§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can state what steps were taken by Sir Beauchamp Seymour, and Her Majesty's ships under his command, last Sunday, for the protection of British life and property at Alexandria; and, whether Her Majesty's Government nourish the belief that the repetition of such steps will be sufficient to preserve British interests in that City in case of the renewal of hostilities?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKESir, the despatch of Sir Beauchamp Seymour, which will answer the first part of the Question, is on its way home. One preliminary despatch was received at the Admiralty this morning. With regard to the second, instructions have been sent, which, we believe, will meet the exigencies of the case. In the opinion of the Admiralty, however, it would not be right for me to state the purport of these instructions. Questions on this subject, strictly speaking, ought to be addressed to the Admiralty.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFgave Notice that he would repeat his Question to-morrow.
MR. MAC IVERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can, without inconvenience, state what particular object or purpose Her Majesty's Government had in view in ordering the Fleet to Alexandria; and, whether Her Majesty's Government were aware, when ordering the Fleet to Alexandria, that the depth of water on the bar was not such as would allow any other than the smaller vessels to enter the Port?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKESir, the object with which the Fleet was sent to Alexandria was stated by me on the 23rd ultimo. The second part of the Question should more properly be addressed to the Secrerary to the Admiralty; but the replies which have already been given in the House on the subject show that the statement now made is not correct.
MR. MAC IVERwished to know whether he should be in Order in taking the earliest opportunity of calling attention to the inaccuracy of the replies on this subject of the hon. Baronet? [Cries of "Order!"]
§ MR. CHAPLINasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any communications have been addressed by Her Majesty's Ambassador in Rome to Her Majesty's Government in reference to the speech alleged to have been made in Rome by Signor Mancini on the 12th June, and in which the following passages occur:—
The policy of the Government could be summarized thus: To absolutely refuse armed intervention on the part of certain Powers, to favour the meeting of a Conference with a definite object. To affirm the competence of the European Concert to share in the final settlement…and, if armed intervention should become necessary, to give preference to that of Turkey as the lesser evil of the two…That the Italian Government were firmly resolved to maintain the agreement that subsisted between them and the Three Powers with whom they had hitherto acted in perfect union. He regarded that union as a happy one for Italy, and he hoped it would bring forth good results;and, whether those communications, and any information with regard to the nature of that agreement, will be included in the Papers to be laid upon the Table?
§ MR. SALTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the British Representative at Rome has made any communications to Her Majesty's Government respecting the statements of Signor Mancini—
The policy of the Government could be sumn arized thus: To absolutely refuse assent to armed intervention on the part of certain Powers;and again,The Italian Government were firmly resolved to maintain the agreement that subsisted between them and the Three Powers with whom they had acted hitherto in perfect union;and, if so, whether such communications will be printed with the Papers about to be laid upon the Table relating to Egypt?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKESir, in reply to the Questions of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) and the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt), I must follow the usual course in declining to express any opinion with regard to statements made by the Ministers of foreign countries in foreign 1608 Assemblies. I may, however, state that both the hon. Members appear to quote from the same report, which is a very inaccurate one, of Signor Mancini's speech. We have an official report in Italian, of which an English summary will be included in the Papers to be laid before Parliament.
§ MR. BOURKEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, before the proposed Conference takes place, Parliament will be informed what the bases agreed upon are; and, what are the limits within which discussions are to be confined?
MR. GLADSTONESir, with respect to the limits within which the discussions at the Conference ought to be confined when the Conference meets, they are limits marked out by the Egyptian Question. A great number of other questions have been suggested to be introduced to the Conference; but the condition of Egypt is the limit of discussion at the Conference. With regard to the bases, those bases are no further determined than is shown in the Correspondence of the Governments, and especially that between the Governments of England and France. They have frequently been described in this House as having for their object the maintenance of all established rights in Egypt, with a due regard to the reasonable development of the institutions of that country.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEThe Question we should be very glad to have answered is this, Whether the limits within which the discussions are to be confined will be the limits of the Egyptian Question proper—that is, the condition of Egypt—or whether they will include any question as to the Suez Canal?
MR. GLADSTONENo, Sir; I think the purpose for which the Conference is summoned is undoubtedly limited to the Egyptian Question proper.
§ MR. ONSLOWasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he could state to the House what are the "best means" (as stated in the House on Friday last) which the Government are taking for protecting British subjects in Egypt; and, whether the Government will make a full disclosure of their policy on matters relating to safety of British subjects as the best means of allaying the present exited feeling in that country?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKESir, I can only repeat that very full instructions 1609 have been sent to Sir Beauchamp Seymour within the last few days, which will, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, fully meet the exigencies of the case. I must also repeat that I believe it is the opinion of the Admiralty, who have sent these instructions, that it would not be proper to state their exact terms to the House just now.
§ MR. ONSLOWWhen were the instructions sent?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEThe latest instructions to Sir Beauchamp Seymour were sent either on Friday or Saturday. I saw them myself on Saturday.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will give an assurance to Parliament that, in the event of a Conference upon Egyptian affairs, Her Majesty's Government will assent to the neutralization of the Suez Canal in time of war?
MR. GLADSTONESir, there is no intention to deal with the question of the neutralization of the Suez Canal. It would be outside the purposes of the Conference.
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, he was anxious to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question of which he had given him private Notice. It related to the alleged separate action of the Consuls General of Germany and Austria in Egypt. He thought that, in view of that alleged separate action to which the newspaper accounts referred, it would be satisfactory if his hon. Friend could state, What was the attitude of the Governments of those two Consuls General?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE,in reply, said, his right hon. Friend had given sufficiently long Notice to enable him to answer without breaking through the rules which he had laid down earlier in the evening. The answer would be best put by saying that the German Government yesterday accepted the invitation of England and France to the Conference, and that the Austrian Government accepted that invitation to-day. The Russian Government had previously accepted, and Italy had previously declared that she was ready to go with the other Powers. So that substantially the invitation of England and France had been accepted by all the Powers.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFI understood that the Question of the right 1610 hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goschen) was, whether Germany and Austria had pressed a Minister on the Khedive without consultation with the other Powers? I think we are entitled to know how far that is true; whether those two Consuls General acted without reference to the other Powers; and, whether in the face of their action, the European Concert is still maintained.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEI can give no further answer without Notice. ["Oh, oh!"] I have answered the Question of my right hon. Friend, it being strictly within the rule I laid down. ["No, no!"] Well, my right hon. Friend is of opinion that I have answered it. At any rate, his Question was, Whether, in face of the statements in the newspapers of the separate action of the Austrian and German Consuls General, I would give any information as to the attitude occupied by the Austrian and German Powers in Egypt? and I have stated, in answer, the acceptation of the Conference by those Powers.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTI wish to ask the Prime Minister, with reference to the Question I lately asked him, whether the Great Powers have assented to the exclusion of the question of the neutralization of the Suez Canal in time of war from the subjects to be considered at the Conference?
MR. GLADSTONESir, so far as the limited purpose of the Conference has entered into the preliminary declarations of the Great Powers, we believe it to be, and I think I may say we know it to be, undoubtedly as far as any positive evidence has gone, decided by all those Powers that the operation and the action of the Conference should be confined to the Egyptian Question, within the limits just now described by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote).