§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is a fact that the Conference which was assembled at the instance of Her Majesty's Government on Friday last requested Turkey to send troops to repress the disorder in Egypt; whether Said Pasha on Tuesday intimated to the Conference the willingness of the Sultan to send a force, and has since decided to despatch a force of 20,000 men, in virtue of his sovereign authority, notwithstanding the First Lord of the Treasury's declaration on Monday that "the opportunity for Turkish intervention had passed away;" whether it is true that the Italian Government, on being asked to co-operate in the occupation of Egypt, referred the British ambassador to the Conference; and, whether Her Majesty's Government have any statement to make with regard to their future policy in Egypt?
MR. GLADSTONESir, as the hon. Gentleman has referred to me in this Question I will answer it. As regards the earlier part of the Question, we are sensible that it relates to a subject on which the House naturally takes extreme interest, and we shall, with respect to it, take the same course that was taken with the original instructions to Lord Dufferin before the Conference—that is to say, we shall lay upon the Table what 35 we have had to say on the subject. Without waiting for that, it may be interesting to the House if I read at once the principal and most important parts of the telegram which has been Bent on its coming to our knowledge that the Sultan has, in the first place, declared his acceptance in principle of the proposal to send troops to Egypt; and, in the second place, has declared that he is prepared to send them in the manner indicated by the Conference, but without pointing out or fixing any time when they will be sent. The material part of that Instruction, which will be laid at once upon the Table, is this—
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTWhat is the date?
MR. GLADSTONEIt is dated this morning. We received the intelligence yesterday. The Cabinet yesterday evening met to consider the basis of the Instruction, and the Instruction was sent to-day—
While reserving to themselves the liberty of action which the pressure of events may render expedient or necessary, Her Majesty's Government will he glad to receive the co-operation of any Powers who are ready to afford it. They are accordingly prepared to accept frankly the assistance which the Sultan has now announced his readiness to give in the restoration of order by sending troops to Egypt in accordance with the invitation addressed to His Majesty by the Powers, and subject to the conditions proposed by them. They now desire to learn what number of troops the Sultan intends to send, the date of their probable departure, and the proposed disposition of them. In the meanwhile, the delay which has occurred in the adoption of measures by the Porte, and the feeling of uncertainty which has unfortunately prevailed as to the real intentions of the Sultan, and which has been strengthened by the action of His Majesty in conferring on Arabi Pasha an important decoration and mark of his favour, make it, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, essential, both for the assertion of the Sultan's own authority and of that of the Khedive, that His Majesty should at once, and before the despatch of the troops, issue a proclamation upholding Tewfik Pasha, and denouncing Arabi Pasha as a rebel.The hon. Gentleman asks what we have done "notwithstanding the First Lord of the Treasury's declaration on Monday that 'the opportunity for Turkish intervention had passed away.'" I see that the hon. Member is under an entire misapprehension as to what fell from me, and which has been partaken by others, and, therefore, I now repeat that what I stated was, in substance, this—that we looked as long as we were able to look to 36 Turkish intervention as the proper and exclusive means of applying military force, should military force become necessary for composing the disorders and difficulties in Egypt. We continued to look to Turkey for that purpose till after the bombardment, and we were, indeed, of opinion that the bombardment itself had afforded extraordinary facilities and great opportunities to the Sultan. It is certainly within my knowledge that these feelings on our part were made known to the Ottoman Government; but the Sultan, in the exercise of his own discretion, did not avail himself of that opportunity, and it was that opportunity of acting as the exclusive agent in the Egyptian disorder that I stated had passed away. But I stated, I think—I forget whether it was in answer to a Question or otherwise—that the question still remained open whether there would be co-operation with other European Powers, or the Ottoman Porte.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTWhat Powers?
MR. GLADSTONEThere was no mention made of any particular Power; we spoke of co-operation in general. That is the state of the case. The opportunity which had passed away was that opportunity of sole and exclusive interference to be exercised by the Sultan in his capacity of Sovereign of the country. I am not making any addition to the statement I made before, but merely reviewing it. Then the third paragraph of the hon. Member's Question is whether the Italian Government, on being asked to co-operate in the occupation of Egypt, referred the British Ambassador to the Conference? I think this Question is based on a misapprehension, owing, probably, to reports in the newspapers. I am not able to say more on the subject than that communications with the Italian Government are in progress. With regard to the hon. Member's last Question, I think that, considering how busily we have during the last four days been making declarations as to our policy in Egypt, it is not necessary to make any further declaration on the fifth day of the week.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEI wish to know whether Her Majesty's Government have received any news this morning, either confirmatory or the reverse, of the telegram which has been received with regard to some offer 37 of submission on the part of Arabi Pasha?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKESir, there has been a telegram received this morning from Mr. Cartwright, in which he alludes to indirect communications made by Arabi Pasha, with a view to the surrender of the Military Party; but no direct communication has up to the present been received from Arabi Pasha.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked whether, in view of the fact that the Conference was assembled for the purpose of dealing with the troubles in the East, the Prime Minister thought it right to charge the Ottoman Government with unnecessary delay, seeing that the Conference did not give its mandate to Turkey until Friday last, and they on Tuesday accepted the Identic Note?
