no partial statement could be given without great risk of creating misapprehension. Consequently, though 486 with some reluctance, we have arrived at the conclusion that we cannot undertake to give any further statement to the House as to the nature and particulars of the Correspondence with the Russian Government at the present time.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEWill the right hon. Gentleman make any statement on Monday?
MR. GLADSTONEWell, I could not undertake to do so. It may be that between this time and Monday information may reach us of a character which may be communicated to the House; but I cannot enter into any covenants on the subject.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEDoes the right hon. Gentleman think that the House will, immediately after the first statement, proceed to pass the Vote? I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that in 1878, when we proposed a Vote of Credit, the stages were that the amount was mentioned on Friday, and on Monday a statement was made by the Government of the circumstances which led to the Vote. The Opposition of the day thought it unreasonable at once to proceed to the discussion, and the matter was put off till the following Thursday.
MR. GLADSTONEIt will be in the power of the House, if they think fit, to contend that more time is required. I have very grave doubts as to whether that contention will be made on the facts before us. We have been careful to make statements to the House of the precise character of the Vote and all that is connected with the Vote itself. With respect to the justification for proposing the Vote, that we shall state on Monday; but I am not aware that it is my duty to state to the House anything that, so far as I know, will require prolonged consideration. Should the House see cause to demand further time for consideration, it will be in the power of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, or of any other Member of the House, to urge their views to that effect. But certainly in a case of this kind—Votes of Credit differ from one another in character—where the general grounds of the Vote are patent to the world, and where their extreme importance and the manner in which they are associated with the national interests and dignity are universally recognized, our impression is that it will be the disposition of 487 the House to proceed at once with the Vote.
§ BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked whether the despatch of M. de Giers, published in the newspapers that morning, had been received by Her Majesty's Government?
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that no Papers relating to Sir Peter Lumsden's Mission and the Afghan Frontier have been given to Parliament for a long time—none at all, I am informed, except the one despatch from Sir Peter Lumsden?
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLAnd yet the right hon. Gentleman wishes the House to understand that no information with regard to this question will be laid before the House before Monday, when the Vote is to be discussed?
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLThe Afghan Frontier?
MR. GLADSTONESir Peter Lumsden's Mission does not require a Vote of Credit. It is the unfortunate and deplorable incidents that have arisen in the course of it, but which are quite distinguishable and separate in themselves.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLIs it not the case that the attack on the Afghan position at Penjdeh is closely connected with Sir Peter Lumsden's Mission and the correspondence which took place with regard to the escort which accompanied Sir Peter Lumsden? We wish to know whether the House can come to any definite conclusion respecting the negotiations with regard to the Afghan Frontier without more information than it at present possesses?
MR. GLADSTONEWe do not ask the House to come to any definite conclusion on the negotiations generally. The necessity for the Vote of Credit does not arise out of the course of these negotiations, but it has been precipitated by special circumstances quite separate from the negotiations. We conceive that the telegrams laid before the House from Sir Peter Lumsden will enable the House to fully understand 488 the nature of the requisitions made upon them.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSAfter the answer which the right hon. Gentleman has given, I should wish to ask are any of the facts connected with the departure of Sir Peter Lumsden from Gulran and the circumstances by which that departure was accompanied stated in any of the telegrams from Sir Peter Lumsden which had not been communicated to the House; and, if so, will the right hon. Gentleman allow the House to be in possession of those telegrams referring to the reason why Sir Peter Lumsden quitted Gulran and the circumstances attending that departure?
MR. GLADSTONEI must ask the noble Lord to put a Question of this kind on the Paper, as it taxes my memory with regard to particulars.
§ MR. O'KELLYWill the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the desirability of postponing the Vote of Credit until the Government are in a position to lay before the House full information with reference to the transaction at Penjdeh?
MR. GLADSTONEMy opinion is that such a course would be extremely prejudicial to the public interest and very adverse to the general feeling of the House.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFI would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is within his recollection that one of the most formidable articles in his indictment against Lord Beaconsfield's Government was that it withheld information from Parliament while expecting a debate to be carried on? I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to follow that bad example?
§ [No reply.]
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTI should like to know whether the Vote of Credit can be put in two distinct sums, one of £6,500,000 for special preparations, and the other of £4,500,000 for the Soudan Expedition?
MR. GLADSTONEMy impression is that it will be open to anyone as a matter of form to move to reduce the Vote of Credit; but, undoubtedly, as the matter stands, it will be put in one sum.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTIn reference to the answer which was given to the noble Lord by the Prime 489 Minister, I would ask whether it is the fact that the Russian Government, in their reply to Her Majesty's Government, have asserted that the deplorable incident at Penjdeh, or whatever it may be called, was due to the presence of Sir Peter Lumsden's Mission on the Afghan Frontier with a large escort? [Cries of"Oh, oh!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERThat Question does not at all fairly grow out of the answer to the noble Lord.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTI rise to a point of Order. [Cries of "Oh, oh!" "Name!"and "Order!] I have not quite finished the Question. I ask you, Sir, to recall the Question of the noble Lord. The noble Lord asked whether Sir Peter Lumsden's Mission had any connection with the unfortunate affair at Ponjdeh? The Prime Minister said "None; "and he therefore declined to produce Sir Peter Lumsden's despatches. I wish to ask upon this question what is the exact point of issue between Her Majesty's Government and the Russian Government? Is it not a fact that the Government of Russia have ventured to assert that the cause of the deplorable incident at penjdeh was the presence of Sir Peter Lumsden on the frontier with an armed escort? Ought we not, therefore, to have Sir Peter Lumsden's despatches, in order to be able to estimate the truth of this Russian allegation? Does that not arise out of the Question put by the noble Lord?
§ MR. SPEAKERI do not see that it at all arises out of that Question.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORI also wish to ask a Question on a point of Order. The Prime Minister has stated that the Vote of Credit would be put in one sum. I have given Notice of Motion for Monday next to the effect that the question of expenditure in the Soudan ought to be considered by the Committee separately from that of expenditure elsewhere. I wish to ask whether it will be competent for any hon. Member to move an Amendment on the Motion "That the Speaker do leave the Chair" for the Vote of Credit to be brought forward? Can I on that occasion make the Motion of which I have given Notice?
§ MR. SPEAKERI should first require to see the Motion which the hon. Member wishes to move.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that his Motion was to the effect that it was expedient that the Vote of Credit in connection with the Soudan Expedition should be considered separately from the Vote of Credit for military expenditure elsewhere.
§ MR. SPEAKERI shall be prepared to answer that Question when I am acquainted with the full circumstances of the case.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHMay I ask the Prime Minister whether that part of the Vote of Credit in respect of the Soudan will be voted on Monday under the same conditions of reticence as the part relating to the special preparations in regard to the Afghan Frontier?
MR. GLADSTONENo, Sir. What I have stated in answer to the right hon. Gentleman undoubtedly had reference to the Vote for special preparations, and not to the Vote for the Soudan, which in many respects comes under very different conditions.