§ MR. M'COANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Porte has accepted the invitation of the Conference to send troops to Egypt as mandatory of Europe; and, if not, whether Her Majesty's Government has definitely arranged with any, and which, of the Powers to co-operate with the British forces in any further Military operations in that country?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKESir, the Porte has not yet replied to the invitation of the Conference. The matter referred to in the latter portion of the hon. Member's Question has, of course, received the attention of Her Majesty's Government and of the Powers; but I am unable to make any statement upon the subject.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he can now state what steps were taken by Sir Beauchamp Seymour on the 11th of June to protect British life and property at Alexandria: and, whether Her Majesty's Government have approved his proceedings in not carrying out the instructions addressed to him on the 15th of May directing him to land force, if required, "to support Khedive and protect British subjects and Europeans?"
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANSir, the hon. Member in his Question imputes to Sir Beauchamp Seymour a failure in duty in not carrying out the instructions he had received. Her Majesty's Government have entirely approved of the conduct of Sir Beauchamp Seymour on the 11th of June in every particular; and if the hon. Member wishes to call in question the conduct either of the Admiral or of the Government, I would submit to the House that it ought to be done by direct Motion, and not by such a Question as he has now put.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he would call the conduct of the Government in question by a direct Motion, and would conclude with a Motion on this occasion. They had had enough of the reticence, concealment, and arrogance of the Government. He did not for a moment say that the Government had intentionally deceived the House; but he did say that the House had been deceived by the information the Government had given on several occasions, and if there was one proof more than another of the manner in which——
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is out of Order in imputing intentional deceit on the part of the Government.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had mistaken him. He did not intend to attribute intentional deceit to the Government. He specially guarded himself against that, and what he said was that the Government had unintentionally de- 895 ceived the House by the information they had given. He would ask the House to reflect upon what was done yesterday. Twice the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had informed them that Germany approved the conduct of the Government in bombarding Alexandria, and that Austria and Germany had declared that their conduct was legitimate. The Question was asked a second time, and the hon. Baronet said he had nothing to correct in his former answer. But yesterday his hon. Friend came forward and said he was not justified in saying that Germany had assented. He did not assert that his hon. Friend had intentionally deceived the House, but that the House was deceived. They had had nothing but misleading information—not intentional deception—ever since the question of Egypt came before the country. He would prove it. On the 11th of May he (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) asked what stops had been taken to protect life and property in Alexandria, and the hon. Baronet said—
It is impossible for me to make any statement at present on the question of policy.The hon. Baronet then went on to say—I have already stated…that the protection of both life and property was the most pressing matter in connection with the present state of things in Egypt, and that it had engaged the immediate attention of Her Majesty's Government, and that no delay in regard to it had been caused by the French Government, although communications had taken place."—[3 Hansard, cclxix. 460.]On the 15th of May he again asked what steps had been taken, and he was informed that—The English and French Fleets have gone to Suda Bay on their way to Alexandria."—[Ibid. 670.]That was the day on which the instructions to which his Question referred were given to Sir Beauchamp Seymour. And here he might say at once that he never had any intention of attacking Sir Beauchamp Seymour. ["Oh, oh !"] The Secretary to the Admiralty, who cried "Oh !" had better learn to be as courteous in his answers as the right hen. Gentleman who was sitting next to him (Mr. Fawcett). On the 22nd of May the Under Secretary stated that he could make no further declarations on the subject, as he had already stated that 896 Her Majesty's Government entertained the belief that the measures they proposed would be satisfactory to the Porte. It was almost impossible for him to go on with all the instances of information given by the Under Secretary which had, unintentionally on his part, misled the House; but he would call attention to a particular statement, not made in that House, but "elsewhere." On the 1st of June the Marquess of Salisbury stated on good authority that he had heard there were 6,000 soldiers in Alexandria, who for four days were erecting formidable earthworks, and that the English and French Governments would not allow the Fleets to stop them. On the very same day the Under Secretary told the House that England and France were now in absolute accord as to the steps to be taken in certain eventualities, and that the two Governments felt confident that the course agreed upon would meet with the assent of the other Great Powers and of the Porte. The Under Secretary then went on to say—With regard to the statements which were made in Parliament as to the 'perfect accord' which existed between the Governments of England and France, I may repeat that these statements at the time were perfectly true. Circumstances, however, subsequently occurred, as shown in the Papers about to be laid on the Table, which, although they in no way changed the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, may have an influence in other quarters."—[Ibid. 1786.]Again, on the 2nd of June, the right hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bourke) asked the hon. Baronet whether any communication had been made to the Egyptian Government on the subject of the earthworks, to which Question the hon. Baronet replied—No, Sir, not at present. It is desirable that I should state in advance that I do not think it would be proper for mo to answer any Questions that might be addressed to mo next week on the subject of those earthworks, because there might be matters passing in respect of them on which it would be undesirable to speak. I can only say that the matter has not escaped the attention of Her Majesty's Government."—[Ibid. 1938.]
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked if the hon. Gentleman would kindly read the reply which he made a few days later, and in which he gave the whole of the facts with regard to the earthworks?
