§ MR. O'KELLYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to statements in the "Morning Post" of Thursday, copied from the "Journal des Debats," in which the number of Arabs killed by the Europeans during the recent riots at Alexandria is placed at some six hundred; whether he has also seen an extract from a Tyneside-man's letter in the "Newcastle Daily Chronicle" of Thursday set the number of Arab dead at seven or eight hundred; and, whether he can corroborate these reports from information in his possession?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKENo, Sir; I have seen varying rumours on this subject of a most startling nature; but there is no information corroborative of the statements in the Question at all.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government had any special reason for disregarding the warning as to the danger to European life and property contained in the telegram of Mr. Cookson, British Consul at Alexandria, received at the Foreign Office on May 30th, that is, twelve days before the massacre of June 11th; the telegram contained a petition from the principal British merchants to Lord Granville, and runs as follows:—
British residents in Alexandria call upon Her Majesty's Government to provide efficient means for the protection of their lives.…The crisis is only suspended.…There is every reason to fear the recurrence of perils which will come without warning, and against which the Europeans are absolutely defenceless. They have not even the means of flight, as in order to reach the ships in the harbour they would have to run the gauntlet through the streets.The petition goes on to say—The small squadron actually in port could only silence the Egyptian forts, and then would commence a period of great danger for Europeans, who would be at the mercy of soldiers, while the English Admiral could not risk his men ashore, as his whole available force for shore operations does not exceed 300 men, although the squadron was sent here to safeguard European life and property?
MR. MAC IVERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to state at the same time, if he still wished the House to believe that such vessels as 1787 the Inflexible, Téméraire, and the Superb were able to enter the harbour at Alexandria, and if it was not perfectly well known that they were cruising some 20 miles oft the harbour?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEI rise to Order, Sir.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is putting a Question which has no reference whatever to that now before the House. If the hon. Member desires to put his Question after the other Question has been answered, he may do so if his Question is in Order.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEThe reason why I rose to Order, Sir, was that the hon. Member was stating opinions in the course of putting the Question.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEThe hon. Member stated that it was perfectly notorious at Alexandria that these ships are cruising about and cannot come inside the harbour. That I consider to be stating opinions. With regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett), I have to say that Her Majesty's Government took every step recommended by their agents and the Admiral, and the squadron was greatly enlarged. I can only say that the previous statements I made on the subject are perfectly accurate, and that the statements which I answered were incorrect. The further ships, with a very large landing force, were ordered on the 30th, instructions were sent to Suda Bay, and the first of them arrived at Alexandria on the 2nd of May.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTDoes the hon. Baronet mean to imply by that answer that there were more than 300 sailors available on the 11th?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEYes, Sir; enormously more than that.
§ MR. ONSLOWasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make India pay for the war preparations now going on in that country in whole or in part, or whether the whole expense of equipping an Army in India, to be ready at any moment for foreign service, is to be borne by the taxpayers of this Country?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE)I am glad that the hon. Gentleman appears to know, 1788 or supposes he knows, a great deal about the expense and equipment of an army in India. He seems to know more than we do ourselves. All I can say in answer to the Question is that I am totally unable to give the hon. Member any information in regard to any war preparations in India, or, if there are preparations, the mode of paying for them.
§ MR. ONSLOWDo I understand that no preparations are being made for sending troops from India?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE)I have already stated that I am totally unable to give the hon. Gentleman any information with regard to any preparations.
§ MR. ONSLOWThe right hon. Gentleman insinuates that I have given information which is false. ["No, no!"] What I wish to know is whether the Government are able to give the House any information as to troops being sent to Egypt from India, and whether the Indian Government will be called upon to pay for those preparations? I think I am entitled to an answer. ["Order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman has put a Question and has received such an answer as the right hon. Gentleman, acting on his responsibility, thinks proper to give. He cannot, therefore, repeat the Question.
MR. MAC IVERsaid, he would then ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he had any objection to give the House some information as to what was perfectly well known at Alexandria—namely, that Her Majesty's ships Inflexible, Superb, Alexandra, and Téméraire were not within the harbour; and whether it was not the fact that they had never been so, but were cruising about 20 miles from land?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEI have various objections to make to the hon. Member's Question. In the first place, he has expressed an opinion; secondly, it is a Question which ought to be put to the Admiralty, and not to the Foreign Office; and, thirdly, the statement is inaccurate. I need only say that the answer I have previously given on this subject to the right hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir John Hay) is absolutely correct.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEWithout putting any specific Question, I may suggest whether the Government can give any further information as to 1789 the state of affairs at Alexandria, which, as we know, is extremely strained and may vary even from hour to hour. Therefore, without putting any Question which might embarrass the Government, I would ask if they can give any information with regard to the present state of affairs?
MR. GLADSTONEI think it better at once to state that nothing has reached us of a disquieting character.
MR. MAC IVERI wish to ask—[Cries of "Order!" and "Name!"]—whether I am correct in stating that the hon. Baronet wished the House to understand that the Inflexible, the Superb, the Alexandra, and the Téméraire are within the harbour of Alexandria?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEI have nothing further to add to what I have said. In my answer on a former occasion I did not name these four ships; but with regard to certain ships, without naming them, I stated general facts as to their power and capacity to enter the harbour of Alexandria. That answer has been carefully tested by the Admiralty, and has been found to be perfectly correct.
MR. MAC IVERThe hon. Baronet has not properly understood my Question. [Cries of "Order!" and "Name!"] I meant to—
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member has twice received an answer from the Under Secretary. He cannot rise a third time and ask the same Question.
MR. MAC IVERasked Mr. Speaker whether, if an hon. Member received an answer to a Question which had not been correctly understood, the same hon. Member was not in Order in repeating the Question? [Cries of "No!" and "Order!"]
§ [Mr. SPEAKER did not reply.]
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Prime Minister—or he would postpone the Question until to-morrow if it was not convenient to answer then—Whether, seeing that M. de Freycinet had assured the French Chamber of Deputies that the armed intervention of France in Egypt should not take place without the clearly-expressed previous consent of the Chamber, he could give a similar assurance that the English intervention should not be undertaken without, at any rate, the House of Commons being informed of the fact?
MR. GLADSTONEThe House is aware, Sir, that the fashion of putting Preambles to Bills has of late disappeared, but the fashion of putting Preambles to Questions has lately revived. With regard to the Preamble of the Question, as far as I am aware the French have an Article in their Constitution under which it is necessary to communicate certain matters to the Chamber before taking action. The French Government have, I believe, no choice in this matter. In regard to postponing the Question till to-morrow, I am afraid I must ask my hon. Friend not to do so, because I should then simply have to repeat this very barren answer—namely, that the nature of the case prevents me giving a substantial answer.