HC Deb 22 July 1882 vol 272 cc1332-5
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can state the terms of a convention between France and England with regard to the Suez Canal, which the French Prime Minister stated on Tuesday in the Senate to have been just concluded; whether he can state what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking, or intend to take, in order to preserve Cairo and the rest of Egypt from the fate of Alexandria; and, whether, in view of the fact that the British Government alone have been willing to resort to force, and that the interests of England in Egypt are greater than those of the rest of Europe, Her Majesty's Government will refrain from inviting the other five Powers to share in the occupation of Egypt? He had given Notice yesterday of a further Question on the same subject, which, unfortunately, had not been put upon the Paper, and which he would now ask. It was—Whether the attention of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had been called to reports of very horrible massacres of Europeans which were alleged to have taken place in various parts of Egypt, and especially to the alarming position of Port Said, as reported in The Daily News, in which it was said there were 12,000 Europeans who were at the mercy of the Native population; and also whether his attention had been called to a statement made by the Correspondent of The Standard and confirmed by the Correspondents of nearly every other London morning journal, to the effect that we had now 5,000 men actually in Alexandria, while two more regiments were expected to arrive there either to-day or to-morrow, and that, were it not for orders from home, that force would be able to put an end to the Egyptian difficulty in 24 hours? In these circumstances, he wished to ask the hon. Baronet whether he was able to give the House some assurance that these orders, if they existed, would be removed?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

Sir, I must decline to answer the second and third branches of the Question on the Paper for the reasons stated by the Prime Minister on Thursday; and I must, at the same time, decline to answer the other Questions asked without their being placed upon the Paper. With reference to the first branch of the Question which is upon the Paper, I have to state that I have carefully read M. de Freycinet's speech, and that it would be contrary to rule for me to make any observation with regard to it; but as the hon. Mem- ber refers to what purport to be the words of the speech, I must inform him that, having read the speech, I can find no such words in it. The French Minister said nothing whatever about a Convention; and if the hon. Member had himself read the official report—I do not know what report he has seen — he would have found that it did not state that any Convention had been concluded between England and France.

MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

It is all in the newspapers.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

I cannot find it anywhere. It is certainly not in the official report of the speech, and M. de Freycinet could not have stated anything of the kind. The terms of the agreement between England and France I read to the House the other day, and they are now on the Table of the House.

MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

said, that he should like to call attention again to the statement which he had read to the House—namely, that there were 7,000 men at Alexandria, and that they could put an end to the trouble in Egypt in 24 hours, ["Order!"]

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member has put his Question and has received an answer; he cannot raise a debate.

MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

said, he hoped that it would be understood that he disclaimed any intention of raising a debate. As he had omitted to put a portion of his Question upon the Paper, he merely wished to ask the hon. Baronet a second time whether, in view of the serious state of affairs, he was still unable to give the assurance that the orders from home would be removed?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

That Question seems to be one which, besides the difficulty of not having it upon the Paper, comes exactly within the statement of the Prime Minister on Thursday.

MR. ONSLOW

wished to ask the Secretary of State for War whether there was any truth in the report that the Indian Native troops were not to be employed in the expeditionary force in Egypt; and whether, if the statement were true, the right hon. Gentleman could conveniently give the House the reasons why these troops were not to be so employed?

MR. CHILDERS

In the first place, Sir, I have received no Notice, either public or private, of this Question; in the next place, it should have been addressed to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India, and not to me; and, in the third place, it is a Question which, in view of the statement to be made by the Prime Minister on Monday, ought not to have been asked at all.

LORD EUSTACE CECIL

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any truth in the report of further massacres at Cairo; and whether further Papers on Egypt which we have been promised will be distributed to-day? When I left home they had not been distributed.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

I have heard from the printers just now that both sets of Papers have been sent to Members' residences. With regard to the massacres in Cairo, we have not heard anything; but we have heard of the reported murder of two Englishmen in the interior, but not at Cairo.

COLONEL ALEXANDER

I beg to give Notice that on Tuesday next I shall ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, as soldiers and sailors guilty of acts of pillage can no longer suffer corporal punishment, he approves of the action of Admiral Sir Beauchamp Seymour in flogging the Native population of Alexandria for looting?