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he would be happy to do so if the hon. 897 Baronet would give him the date of the reply to which he referred.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that he could not give the date, as he was unprepared for this discussion.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government was not altogether free from this habit of misinforming the House on these subjects. On the 1st of June he had placed upon the Notice Paper a Question addressed to the right hon. Gentleman as to the truth of the rumour that Indian troops were about to be brought to Suez with the view of protecting British interests, and to that Question the right hon. Gentleman gave the following answer:—
Perhaps I may take this opportunity of taking notice of the Question of the hon. Member (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), who asks me whether there is any truth in the rumour that Indian troops are about to be brought to Suez, with the view of protecting British interests, and asserting the Sovereignty of the Sultan in Egypt? I could not undertake to answer a prospective Question as to particular measures to he adopted in a great political contingency of this kind; but under the circumstances, and as the case as to the Indian troops is peculiar, I may say that no plan of that kind has been adopted, nor is it at present contemplated."—[Ibid. 1783–4.][Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] The right hon. Gentleman had different tones in his cheering, which might be interpreted in different ways. He contended that his answer was misleading to the House, because it inferred either that the Government was ignorant of the existence of the earthworks at Alexandria, or else that they did not contemplate using the Indian troops in Egypt. On the 11th of June the massacre at Alexandria took place, and he had frequently sought to obtain information as to what steps had been taken for the purpose of protecting life and property at that place, but had never obtained anything that approached a satisfactory answer to his Questions on the subject. When he had again pressed for information on the matter, the Secretary to the Admiralty, new in his Office, rode off on the plea that he had been passing imputations upon Admiral Sir Beauchamp Seymour—a plea that was utterly groundless. On the 12th of June, in reply to a Question, the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for 898 Foreign Affairs (Sir Charles W. Dilke) said—Sir Beauchamp Seymour has power to land seamen and marines if he thinks it advisable to do so."—[3 Hansard, cclxx. 822.]On the 13th of June the hon. Baronet said—The present state of anarchy will not be allowed to continue. I cannot go into any details of the measures which will be adopted.On the 14th of June the hon. Baronet said that—He had only to inform the hon. Member that the Government had the most perfect confidence in the tact, discretion, and courage of Sir Beauchamp Seymour, and that Sir Beauchamp Seymour had power to land seamen and marines to any extent he pleased from the Fleet under his command.He should like to know what other instructions Sir Beauchamp Seymour had at that time. The Under Secretary went on to say—There were four ships cruising off the coast, three of which were able to go into the harbour of Alexandria whenever they pleased. Sir Beauchamp Seymour was in possession now of a very large force. There was also a large French force, and a considerable force belonging to the other Powers, who would be sure to land troops and Marines if we did so for the protection of their subjects. The Government were content to leave the question whether a force should be landed or not to Sir Beauchamp Seymour. The hon. Member for Portsmouth had spoken of our relations with the Porte as though we were in quarrel with the Porte at the present moment. All he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) could say was that our relations with the Porte were friendly in the extreme; and the language which had been used by the Sultan himself personally to Lord Dufferin showed an absolute agreement with this country in regard to the steps to be taken in Egypt."—[Ibid. 1134–5.]On the following day the hon. Baronet said that—The total European population of Egypt was, of course, very large indeed. There were 30,000 Greeks, 15,000 French, 15,000 Italians, 4,000 British (including Maltese), and 4,000 Austrian and German subjects.Later he said that—Up to the present Sir Edward Malet had not called upon British subjects to leave the country, nor had any other foreign Consuls called upon their fellow subjects to do so."—[Ibid. 1257–8.]Later again, he says—The meeting which took place between the European Consuls was a meeting between the Representatives of Germany, Austria, Italy, Russia, France, and England. There were present at that meeting the Khedive, Dervish 899 Pasha, and the whole of his suite from Constantinople, and Arabi Pasha also. The object of that meeting was to receive an answer to a demand that had been made on Dervish Pasha by the Representatives of the Powers in regard to steps which should be satisfactory to the Great Powers to insure the safety of Europeans in Egypt. Dervish Pasha stated that Arabi had informed him that he would implicitly obey the orders given by the Khedive. The Khedive immediately issued orders for restoring the public tranquility. These are the words to which I alluded yesterday—'Dervish Pasha said that under the urgent circumstances of the case he would assume joint responsibility with Arabi Pasha for the execution of the orders of the Khedive. The European Consuls then said that the danger to the security of Europeans took precedence over all other questions for the moment, and that the political situation did not enter into the discussion. They also said to the Khedive and the Imperial Commissioners that they thought the discussion that had taken place with regard to the Europeans had nothing to do with the objects of Dervish Pasha's mission in Egypt."—(Ibid. 1259–60.]On the same date the hon. Baronet said—He had already stated that there was a largo force of men-of-war at Alexandria, and that Sir Beauchamp Seymour had a large force, which he was empowered to land. No doubt, instructions had been given to some of the foreign admirals to a like effect. It was also probable that seamen and marines would also be Landed…Five ships, the Minotaur, the Achilles, the Agincourt, the Northumberland, and the Sultan, left Gibraltar for Malta at 7 o'clock that morning under Sir Beauchamp Seymour's orders."—[Ibid. 1277.]The fact was, that the House was referred to the Greek Kalends for information on the subject. The production of the Papers had been postponed week after week, and the Government would neither let the House know what had happened in the past nor what was being done in the present, and Heaven only knew what would happen in the future. On the 16th of June the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said—Sufficient vessels are chartered and at the disposal of Sir Beauchamp Seymour to provide for the removal of all British subjects who wish to leave."—[Ibid. 1410.]On the same day, as to the earthworks, he said—The construction of earthworks appears to have begun at daylight on the 29th ultimo. On the 4th of June the Admiral reported by telegraph that two guns had been mounted that morning. Very brief telegraphic communications on the subject of the earthworks were received between those dates."—[Ibid. 1412.]The same day the hon. and gallant 900 Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) asked of the Prime Minister—Whether a sufficient force was now ready to land, so as to insure that protection, which was naturally looked for, considering our paramount interests in Egypt?"—[Ibid. 1420.][Cries of "Oh !"and interruption.] He wished to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair to the conduct of some of the new Baronets opposite. On the same day the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in one of those equivocal statements with which he was accustomed to delight the House, said—As to whether a sufficient force was ready to land for the purpose of protecting British life and property, I do not think it would be expedient, considering the risks that are run…by the prevalence of unauthorized rumours…to enter in any manner into that subject."—[Ibid. 1420–21.][Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman appeared to think that the bombardment of Alexandria and the slaughter of British subjects were matters for laughter. On the 19th, he had asked the hon. Baronet—What steps had been taken…last Sunday (the 11th) for the protection of British life and property at Alexandria; and, whether Her Majesty's Government nourished the belief that the repetition of such steps would be sufficient to preserve British interests in that City in case of the renewal of hostilities?To which he replied—Sir, the despatch of Sir Beauchamp Seymour, which will answer the first part of the Question, is on its way home. With regard to the second, instructions have been sent, which, we believe, will meet the exigencies of the case."