§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEI wish to ask the Government a Question—I am not quite sure whether it ought to be addressed to the Prime Minister or the Secretary to the Admiralty—Whether the Government can give us any information as to the serious events reported to have taken place since yester- 283 day at Alexandria? I wish also to ask whether any steps were taken in order to prevent the consequences of the anarchy which seems to have followed upon the action of the day before; and, if there were no such steps taken, whether that was due to the decision of the Admiral, or in consequence of any orders he may have received? I may also inquire whether the Government have any information as to the position and safety of the Khedive?
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANPerhaps the most convenient course would be for me to state to the House the events which have occurred since I last communicated the news received by the Government. In the course of yesterday an inquiry was addressed to the Admiral by telegraph, in which he was requested to report whether the operations were complete; and in the afternoon Lord Northbrook was commanded by Her Majesty to send the following telegram:—
The Queen desires to know how the wounded are.In reply, late last night, came a telegram, dated July 12, 10.40 P.M.—Operations not completed. Flag of truce hoisted on opening fire this morning on barracks, battery, earthworks; struck on terms being refused; hoisted again 4 afternoon, after firing one shot into Mexs lines.In reply to that, this morning, the following inquiry was addressed to the Admiral:—What wore the terms referred to in your telegram No. 112?—which is the one I have just read—Send any news you have of Khedive, and condition of affairs in Alexandria.To this we received the following reply:—July 13, 9.25 A.M., Thursday. Immense conflagration in Alexandria last night. Forts apparently abandoned, and entire garrison withdrawn under flag of truce, leaving Bedouins to pillage and fire the town. Invincible, Monarch, Penelope, and gunboats inside harbour; other ironclads under weigh off New Port. Decoy gone to Port Said for information. Weather bad. Communication difficult.The next telegram from the Secretary of the Admiral is dated July 13, 11.40 A.M.—Off Alexandria.—Terms were to surrender forts, as first demanded.This means that they were to be tempo- 284 rarily surrendered for the purpose of being dismantled.Use made of flag of truce considered disgraceful. Nothing known of Khedive; but believe he is still at Ramleh, where Turkish steam yacht is now anchored apparently waiting until weather will allow embarkation; but this quite conjectural. Wounded, as far as I can learn, are doing well.This telegram, I should explain, comes from the Secretary to the Admiral, who is some distance at sea. The telegram adds—Am now moving Chiltern nearer harbour to facilitate communication with Admiral, keeping Cyprus and Malta cables at work. For 'Bedouins' in former telegram (No. 113), read 'convicts.'Subsequent to this—in consequence of the news thus received—the following additional instructions were sent to the Admiral in view of the existing state of affairs at Alexandria:—July 13.—Opposition having ceased, do not dismantle forts or disable guns. Endeavour to open friendly communication with the Khedive, and invite him to assert his authority for restoring order in Alexandria, concerting with Dervish Pasha if expedient. On invitation or with concurrence of the Khedive, or, in his absence, of any Egyptian authority in Alexandria, you may land seamen and marines for police purposes, to preserve order, acquainting commanders of European ships of war, if any present, and inviting their co-operation.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEWith reference to the permission to land seamen and marines for the preservation of order, is that instruction new, or was it within the instructions previously given to the Admiral to take such a step on his own responsibility?
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEWhat I mean is this. Supposing that the Admiral had felt it to be desirable to land seamen for the purpose now indicated, would he have been justified by his instructions in doing this, or would he have been prevented by his instructions?
MR GLADSTONEHe certainly would not have been prevented by his instructions. I cannot say directly that he would have been justified by his instructions, because his previous instructions were given in view of a state of facts in which there was a Government, though a Government of merely military force, in Alexandria. Therefore, he had 285 no instructions referring specifically to the case in which that Government should have disappeared. The telegrams have explained to the House those results, and the House will understand the mode in which that Military Government disappeared, and the views which appear to be taken by the Admiral and the Naval Commanders as to the disappearance of that military force. Whether the Admiral would have been approved in the exercise of his discretion is a question which the right hon. Gentleman probably does not wish to raise, and which, at the present moment, is purely hypothetical.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHI wish to ask why measures were not taken in anticipation of the contingency that has arisen?
§ MR. RITCHIEI wish also to ask whether it was within the discretion of the Admiral to land such a force?
§ BARON HENRY DE WORMSI wish also to ask whether Her Majesty's Government consider, or have considered, whether, by the self-denying Protocol, they were debarred from landing troops or not?
MR. GLADSTONEIt is, Sir, impossible to answer a series of Questions like this without having time to make inquiry as each one is put.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHI asked simply why measures were not taken in anticipation of this contingency?
