§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign 597 Affairs, Whether instructions have been sent to the Military authorities in Egypt respecting the administration of criminal justice during the occupation, with special reference to the capitulations, and the right of subjects of Foreign Powers in Ottoman territory to be judged by their own consuls in criminal cases in which they are defendants, and in which no Ottoman subject is involved? He might, perhaps, ask, at the same time, Whether the attention of the Government has been called to a paragraph in the corrrespondence of the "Daily News" of the 2nd August, stating that Ricciotti Garibaldi is inviting volunteers to support the Insurrection in Egypt; whether such statement is correct; and, if so, whether Italian subjects found in arms against Her Majesty's troops will enjoy the benefits of the capitulations, and be justiciable by their own consuls?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEThe rights of subjects of Foreign Powers in Egypt under the Capitulations are well known to the military authorities, and will, no doubt, be respected to the fullest extent that is compatible with the exigencies of a military occupation. Her Majesty's Government have not sent general instructions on the subject, but are prepared to deal with any difficulty which may arise on the subject according to the particular circumstances of the cases which may be reported. With regard to the second Question, I can only say that we have no knowledge of the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
§ MR. E. STANHOPEasked the Secretary of State for India, If he will lay upon the Table the telegrams quoted by him on Monday, which have passed between himself and the Government of India, on the subject of the contribution out of Indian revenues towards the cost of the expedition to Egypt?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, that the telegrams in question were so brief as to make it hardly worth while to lay them on the Table of the House. Some of them were in cipher, and it was not very convenient to give accurately telegrams transmitted in that manner. He had no objection, however, to state the purport of the telegrams. On the 24th of July he telegraphed to the Government of India that the Government at home, subject to any representation the Government of India might desire to make, proposed that all the expense of 598 the Indian troops sent to Egypt should be charged on India. On the 26th of July the Council of India telegraphed that they unanimously objected to that proposal, and that they would address to the Government at home a despatch upon the subject. On the 27th the Viceroy telegraphed—
We gather from Reuter's telegram that you have applied to Parliament for consent to payment of the expense of the Indian Contingent by Indian revenues. We conclude that the promise given in your telegram of the 24th July, that representations we may desire to make will be considered before final decision is arrived at, holds perfectly good.He (the Marquess of Hartington) replied—Yes. Resolutions in Parliament are necessary, whatever final decisions may be.He added, that he thought Indian interests in the Suez Canal justified them in asking the Indian Government to bear a very large proportion of the charge from the Revenue of India. He would take that opportunity of answering the Question which the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. K. Cross) had put on the Paper—namely, whether he would lay the despatch of the Indian Government on the Table. That was not possible, as he had not yet received the despatch. But he would lay it on the Table when he received it, if there was no objection.
§ MR. BOURKEasked whether, when the Indian Government sent the telegrams, they were aware of the number of troops that might be required?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONThey were preparing a considerably larger force than they are now asked for.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has remarked, on pages 44 and 45 of Blue Book, 3230, of 1882, that three days before our Consul General's final rupture with the Egyptian Chamber of Delegates, Lord Granville telegraphed to him for a report as to the "precise effect" of granting all the Chamber demanded, namely, the right to vote that part of the Budget which provided for the internal administration of the country, and that his reply was, that the effect would be that—
Official salaries not regulated by contract would be under the control of the Chamber, so 599 that it would be able to abolish the land survey, and dismiss many Europeans;and, whether he will state what reply was given by Lord Granville to this telegram between the date of its receipt (January 13th) and the 15th of January, when, as shown in page 48 of the same Blue Book, our Consul General finally repudiated the demand of the Chamber, declined all compromise, and so led to the formation of the National Ministry and succeeding events?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKESir, no instruction in regard to the powers of the Chamber of Notables was sent to Sir Edward Malet between the dates mentioned by my hon. Friend. On the 16th of January the telegram to Lord Lyons of that date (No. 66 in the Blue Book) was repeated to Sir Edward Malet for his guidance. I cannot accept my hon. Friend's version of Sir Edward Malet's proceedings on the 15th of January. He did not "finally repudiate" the demand of the Chamber, or "decline all compromise;" but he stated to the President of the Chamber the grounds on which he considered that the demands of the Chamber infringed international engagements, and gave no encouragement to a suggestion that he himself should endeavour to find a compromise.
§ MR. O'DONNELLasked whether Her Majesty's Government did not oppose the claims of the Egyptian Chamber of Delegates to control official salaries not regulated by contract, and to dismiss Europeans?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEThe House is aware of the statements I have made in the course of debate. The great majority of officials are dismissable by the Egyptian Government up to the present time. With regard to the action of the English Government, the hon. Member will find all the information in the Papers.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the hon. Baronet had very adroitly avoided answering his Question. In his (Mr. O'Donnell's) opinion, the Government had carefully excluded from the Papers the information he desired.
§ SIR WILFEID LAWSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to a statement in the second edition of the "Times" of 1st August, as to the absence of the usual native population from Alexandria; whether he is 600 able to state approximately the number of the population before and after the bombardment; and, in the event of the alleged serious diminution existing, he has taken any steps to inquire what has become of the remainder; and, whether he can state that numbers have not perished outside the city, deprived of their means of subsistence?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEI am not able to give the figures asked for by my hon. Friend. We have no information as to the number of the Native population of Alexandria who may have left the city with the troops, nor can I say how many have returned, or what has become of those who remain absent.