—[Ibid. 1606.]On the 20th he repeated the Question as to the stops taken on the 11th, to which the Secretary to the Admiralty replied—Sir, the hon. Member yesterday addressed this identical Question to my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I have nothing to add to the answer then given by my hon. Friend."—[Ibid. 1758.]Thus, on the 20th, the Secretary to the Admiralty refused to give any further reply to Questions on the subject. It was impossible to get any information on the question, although he was informed that Sir Beauchamp Seymour did not land troops because he had been forbidden to do so by the Government. [Sir JOHN HAY: There were none to 901 land.] Undoubtedly that was true; but the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had stated that there was a large force under the Admiral to land. It was difficult to reconcile these statements. If it was necessary for the credit of this country that there should be hostilities in Egypt, he was sure on that side of the House no difficulty would be thrown in the way of Her Majesty's Government; but the House had a right to know what was about to be done. How was it that, after bombarding Alexandria, we had left it to be looted and burnt? Did we intend to allow Arabi to consolidate his forces, and to treat Cairo and the rest of Egypt as he had done Alexandria? The Government appeared to be leaving everything to the Conference, which did not appear to be able to come to any conclusion—a Conference which was sitting when the massacre took place, which was sitting when the bombardment took place, which was sitting when Alexandria was sacked and burnt, and which was now sitting while Arabi, perhaps, was preparing to devastate the rest of Egypt. He had asked whether Her Majesty's Government had approved the conduct of Sir Beauchamp Seymour in not carrying out their original orders, and to that Question he could get no answer. In putting the Question, he did not intend to cast the slightest imputation upon Sir Beauchamp Seymour; but he wished to know who was answerable for the loss of life and property that had occurred at Alexandria? He (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) repudiated the statement of the Secretary to the Admiralty.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANRead the words of the Question.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFThe hon. Gentleman interpreted the words in such a way as to avoid answering straightforwardly.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANI objected to answer the Question, because it imputed to Sir Beauchamp Seymour a failure of duty in not carrying out his instructions. The words are whether the Government "approve of his conduct in not carrying out his instructions."
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, that perhaps the hon. Gentleman would say where, in his Question, the words "failure of duty" occurred. Sir Beau- 902 champ Seymour appeared to be approved in not carrying out his instructions of the 15th of May, which were that, if necessary, he was to land forces to protect the Khedive and British life and property. He did not land forces for that purpose. He asked whether his non-compliance with these instructions—which were the only instructions laid before the House—was approved by the Government? He wished to ask the Government to tell them what position they were in. Were they drifting into war? Were troops being made ready in order to go to Egypt? Were the transports taken up? Were the Indian troops ordered to Egypt? Were they on the verge of war without the Vote or the approbation of that House? If the Government thought it necessary to go to war, no doubt they would be supported; but he did not think it fair that during week after week and month after month information should be withheld until they found themselves launched into hostilities incurring great expense. The country was in great anxiety, and really did not know what the chances of tomorrow were. They might find themselves embarked in a war, perhaps not only with Egypt, but also with some other Power, who had not considered the bombardment of Alexandria legitimate. He begged to move the adjournment of the House.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir H. Drummond Wolff.)
MR. GLADSTONEI have listened to the hon. Gentleman for a considerable time, and I really must say that I am quite at a loss to understand the purpose or utility of such a speech as that just delivered. I cannot see what his object is. It appears to me that he rambled on from point to point in order to lay before the House an immense number of quotations, with what end I do not know. He has proved no point—he has not even stated any. He has accused the Government largely, and my hon. Friend near me in particular, of having misled him by the answers given to Questions; but he has not shown in what way he has been misled. He rose in answer to the challenge, or apparent challenge, of my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty; but he has not met the challenge in the slightest 903 degree. The challenge of my hon. Friend was, in fact, that if the hon. Gentleman wished to impugn the con-duct of the Admiral he should do it by a direct Motion; but he has made no direct Motion of that kind, nor, indeed, any one upon which any issue can possibly be raised. He has occupied a good deal of the time of the House, as if he thought that commodity of so little value that the more it was thrown away the better, but he has made no direct Motion, nor raised any direct issue upon the subject, which would serve to collect the scattered members of his speech into a whole. One thing he has said, and upon that, which appears to be the only intelligible portion of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I shall say one word. He says that Sir Beauchamp Seymour has not carried into effect the instructions given to him on the 15th of May; and, founding himself on that allegation of his own, if I understand him correctly, he insinuates that there have been counter-instructions conveyed by the Government. He makes the insinuation on no other basis than a mere allegation of his own, that Sir Beauchamp Seymour did not carry into effect his instructions. That is a most wanton and wilful assertion of dishonourable conduct against Her Majesty's Government for which he has not the smallest shadow of ground. Those who, without the smallest shadow of ground, make these wanton and wilful assertions come within a measurable distance of the act of calumny. There is a distinction. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wilfully calumniate anyone; but this rash statement is, at any rate, in some degree culpable. But I do not admit that Sir Beauchamp Seymour did not carry into effect the instructions given on the 15th of May. He was directed to land a force if required to support the Khedive. They were not absolute, but conditional instructions. [Sir JOHN HAY: He had no force to land.] Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman suffer me to pursue one line of thought before I come to another? Sir Beauchamp Seymour has not said he had no forces to land. That is the opinion of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman; but Sir Beauchamp Seymour has not stated that; and he does not found his justification, and we do not found our justification, upon it. Sir Beauchamp Sey- 904 mour did not land the force which he had at his command. I say that in defiance of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman; because Admiral Seymour did not deem it necessary, politic, or expedient; and in that judgment he has been approved by the Government, who make themselves responsible for the action of Sir Beauchamp Seymour. If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth has any knowledge of secret counter-instructions, in contradiction to public instructions, let him produce them, and we will deal with them. He has produced nothing of the kind, and he has founded himself, in the insinuation he has made, upon an allegation that Sir Beauchamp Seymour did not carry his instructions into effect—in reference to which the hon. Gentleman is wholly mistaken. Sir Beauchamp Seymour's offence appears to be that, instead of taking the hon. Gentleman's opinion, with which probably he was not acquainted, he formed his own judgment and acted upon it.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTESir, the right hon. Gentleman asks what are the grounds upon which my hon. Friend has put his Question and made the observation he has made, and he charges my hon. Friend with putting a Question winch expresses something within measurable distance of a calumny.