MR. JOSEPH COWENI wish to ask a Question arising out of the statement of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) has made a statement to the effect that the Admiral has been instructed to land a force for police purposes, to co-operate with the authority in command of the town. What I wish to ask is, whether, should Arabi return, the Admiral, under the instructions given here, would put himself in communication with Arabi?
MR. GLADSTONENo, Sir. These are instructions given on the disappearance of Arabi Pasha and of the weak and lawless power he represents. They certainly have no reference to the case of Arabi, although I will not say what the words embrace. They will be interpreted by the Admiral according to the best of his judgment. As to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), why no instruc- 286 tions were given in anticipation, it was because it was quite impossible to shape beforehand all the contingencies which might arise, and nothing but error and confusion could have arisen from an attempt to provide for them before we had some indication of the character they might assume. I stated just now that there were no instructions specifically applicable to the landing of troops by the Admiral. I ought, perhaps, to have stated that there were general instructions, not specifically applicable to a case of this kind, which are actually before the House, and which, perhaps, I had better read. They are dated 15th May, and are from the Foreign Office—
Communicate with the British Consul General on arrival at Alexandria, and in concert with him propose to co-operate with the Naval Forces of France supporting Khedive, and protecting British subjects and Europeans, landing force if required for the latter object, such force not to leave the protection of the ships' guns without instructions from home.
§ SIR HENRY TYLERWhat would be done in the case of part of Arabi's Army returning? Would this force that is to be landed be available for more than police purposes?
MR. GLADSTONEPerhaps the hon. Gentleman will have the goodness to give Notice. Admiral Seymour has not an Army with him at Alexandria; and the case in view is not the case of fighting with an Army, but is the case of subduing certain disorderly and riotous persons among the population.
§ SIR HENRY TYLERIs the force intended for police purposes?
§ [No reply was given.]
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFMight I ask if the instructions of the l0th of May, which the right hon. Gentleman has just read, stating that the troops were to be landed after communication with the French Naval authorities, held good after the departure of the French Fleet from Alexandria? How could the Admiral, after that event, be in communication with the French Fleet?
§ MR. BOURKEI understand from one of the telegrams read that the Khedive is to be invited to establish his authority. It is quite clear the Khedive has no means of establishing 287 that authority at Alexandria. I should like to ask whether it is the intention of the Government to order that the troops about to be landed shall be landed for the purpose of re-establishing the authority of the Khedive; and, if so, whether there is any intention on the part of the Government to ask the other Powers to assist them in re-establishing the authority of the Khedive, which ho is invited to re-establish himself, having no power?
MR. GLADSTONENo, Sir. The question is not of the character which the right hon. Gentleman has described. The instructions to Admiral Seymour and the request for co-operation which might, if there were other vessels on the spot, be addressed to their Commanders are strictly limited to the purpose described in the telegram, and does not attempt to deal with any of the difficult political questions which lie beyond it.
§ MR. GIBSONI should like to know exactly the hour and the date at which the telegram containing the instructions was sent? Was it after the Government were informed that Alexandria was in the hands of convicts, and was the Khedive invited to "assert his authority for restoring order in Alexandria" by means of convicts?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHIs it not a fact that the Government had intimation that convicts were being released yesterday, before the conflagration occurred, and whilst Lieutenant Lambton with a flag of truce was on shore?
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANNo, Sir. I have read all the telegrams, and given the hours at which they were sent. The first mention of the convicts was in the telegram in which "Bedouins" was used by mistake. It was sent at 9.25 this morning. The telegram despatched at 11.40 says for "Bedouins" read "convicts."
§ MR. GIBSONWhen was the Government's telegram sent?
§ MR. CAMPBELL- BANNERMANIn the course of to-day. I cannot tell the exact hour; but it was after the receipt of these two telegrams.
§ MR. GIBSONAfter the receipt of the telegram saying that Alexandria was in possession of the convicts?
§ MR. GIBSONWell, "Bedouins." Was there not a telegram saying Alex- 288 andria was in possession of "Bedouins?"
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANI had better, I think, read the telegram again; and it must, I should say, be remembered that this telegram came from the Admiral's secretary, who is out at sea. The hon. Gentleman then read the telegram a second time.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHI wish to ask whether the Government consider, in the instructions which have been read, that Admiral Seymour had authority to land seamen and marines on Tuesday evening after the bombardment, and when the conflagrations broke out and the disorder had begun?
MR. JOSEPH COWENHave the Government any information as to the position of Arabi, or whether the Egyptian Army have retreated?
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the House was in possession of all the information which the Government had received.
§ MR. GIBSONThe Government were apprised that the only people in possession of Alexandria were "Bedouins," who, as the 9.25 telegram says, were pillaging the town. Subsequently they learnt that these "Bedouins" meant "convicts." Was it after that that the Admiral was instructed to invite the Khedive to co -operate in restoring order? If it was before that that the telegram was sent, I should like to know whether the Government, having now got fuller knowledge, have sent any further instructions?