MR. GLADSTONEI beg pardon, Sir. I made no charge whatever; I stated a fact. I said that a delay had occurred, and it is recited in this telegram, and that a decoration of an important character was conferred by the Sultan at a very critical period upon Arabi. I must correct the hon. Gentleman. He is quite wrong about the time when the Identic Note was sent in to the Ottoman Government. It is before the House, and he should have known it. The adoption of the Identic Note by the Representatives assembled at Constantinople was really an essential epoch, and that adoption was a considerable time back—several weeks back. The sending in of the Note, was, I think, on the 15th of July.
§ MR. BOURKEMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman a Question arising out of his Answer? Are we to understand that the conditions proposed to the Porte as to sending troops to Egypt still hold good; whether the Sultan is to send troops to Egypt on the conditions just mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, or whether those conditions have been in any way altered; and whether, in addition to those conditions which the right hon. Gentleman has referred to, the Sultan's Proclamation of Arabi as a rebel is to be one of the conditions previous to the despatch of the Sultan's troops?
§ MR. ONSLOWasked what was to be the nature of this Proclamation? Was it to be issued only at Constantinople, or circulated throughout the whole of Egypt, which at present was in a state of rebellion? What was the nature of 38 the indirect communications which the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said had been, received, and from whom did they come?
MR. GLADSTONEWith respect to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bourke), as I understand the conditions of the Conference, I believe they have been accepted without question by the Porte. I cannot say anything about what the Conference may hereafter do. With regard to the Proclamation, the conditions were framed some weeks ago, and, therefore, the subject is beyond our control. As to the matter of the Proclamation, we have given in our instructions a sufficient indication of its purport which we think is likely to be concurred in by every other Power; but the precise matter of the Proclamation must be left to the discretion of the Sultan. As to its circulation in Egypt, the suggestion of the hon. Member is a very just one. It would be of little use if it were confined to Constantinople; but it is not in our power to make any condition on this subject.
§ SIR JOHN HAYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is intended, before the House rises, to move that the thanks of this House be given to Admiral Sir Beauchamp Seymour, Captain Hunt-Grubbe, and the officers, seamen, and marines for their conduct on the 11th July at Alexandria?
MR. GLADSTONEHer Majesty's Government are deeply sensible of our obligation to the gallant Admiral Sir Beauchamp Seymour and the officers under his command; but beyond that I cannot go. It is a matter of usage that the initiative in such a case is left to the Government, and they must manifestly reserve to themselves the exercise of their own discretion as to the time and circumstances of such a Motion. It must be borne in mind that the information we have hitherto received from Sir Beauchamp Seymour has been so fax telegraphic. It is only this morning that lengthened despatches giving details of his operations have been received, and with their contents it has not been possible for the Government to acquaint themselves. I take the opportunity of making an addition to the Answer I gave just now. Since then a note has been put into my hands, from which I find that a communication has been received 39 this morning from the Turkish Ambassador in London to the effect that the Sultan proposes to send troops immediately.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTWhat day?
§ MR. ONSLOWIs there anything about the Proclamation?
MR. GLADSTONEThere is no reference to the Proclamation. It is an entirely independent communication, and has no reference whatever to the steps taken at Constantinople with respect to the Proclamation, and will not in any way delay or interfere with those proceedings. I wish also to say a word with regard to what was said yesterday by an hon. Friend who expressed his belief that the conflagrations in Alexandria were caused by the firing of the British ships. The name of Mr. Easton is, perhaps, as well known in connection with works at Alexandria as the name of Mr. Cornish, who is now there. Mr. Easton writes a letter to me which it is quite fair to quote in competition with an anonymous writer in a newspaper, and he says—
It is perfectly clear that the statement that the burning of Alexandria was not caused by the action of the Fleet is correct.