MR. GLADSTONEThat observation of mine referred, not to the Question, but to the speech of the hon. Gentleman.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEWell, the hon. Gentleman puts a Question and receives an answer, which appears to him and to many others to be far from satisfactory; and he then makes observations and suggests, as the one reason for the nature of the answer which he received, not that secret instructions were given to Sir Beauchamp Seymour, but that it may very well be, and that it probably is, the case, that Sir Beauchamp Seymour has received instructions since those given on the l5th of May, which justify him in the action he took, or in his abstinence from action, on the occasion of the bombardment, or of the proceedings of the 11th of June; and that we have not yet got from the Government that information which will enable us to say whether any such instructions were given or not. Well, then, it is rather hard that my hon. Friend should be charged with 905 something coming within measurable distance of calumny when he wishes to know whether that is or is not the case. There may be nothing at all worthy of blame in the communications made by the Government from time to time to Sir Beauchamp Seymour; but one must be, at any rate, struck with this fact—that on a critical occasion like this steps were not taken such as would appear to many persons to be necessary for the purpose of endeavouring to protect life and property. We say that, as far as we are permitted to know of the communications that have been made between the Government and the Admiral, his instructions of a previous date would not only have authorized, but rather have suggested to him that he ought to have taken steps of a different character from those which were taken, and my hon. Friend asks whether he abstained from taking those steps on his own authority, or in consequence of subsequent instructions received? I cannot conceive of a more legitimate question to put under such anxious circumstances, and I must say it appears to me but natural that he should have made some observations on the want of fulness in the answer received. One or two things must be borne in mind. In the first place, very grave events have taken place at Alexandria, involving questions of the honour of Great Britain, involving questions of the interests of Great Britain, and involving questions as to the protection of the lives and property of British subjects. These events are patent to all the world. They have taken place in view of English men-of-war, sent there, as we understood, for the express purpose of protecting these interests. The whole mission, as far as we can understand, was one of self-defence, and we want to know—and naturally everybody wants to know—how it is that the mission so sent ended so unsatisfactorily with respect to the protection of life and property as it has done? Yet we have no Papers on this matter. We are told that we cannot have the Papers which will explain the whole case until the latest date. We are told that Papers are presented up to the end of May, and that there will be other Papers given which will bring us to the beginning of the Conference; but these will, as regards this matter, hardly bring us within measurable distance of understanding it. 906 And, therefore, we feel that we have a right to know from the Government what the real state of the case is. My hon. Friend has observed—and it has occurred to many of us—that it is really rather remarkable that the Government upon this occasion do not propose to bring forward any Vote or ask for any sum of money, which would naturally lead to their explaining the nature of the proposal they have in contemplation. They tell us, on the imperfect Papers laid before us, that if we have anything to censure in their conduct, we have a right to bring forward a Vote of Censure. We have that right, of course; but we know that we cannot get the Papers which will give us information down to the time of which we are speaking. And we are entitled, therefore, I think, to ask, without raising any question as to a Vote of Censure, for full explanation of the course which has been pursued, and is now being pursued, and of the conduct, not only of our own ships, but also of those of the other Powers with whom we have always been told we were in entire accord. Of course, I do not feel that moving the adjournment of the House at Question time is the best way of obtaining the information; yet I should like to know what other ways are open to us? For my part, I think my hon. Friend has put a very natural Question, and that he has not justly earned the censure which has been applied to him by the Prime Minister. I remember there was a very remarkable answer given even yesterday by the Prime Minister in reply to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry De Worms). He said—
Our distinct judgment is this—that preparations adequate to cope with that army would most certainly not have been allowable under the instrument which is called the 'Self-denying' Protocol.If that is so, it raises and confirms the view of my hon. Friend that there was something to cause instructions to be given, or something which stood in the way of landing the troops for the purpose of preventing those evils which we see have taken place, and which, we believe, might have been prevented. But all that is matter on which we have the most imperfect information—information which is only given in answer to Questions—and I cannot but think the House will feel that my hon. Friend was within 907 his right in putting the Question and in moving the adjournment.
MR. GLADSTONEI rise to explain, and not to comment on what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman. I must explain what I said myself, for there was a little confusion in the Question put by the hon. Member for Greenwich yesterday which I did not actually clear up. The hon. Member spoke of the "Self-denying" Protocol, and so I recognized it; but, in truth, he ought to have referred to the understanding established with reference to sole action which was a totally different matter. I never should have said a word to the hon. Gentleman had I understood the Question. I never heard him put it. I understood him and his Friends near him most distinctly to recognize the accusation which I considered was implied. But, Sir, as regards that Question, the right hon. Baronet has put it in a perfectly clear form, and I can say in answer that there are no instructions whatever, subsequently to the 15th of May, which in any manner bear on this subject. There is nothing in the answer given by mo yesterday which has the slightest counection with it.