MR. GLADSTONEThe Question of the right hon. and learned Gentleman contains a description of the telegrams which I am not able to accept. The order of the telegrams was expressly given by my hon. Friend (Mr. Camp-bell-Bannerman) when he read them; and I am astonished that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not perceive it. The telegram which contained the word "Bedouins" and which was afterwards corrected by having "convicts" substituted, reached the Government, I think I may say, this forenoon. The Cabinet met at 12 o'clock, and then sent the telegram which has been read. They did not send any telegram of instructions relating to disorder in Alexandria until they were informed that disorder.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHDoes the Government consider that Admiral Sey- 289 mour had authority on Tuesday evening, after the bombardment had ceased, and after the fires broke out, to land marines and bluejackets to preserve order under the instructions of the 25th of May?
MR. GLADSTONEThe Government had no information with regard to fires in Alexandria on Tuesday evening; but if the right hon. Gentleman will give Notice of any Question of the kind, I shall be glad to answer it.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHIf there should be no Egyptian authority to make a request, and if the excesses in Alexandria should still continue, has Admiral Seymour authority, without such request, to land seamen or marines?
MR. GLADSTONEI have given the House all the authority Sir Beauchamp Seymour possesses. We have no specific information as to the excesses in Alexandria; what the right hon. Gentleman may state on other authority we can neither confirm nor deny. We have read the only instructions sent to Sir Beauchamp Seymour; and with regard to the interpretation of those instructions, I shall be glad to answer a Question on Notice.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTThe right hon. Gentleman—[Cries of "Oh, oh!"and "Order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERI would submit to the House that it is inconvenient that Questions on a subject of such gravity should be put without Notice.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTI was going to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether a telegram which appears as having been received from the Admiralty is correctly reported, in view of his statement just now that the Government have no official information respecting atrocities? The telegram is reported as having been received from Sir Beauchamp Seymour, and is as follows:—
Alexandria, July 13, 9.25 a.m. Immense conflagration in Alexandria last night. Forts apparently abandoned"—[Cries of "Read!"]—and entire garrison withdrawn"—["It has been read !"]—"under flag of truce, leaving convicts to pillage and fire the town.Do not the Government consider that statement proof of atrocities?
§ MR. BOURKEOne more Question arising out of the answer of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Ho stated that Papers would be in the hands of Members in a few days, which 290 would bring the Correspondence down to the meeting of the Conference. I would ask the Government seriously whether they do not consider the time has arrived when the House should be put in possession of Papers of a later date and of Papers relating both to the Conference and the bombardment of Alexandria?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEThe instructions to the Admiral, and all the facts which have come into the possession of the Government with regard to the bombardment of Alexandria, have been placed before the House from day to day. The whole of the instructions have been given; therefore, as regards them the House is in possession of as much information as the Government itself. As regards other Papers, the Conference decided at its first meeting, not upon the proposal of England, that strict secrecy should be observed with respect to its proceedings; and the Ambassadors informed their Governments of this decision, and begged their Governments to observe the same secrecy as they observed themselves. In these circumstances it would be impossible to lay Papers on the Table.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHAre we to understand that all the orders to the Admiral have been given to the House from day to day?
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANThe orders relating to the bombardment. I do not say that everything that has been sent to the Admiral has been publicly stated.
§ MR. SPEAKERI beg to point out that my observations just now were directed, not against putting Questions—I have no right to prevent that—but against putting Questions upon matters of serious gravity without giving Notice.
§ CAPTAIN PRICEasked whether the Government were in a position to confirm the report in The Times of that morning that two of the Alexandra's guns burst during the bombardment, and that in consequence the Alexandra had been sent to Malta for repairs?
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANThat is a Question of which, I think, Notice should be given.
§ MR. RITCHIEI wish to ask the Government whether, in view of the intelligence received from Egypt to-day, they have taken any steps for securing the safety of the Suez Canal?
MR. GLADSTONEI stated yesterday that Her Majesty's Government had made such communications to Foreign Powers with regard to the Suez Canal as they deemed it necessary to make. With regard to the preparations, I must refer the hon. Member to the answers that have already been given by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State and myself.
§ MR. RITCHIEI will repeat the Question to-morrow.
§ SIR. HENRY TYLERgave Notice of his intention to-morrow to ask, whether Her Majesty's Government would instruct Sir Beauchamp Seymour to ascertain definitely the position and condition of the Khedive, and whether he were in need of succour?
§ MR. O'KELLYintimated his intention to-morrow to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention had been called to the statement of The Times correspondent off Alexandria, that he saw several of the Inflexible's shells burst right over the centre of the town, and also to his further statement that the town appeared to be burning in three places?