§ MR. HOPWOODasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether there has been any honourable mention made by Sir Beauchamp Seymour in his Despatches of the services of the Marines, who form a large proportion of the 957 fighting force under his command; and, whether the propriety of appointing a Brigadier and Staff to the Marine force in Egypt has been considered?
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANThe despatches received from Sir Beau-champ Seymour refer only to the action of July 11 at Alexandria, and no special mention is made in them of the services of the Royal Marines, although the Admiral speaks most highly of all the officers and men—including, of course, the Marines—under his command. The second Question addressed to me by my hon. and learned Friend I have already on two occasions answered. The Marines now on active service are attached to the ships of the Fleet, and it is not thought necessary to appoint a special Brigadier General and Staff for the part of the Force serving on shore.
MR. GORSTasked whether the Royal Marines and Royal Marine Artillery did not form at least one-half of the Naval Force engaged at the bombardment of Alexandria?
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANI have already stated that Sir Beau-champ Seymour's remarks, no doubt, applied to the Marines as much as to seamen; but they were then engaged in performing their duties on board ship. What the proportion of Marines to seamen was I cannot say.
§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Firman of August 1879, investing Tewfik Pasha with the Khediviat, which, before promulgation, was communicated to and accepted by the Governments of England and France, forms one of the "International engagements" of the Sultan; whether the Egyptian tribute of £T.750,000, payable to the Sultan, is fixed by that Firman; and, whether the Plenipotentiaries at Constantinople are taking measures to ascertain if the Sultan adheres to that engagement?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEYes, Sir; the Firman, as communicated by the Porte to the English and French Ambassadors, is an international engagement on the part of the Sultan. It fixes the tribute at £T.750,000. I am not aware that any measures have been taken by the Conference to ascertain if the Sultan adheres to that engagement. But it has been frequently referred to by Her Majesty's Government as one of 958 the international engagements which it is a part of their policy to maintain.
§ MR. BOURKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will state what the conditions of the negotiations are respecting Turkish Military intervention in Egypt; if Turkish troops are to go to Egypt, what steps will be taken to secure unity of action on the part of the Military commanders; whether the Conference will control or interfere with the Military action of England; what flag is treated as the territorial flag at Suez and elsewhere when British troops are in occupation, and in whose name is civil authority exercised in those places; what is the nature of the agreement respecting the protectorate of the Suez Canal; and, has the neutralisation of the Suez Canal been discussed at the Conference, or between Her Majesty's Government and any other Foreign Power?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEIn reply to my right hon. Friend's first and second Questions, I have to state that the negotiations respecting Turkish military intervention have not reached a stage at which I can make any statement in regard to them. As regards his third Question, I have no reason to believe that the Conference "will control or interfere with" the military action of England. In reply to the fourth Question, Her Majesty's Government consider that the flag of the Khedive is the flag to be flown in Egypt when British troops are in occupation, and civil authority is exercised in the Khedive's name. In reply to the fifth and sixth Questions, I have to state that no agreement has been come to for any "protectorate of the Suez Canal." The only proposal that has been made is one for securing the safety of a free passage through the Canal by arrangements in which all the Powers should be invited to take part. Her Majesty's Ambassador has been instructed that any agreement at present for this purpose should be confined to temporary arrangements, having reference to existing circumstances.
§ MR. BOURKEAre we to understand that the Government has departed from the recent declaration of the Prime Minister that any questions relating to the Suez Canal are outside the purview of the Conference?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEThe Prime Minister has already stated in the 959 House that he never made that statement. The statement that I made, and which the Prime Minister repeated, was that the neutralization of the Canal was outside the purview of the Conference. The Prime Minister inserted guarded words in his remarks, to the report of which I may refer the right hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. BOURKEPerhaps the hon. Gentleman would inform the House whether there is any truth in the report which appears in one of the morning journals that an Ultimatum has been received by the Porte respecting the despatch of other troops?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKENo Ultimatum has been delivered to the Porte, and the statement to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is quite inaccurate in stating that there is any threat to withdraw our Ambassador from Constantinople.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONWill prisoners taken from the Egyptian Forces be treated as rebels or as belligerents?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEThat is a Question which should be addressed to the Secretary of State for War.
MR. JOSEPH COWENasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If any proposal has been submitted to the British Government, or to the Conference, for the neutralisation of the Suez Canal, or for placing it under the direction of a Commission appointed by the Great Powers?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEI have already replied to my hon. Friend's Question in the answer which I have just given to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lynn Regis.