MR. GORSTsaid, he thought independent Members had great reason to complain of the manner in which they were treated by Her Majesty's Government. When the adjournment of the House was some time ago moved by his hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), the Prime Minister was extremely severe upon him because he had not shaped his accusation against the Government in the form of a definite Motion; and the Secretary to the Admiralty, following the lead of the right hon. Gentleman, challenged his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) to bring forward a Motion if he wished to censure the Government or the Admiralty. He (Mr. Gorst) always followed as far he could the advice of the Prime Minister, and accordingly he gave Notice of a definite Motion yesterday. But when a Notice was given of a definite Motion the Government treated independent Members with contempt. He appealed to hon. Members below the Gangway, to those who had been independent Members, whether, in trying to do their duty to their constituents, it was not an awkward dilemma, to say the least, to have either 908 to incur the mockery or the contempt of Her Majesty's Government? At the present moment he desired to remind the Prime Minister and his Colleagues what the charge against Her Majesty's Government was. The act of the bombardment of Alexandria had horrified the whole civilized world, and the Government had studiously taken away from the House all power of discussing that event. They had, however, had dark hints and dark deliverances from the Prime Minister and his Colleagues. It was intimated the other day, in the course of an irregular debate, that the bombardment of Alexandria was a revenge for the massacre—a sentiment which he confessed filled him with horror. Yesterday there was an interesting conversation, in which the late Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) and the Prime Minister vied with one another in their admiration of the moral law; but it seemed to him that a little explanation was required before that profound veneration for the moral law could MR reconciled with the act by which so many hundreds of our fellow-creatures were put to death. The whole civilized world, he thought he might say, had charged upon Her Majesty's Government that they were to blame for that massacre, because they did not provide their Admiral with a sufficient force to land and check the scenes of horror which were certain to follow. So far, the accusation against the Government had not been properly heard in that House; but their defence had been sketched out in the answer to the Question of his hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry De Worms). He understood the Prime Minister to say that the Government could not have been reasonably expected to foresee that consequences such as those which did ensue would ensue from the bombardment. He should like to remind the Prime Minister of a statement which appeared in The Standard of July 7, four or five days before the bombardment occurred. It was as follows:—
The Arab population of the town are more excited than I have yet seen them, and it is only the attitude of the troops which preserves order.He thought that statement ought to have attracted some attention from Her Majesty's Government, because, as far as he was able to observe, the Corre- 909 spondent of The Standard was usually much, better informed of the state of affairs than Her Majesty's Government, and certainly far better than Members of that House. The Correspondent continued—In the event of a formal notice being given of intended action being taken, there is little doubt that, in accordance with Arabi's previous declaration to myself, the troops will be withdrawn from their work of keeping order in the streets, and the city will then become the scene of riot and plunder.That was the statement made by the Correspondent of a newspaper, on the authority of Arabi himself. How would the Government reconcile that public declaration of what would happen in the event of a bombardment with their own assertion that they could not be expected to have foreseen that such disastrous consequences would follow? There was another point which would be cleared up if the House were allowed to debate this matter—namely, whether the Admiral had sufficient forces to land for the protection of the lives and property of the people of Alexandria. On this matter the Government would be on the horns of a dilemma, for if the Admiral had not sufficient forces, the Government were to blame, and their conduct was tainted with all the cruelty of a man who destroyed game which he could not possibly retrieve. If, on the other hand, the Admiral had sufficient forces to land, by whose order was he prevented from landing them? Was it by the Government at home, or by the imprudent Protocol which they had signed and agreed to beforehand? The position of those who desired to challenge the conduct of the Government was extremely embarrassing, because if they acted as his hon. Friend near him and an hon. Friend opposite had done, and moved the adjournment of the House for the purpose of calling the attention of the Government to these dreadful events, they were met with the mockery of the Prime Minister, who said—"If you have an opinion of this kind, why don't you formulate it in the shape of a Resolution, and take the sense of the House? "If, entrapped by that advice of the Prime Minister, any Member of the House was so foolish as to formulate a Motion on the subject, the Prime Minister said—"Oh, you are only a private Member; we cannot give you a day for such a dis- 910 cussion," and the right hon Gentleman sat down in indifference, and would not allow the sense of the House to be taken. He (Mr. Gorst) believed that if the Prime Minister dared take the sense of the House as to whether the Government were to blame for the terrible pillage and destruction of Alexandria, he believed that even in that House, in which they professed to have so enormous a majority, and in which they possessed, no doubt, a strong and solid phalanx of Friends, they could, if not defeated, only save themselves from a Vote of Censure by a very narrow majority.
§ SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he was sorry the Prime Minister had left, as he desired to say one word of apology to him and to the House for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman during his speech, but not at all to withdraw what he had said at the time. He thought it was but fair to the gallant Admiral, who had done his work so admirably with the means at his disposal, to state that which he himself knew, and which he felt sure his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Derbyshire (Admiral Egerton) would confirm—namely, that the force at the disposal of Sir Beauchamp Seymour was totally insufficient to enable him to land any forces to protect life and property in the City of Alexandria on the 15th of May. He had at that time seven ships, from which he could not have landed more than 700 men. The measure of what he could have done then was to be seen from the force which he landed after the engagement. The men he lauded after the bombardment for the purpose of extinguishing the fire numbered under 900, and by landing these he disabled his ships from further action. After that there arrived the Tamar, with 1,000 Marines, and troops also came from Limasol, in Cyprus, making a force altogether of 5,800 men. If it was necessary at this moment, when Arabi's Army had withdrawn to some considerable distance from the town, to land 5,800 men for the maintenance of order and the protection of the Khedive, how was it possible that when Arabi was in the town the Admiral could be expected to land 700 men on the 11th of June to be there and then sacrificed to the fury of the mob? As had been pointed out, the Government threw the blame on the Admiral, by asserting that he had instruc- 911 tions to land men for the defence of life and property, when he had only now received a sufficient number of men to perform that duty. It was only fair and just to the gallant officer, who had carried out so accurately and so well the orders of the Government, that the House should know that he had not at his disposal those men whom the Government said he had, and that he had not one tithe of the number necessary to perform the duty he was ordered to perform. He hoped the House would forgive him for defending a gallant officer whose conduct was brought in question. ["No, no !"and "Yes, yes!"] The Admiral had received instructions which he had not the means to carry out. It was only right it should be shown what number of men seven ships would be able to land, and the House could judge whether the number was sufficient to perform the duty which it was suggested was to be performed by the gallant Admiral. There was one other point to which he would refer. A month ago, the Secretary to the Admiralty had told them, what he had ventured to challenge, that the ships sent to Alexandria would be able to enter the harbour. Why did they not enter the harbour? Because they drew too much water. Why did they engage the forts at a distance of 3,000 or 4,000 yards, so that their shells fell occasionally into the town? Why did not the Admiralty send light-draught iron-clads in addition to the Penelope, so that they might have attacked these forts from the inner harbour, and not have fired the town? He supposed the Government did not think they were going to make war. They sent vague instructions to the Admiral, and did not give him men to perform the duty they said he ought to have performed; and they did not send him the kind of ships that were necessary. With the means at his disposal, he had performed all that the country could expect of him; but the Government were to blame for not putting proper means at his disposal, and they were still more to blame for throwing dust in the eyes of the country, and saying that the gallant Admiral had sufficient forces at his disposal, an assertion that the course of events had disproved.
§ MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANsaid, he was sorry to take up any part of the time of the House. The right 912 hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir John Hay) had made two statements which ought to be immediately corrected. One was a small matter with reference to himself. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman stated that he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had asserted that the ships at Alexandria could enter the harbour. If any fault were to be found with him, it should have been that he declined to give any information as to the draught of the ships. He never said that they could all enter the harbour of Alexandria; and he should be sorry that it should be thought he had given wrong information. But there was a more important matter. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman waxed indignant in defence of the character of Sir Beauchamp Seymour, suggesting that he had been held up to the world as being to blame because he did not carry out his instructions on the 11th of June. The fact was that no such feeling had ever entered into the minds of the Government. He had repeatedly said in the House—and he had said so that day in answer to a Question—that the Government approved the conduct of the Admiral in every particular. If any blame was to be laid upon anyone for what had happened on the 11th of June, it was upon Her Majesty's Government. Blame had been laid upon the Admiral that day, not by him, but by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFI give to the hon. Gentleman's statement a most emphatic contradiction.
§ MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANsaid, that no denial, however emphatic, could get over the litera scripta; the hon. Gentleman stated that Sir Beauchamp Seymour did not carry out the instructions addressed to him. He would again say, as he had said before, on more occasions than one, that Sir Beauchamp Seymour had throughout the whole of these transactions received the full approval of the Government.
ADMIRAL EGERTONsaid, the Question of the hon. Gentleman who moved the adjournment of the House suggested an imputation upon the Admiral, and he was very glad to hear the hon. Gentleman's repudiation of any such intention. He believed the Admiral had done everything he could, and would do so in the future. With regard to one of the observations of his right hon. and 913 gallant Friend opposite (Sir John Hay), he thought they might admit that Sir Beauchamp Seymour had not a sufficient force with him on the 4th June. It was impossible for the commander of any man-of-war, or any number of men-of-war, under any circumstances, lying before a own with a great number of inhabitants and containing a great many narrow and tortuous streets, to have a sufficient number of men to land in the face of a very formidable force of at least 10 or 20 times that which he would have under his command. The mention of the fact that a large force had gone from Limasol, in Cyprus, attracted the attention of hon. Gentlemen opposite. For himself, he still looked upon Cyprus as imparting more of weakness than strength; and, after all, as a matter of fact, the number of troops that came from Limasol only touched there and never landed.
§ MR. BOURKEsaid, there were two remarks of the hon. Member for Portsmouth that had not been noticed by the Prime Minister, and it would be convenient if the Under Secretary would clear up the points before the debate closed. His hon. Friend said that the Under Secretary had in one answer told the House that the English and French Governments were prepared for any eventualities that might take place at Alexandria.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEI never said in Alexandria.
§ MR. BOURKEThen the Prime Minister said so.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKENo; it was an answer of mine to which the right hon. Gentleman refers; but he has added the words, "in Alexandria." My hon. Friend was speaking about intervention in Egypt, and what I said had nothing to do with Alexandria.
§ MR. BOURKEAlexandria, surely, is in Egypt.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEMy right hon. Friend has added the words "at Alexandria." The question upon which the hon. Gentleman was speaking in that portion of his speech had reference to general intervention to prevent anarchy in Egypt, with regard to which he was quoting my declaration at that time.
§ MR. BOURKEsaid, the point of his hon. Friend's observation was that we had been informed that the English and the 914 French Governments were prepared for any eventuality, and were in perfect accord with respect to the steps to be taken in any eventuality.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKENot in any eventuality.
§ MR. BOURKEsaid, that, under those circumstances, it was a very extraordinary thing that the French Fleet had not taken part in the operations which the English Fleet had engaged in. That was the point, and he hoped it would be cleared up. The other point that had not been noticed was that the Forte was said by the Government to be in perfect accord with Her Majesty's Government as to the events which had taken place in Alexandria.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKENo, Sir.
§ MR. BOURKEI certainly understood my hon. Friend to make the observation.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKENo, Sir; I did not say that.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFThe words were these—
Our relations with the Porte were friendly in the extreme; and the language which had been used by the Sultan himself personally to Lord Dufferin showed an absolute agreement with this country in regard to the steps to be taken in Egypt."—[3 Hansard, cclxx. 1135.]
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEWhat is the date of that?
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFJune 14th.
