LORD WENTWORTHsaid, he desired to put a Question to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of which he had given him private Notice. It was this, Whether it was true that Sir Auckland Colvin had absolutely denied that Mr. Blunt acted as mediator or intermediary between either himself or Sir Edward Malet and the chiefs of the National Egyptian party during the past winter, after that fact had been publicly affirmed by the noble Earl (Earl Granville) in his place in Parliament? A telegram to which the Question related was published in The Times of June 30, dated Alexandria, June 29, in which the correspondent said—
I am desired by Sir Auckland Colvin to give the most absolute and unqualified denial to the two assertions made by Mr. Blunt in his letter to Mr. Gladstone. It is utterly untrue that Mr. Blunt was ever employed by Sir Edward Malet or Sir Auckland Colvin as mediator or intermediary, officially or otherwise.Their Lordships would observe that this put into the mouth of Sir Auckland Colvin not only a contradiction, but a positive denial of a statement made in that House only three days before by his official superior. On June 26, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs stated that Mr. Blunt was formerly in the Diplomatic Service, and had personal and unofficial communications with Sir Edward Malet on Egyptian matters, and that on one occasion in December last he was requested by Sir Edward Malet and Sir Auckland Colvin to obtain a promise from the War Minister that no disturbance should arise at the moment when the Controllers refused to allow an increase in the Army. No political feeling had prompted this Question. Mr. Blunt was a near relation of his own, and he had been most unfairly and bitterly attacked. Against Sir Auckland Colvin he had no accusation to make, because, although, if they were to believe the telegrams, he had committed grave official blunders, he was a man of 1213 integrity and ability. One main purpose of his Question was to afford the noble Earl such, an opportunity as he must himself desire of clearing up this disagreeable affair. He would like also to ask whether the despatch dated on or about December 24, referred to the other day by the noble Earl (Earl De La Warr), and which, he believed, recorded the earlier stages of Mr. Blunt's negotiations, would be laid before Parliament?
§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he had no complaint to make of the noble Lord's Question. He had seen the telegram in The Times, but had received no official communication respecting the employment of Mr. Blunt under Sir Edward Malet in Egypt. He entirely agreed with the noble Lord as to the good opinion which was universally entertained of Sir Auckland Colvin; but he was sorry to say he could not quite agree with the noble Lord in the sympathy which he felt in all the actions of Mr. Blunt. He thought it would be more satisfactory, both to the noble Lord and to other parties, if such Papers as there were on the subject were laid upon the Table.