§ MR. BOURKEsaid, that was some time before the bombardment.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEMr. Speaker, perhaps it is better that I should reply to the two Questions put to me by my right hon. Friend, although my right hon. Friend on neither occasion appears very accurately to have followed what fell from the hon. Member for Portsmouth, who correctly quoted my words. With regard to the first Question, he refers to a statement which I made in the middle of May, that the English and French Governments, though certain differences had previously occurred between them, as I had stated to the House, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, were then in complete accord in view of future eventualities. Those are the words I used, and the Papers now before the House show the meaning of this statement, which was made two days after the receipt from the French 915 Government of its consent to eventual Turkish intervention; that was received on the Saturday, and the statement was made on the Monday. The second Question is with regard to the perfect accord which I stated prevailed on a certain day in June between the Turkish and the English Governments with regard to the condition of things in Egypt. It had no reference to any particular proceedings at any one particular point—such, for instance, as at Alexandria; but it referred to general accord on the Egyptian Question. I went on to say, in answer to those who said that we were not on friendly terms with the Porte, that the language of the Sultan to Lord Dufferin was in complete accord with the views of Her Majesty's Government. That was so. My right hon. Friend now asks if anything has happened since that time to break through that accord. I have already informed the House that the Porte protested against the bombardment of the forts at Alexandria before the bombardment took place, and that the Porte protested while the bombardment was going on. We have received no further communications from them since the bombardment was concluded, and I have twice stated the character of the protest they have made. I have pointed out to the House that they were made under some misapprehension, as it was stated that the tire of the British Fleet would not be returned by the forts, although the House knows that, as a matter of fact, our fire was returned. I think I have now answered the two Questions of my right hon. Friend.
§ BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, he would not have taken part in the discussion but for the answer given to him yesterday by the Prime Minister to the Question whether the Government, by signing the self-denying Protocol, precluded themselves from landing at Alexandria, immediately after the bombardment, sufficient troops to prevent the terrible events that followed. He ventured to say that the answer of the Prime Minister was susceptible of only one interpretation. The right hon. Gentleman replied thus—
Our distinct judgment is this—and this is, I think, a substantial answer to the Question—that preparations adequate to cope with that Army would most certainly not have been allowable under the Protocol called the' Self-denying' Protocol, or the Protocole de Désintéressement."
§ BARON HENRY DE WORMSwas not aware that there were two Protocols; but, however that might be theoretically as a matter of fact there was only one, and that was the self-denying Protocol which he had already mentioned. Some weeks ago, when he had asked whether that Protocol might not, in certain contingencies, so bind the hands of the Government that they could not act on an emergency, he had been met by the answer that such Protocols had been signed both in 1840 and in 1880. But the Protocol signed in 1840 to settle the Syrian Question had nothing to do with the special interests of England; and the Conference which met then, as in 1880, had to decide questions in which all the Powers were equally interested. The present Conference was totally different, and bore no resemblance to the other two, as one Power—England—had a special and paramount interest in its proceedings. The answer of the Prime Minister, if it meant anything, meant this—that though the Government were allowed to bombard Alexandria, the self-denying Protocol so bound their hands as to prevent them from landing troops to protect those who had suffered from the bombardment. That Protocol reflected little credit on those who, by accepting its self-denying conditions, had paralyzed the action of England. But now the right hon. Gentleman tried to explain that it was not the Protocole de Désintéresement but some other instrument, which had caused this disastrous result. The House, however, was entitled to know, if the Protocole de Désintéressement, which had unquestionably been accepted by Her Majesty's Government, prevented the Admiral from landing troops, how it was that it did not prevent the ships from bombarding the forts of Alexandria? It appeared that a large body of troops, under Arabi, were now between Alexandria and Cairo, and in command of the railway—would that Protocol so fetter the Government as to preclude them from taking steps to prevent atrocities in Cairo such as had occurred in Alexandria? It seemed to him that, both inside and outside of the House, it would be very difficult to satisfy the people of the country that the Government had done their duty, if to- 917 morrow brought news of such, an event, and the Prime Minister sheltered himself under some extraordinary instrument which debarred England from acting without the consent of the Conference. If that was to happen, the Government ought never to have entered the Conference. He trusted that the House would have an opportunity of expressing its opinion of the conduct of the Government, which, after producing anarchy in Alexandria, found itself, by its own act, unable to protect those who were injured by its policy. He would not occupy the time of the House further; but he believed that when such an opportunity occurred, the opinion of the House on this question would be given with no uncertain sound, and would be echoed and re-echoed throughout the length and breadth of the land.
§ MR. GOSCHENSir, I only wish to make one remark, and that is in answer to the very plaintive speech of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), who expressed himself as embarrassed at the want of an opportunity for discussing a subject in which he takes the greatest possible interest. I think we know the reason why the hon. and learned Member for Chatham and his Friends are unable to find the opportunity which they wish, and that is this. Whether they have the sanction of their Party or not—whether their action is approved by the Leaders of their Party or not—I do not say whether it is the interest of the country or not, that they have done so, but they have tried, in season and out of season, to force on a discussion for which the House of Commons was not prepared. In the absence of the means of discussion a policy has been pursued which I think most detrimental to the interests of the country—most detrimental to the good name of the country—and most detrimental to the Forces of Her Majesty. They have pursued a policy of attack by insinuations in Questions—a policy of reading from anonymous reports in regard to points at which our troops and ships might be engaged—in order to give the prominence of a Parliamentary discussion to reports which were not authenticated, and in regard to which it was impossible for Her Majesty's Government to reply. The Leaders of the Opposition have not thought fit, either because it does not suit their purposes, or because 918 they think it inconvenient, and not in the interests of the country, that these questions should at the present moment be discussed. The Leaders of the Opposition, I say, have not thought fit to support these proceedings; but what does it matter to the small knot of independent Gentlemen who mostly sit below the Gangway opposite? A more unsatisfactory discussion than that which has taken place to-day it is impossible to conceive—a discussion misleading to the Continent—because those who are responsible, the Front Opposition Bench, have not taken part in it with a form of speech or attack, but have left it to the hon. Members below the Gangway, who are less responsible. [Cries of "No !"] There has been no speech of attack on the Government from the Front Bench opposite. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition did throw his cloak for a moment over the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), and I remember it, because I thought at the moment if the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) wished to raise questions and ask for information from the Government he would have done so himself, or through one of those with whom he acts, and would not have selected the hon. Member for Portsmouth. The right hon. Gentleman defended the hon. Member for Portsmouth in regard to the remarks of the Prime Minister as to the charge of secret instructions, and the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the words were "subsequent instructions;" but, if my ears did not entirely deceive me, the hon. Member for Portsmouth did not speak of "subsequent instructions," but distinctly formulated the charge against the Government that there were "secret instructions" which were purposely kept from the House. When the Prime Minister repudiated the charge, the hon. Member for Portsmouth did not withdraw it, and the protection which the Leader of the Opposition extended to the hon. Member was scarcely needed, because the hon. Member had not retracted the charge he had made. I have no wish to intervene further in this debate, because it is not the least likely that any words from hon. Members on this side of the House will have any effect on hon. Members who will not fall in with the general policy of their own 919 Leaders; but I think it is important that it should be understood out-of-doors that if these debates raised on the adjournment of the House are one-sided and only conducted by a small knot of Members, it is because these occasions are generally viewed by the House as inconvenient for the discussion of the serious questions for which the adjournments are moved, and unsatisfactory in every possible respect.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that the object of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was to discredit the action of what he called a small knot of independent Members who did not act with their Leaders. But if there was anyone to whom that observation applied in the strongest manner it was the right hon. Gentleman himself. For in so far as the right hon. Gentleman had made himself prominent in the House since this Parliament assembled, it had been as the Leader of a small knot of Members, who had acted independently of their Leaders. The right hon. Gentleman said that the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), in the Motion of which he had given Notice, acted as the mouthpiece of a small knot of Members. Now, so far as his knowledge went, his hon. and learned Friend had acted entirely for himself; and, if without concert with the Leaders of the Party, equally without concert with anybody else in the House. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that the effect of the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) was to discredit the action of the Fleet. He did not think that was the effect of his hon. Friend's speech. What his hon. Friend wanted to attack was, not the action of the Fleet, but the inaction of the Government. What his hon. Friend wanted to impress on the House was that, if proper steps had not been taken to preserve life and property in Alexandria, it was because the Government refused to give sufficient powers to Sir Beauchamp Seymour to act in such a manner as they ought to have known would be necessary if the bombardment was undertaken. His hon. Friend said that Sir Beauchamp Seymour had only 700 men at his disposal, and the Government replied that they had no reason to believe that more would be necessary, because they did not believe the Egyptian Army 920 would burn and pillage the town. But he had in his hand a despatch from Mr. Cookson to Lord Granville, dated May 30, which gave the Government ample warning, and which foreshadowed with fatal accuracy the evils which had subsequently occurred. In this despatch it was stated that the English residents in Alexandria thought the crisis was only suspended, that all the elements of danger remained, that their perils would be renewed, and that with the disablement of the forts a period of great danger to Europeans would commence, as they would be at the mercy of exasperated soldiers. They said also that the whole available force for shore operations did not exceed 300 men, although the Squadron had been sent out to safeguard European life and property. He was not sure whether the Squadron since that date had not been increased; but it had not, at all events, been increased at the time of the bombardment to a sufficient amount to allow the Admiral to land men. Therefore, their case against, not the Admiral or the Fleet, but the Government, was that they engaged in a course of action without having taken sufficient precautions to obviate perils which were foreseen by others, and should have been foreseen by them.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT, who spoke amid continued interruptions, said, that what the country was most anxious about at present was the steps Her Majesty's Government were taking to prevent occurrences at Cairo similar to those which had happened at Alexandria. He observed that the absolute accord which was taken on the 15th of May to exist between France and England had been shown, he supposed, in the withdrawal of the French Fleet. In a telegram sent by the Government to the Admiral on Friday last, they said—
Opposition having ceased, do not dismantle the forts or disable the guns; endeavour to open friendly communications with the Khedive, and invite him to assert his authority.That was to say, that those forts which had proved so formidable and required such a prolonged bombardment to silence were not to be dismantled, and those guns which had given such proof of their metal were not to be disabled. The next phrase was still more remarkable. "Endeavour to open friendly communications with the Khedive." Why 921 friendly? We were not at war with the Khedive. The Admiral had been humiliated by the fetters that had been imposed upon him. He wished to know what steps the Government were going to take to save Cairo and the rest of Egypt from the fate of Alexandria? [Interruption.] The Correspondent of The Times, whose information was generally more accurate than that furnished to the House by the Government, had said that morning that if any disaster did occur it would be the fault, not of the Admiral, but of the Government. [Interruption.] The bombardment had been rendered necessary through the neglect of the Government. Her Majesty's Government, having once taken this matter up, were bound to restore order in Egypt. [Interruption.] He regretted that the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) was, as usual, continuing his unmannerly interruptions.
§ MR. WARTONrose to Order. The hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) was issuing a succession of sounds that were unearthly, but were not heavenly.
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Member for Eye had possession of the House.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTwished to know why, on the 11th of June, instructions had not been sent to the Admiral to land a force. In his opinion, the blame for the loss of life and property that occurred was due to the want of proper instructions being sent to the Admiral. If there was a joint action at all, let it be with the Sovereign of Egypt, whose rights could not be denied. Let the Government follow out the policy which would have been adopted by a Palmerston or a Beaconsfield—a kind yet resolute and determined policy—in dealing with the Sovereign of Egypt. If, after every opportunity offered, that Sovereign declined to act with them, let them have recourse to isolated—at all events to determined—British action. The Government had laid Alexandria in ruins, had destroyed many lives and millions of property, and had injured the interests of the bondholders. They had destroyed Egypt and thrown her back 20 years. Let them take the step needed promptly, and let them at once send a sufficient force to be effective and at the same time merciful. Let them at once ask the Commander at Alexandria to state exactly how many 922 sailors and marines were available for landing on the 11th of July.
§ And it being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORrose to Order, and asked whether the remaining Questions would now be taken?
§ MR. SPEAKERUnder the special circumstances of the case I think those Questions should be dropped.