HC Deb 20 June 1882 vol 270 cc1761-6
MR. M'COAN

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Sir Edward Malet had been instructed to take any and what steps to exact punishment and reparation for the murder of the British subjects killed in Alexandria during the riot of the 11th instant; whether any provision, beyond the stationing of a gunboat at either end of the channel, has been made, or is contemplated, for the protection of the Suez Canal; whether Sir E. Malet has been any party to the arrangement under which Ragheb Pasha has formed a new Egyptian Ministry in which Arabi Pasha remains Minister of War; and, whether, in view of the recent Anglo-French Note, demanding the removal of Arabi from office and his exile from Egypt, Her Majesty's Government will recognise any ministry of which he still forms a part?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, that before that Question was answered it might be convenient that he should ask the Prime Minister a Question on this subject, of which he had given him private Notice. That Question was, Whether Her Majesty's Government still adhered to the policy which they had announced, that no settlement of the Egyptian Question could be entertained or sanctioned by Her Majesty's Government which did not require the dismissal of Arabi Pasha from any position of trust or power in Egypt; and, whether that declaration had been laid down as one of the bases of the approaching Conference?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

Sir Edward Malet was informed on the 17th instant that Her Majesty's Government abstained from making demands for the present; but that he was to let it be clearly understood that they would require full reparation and satisfaction for the outrages committed during the recent disturbances. The Government have already declined in both Houses to make a detailed statement as to the safety of the Suez Canal; but they attach the highest possible importance to the immense interest of England in connection with it. Sir Edward Malet has not been a party to the formation of the new Egyptian Ministry; and Her Majesty's Government have in no way receded from their declaration on the subject.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, that perhaps now the Prime Minister would answer the Question he had put to him.

MR. GLADSTONE

Sir, I am bound to say that this is rather a strong example of the inconvenience of putting Questions relating to matters of the utmost delicacy without due Notice. ["Oh!"] I think I have a right to express that opinion, although hon. Members opposite think it necessary to interrupt me. The so-called "private Notice" which I received was a note placed in my hands as I entered the House. Undoubtedly, a part of it does join on and dovetail with the answer just given by my hon. Friend, in which he stated that Her Majesty's Government had nothing to retract from what they had heretofore said on the Egyptian Question. But alongside the question of the ultimate political settlement of Egypt there has come up another question, which for the moment is the dominant question, and that is the safety of European life and property in Egypt. That cannot be considered except with reference to the hands in which the power is temporarily placed. That question and the interests connected with it would render it highly improper in mo to give any answer to the Question now addressed to me. With regard to the Conference, I can give a little more particularity to the answer I gave yesterday, because reference has been made, in the Correspondence now going on, to the particular despatch as containing what we are quite ready to admit are the bases of the Conference. That is a despatch dated the 6th of February, and it is included in the Papers already in the hands of Members.

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Sultan has concurred with the holding of a Conference upon the affairs of Egypt; and, whether he can state where and when this Conference will be held, and what Powers will be represented?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

Sir, as the result of the exchange of views which has lately taken place among the Powers, the Great Powers have agreed, upon the initiative of England and France, that there is ground for deliberation in common on the present state of Egypt, and on the measures which it may entail; and Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Republic have proposed that the Representatives of the six Great Powers shall meet in Conference at Constantinople on Thursday next.

MR. G. W. ELLIOT

said, that the latter part of the Question had not been satisfactorily answered.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

I can only state that the present information that the Government have is that the Conference is to meet without the concurrence of Turkey; but the hon. Member will see, when he comes to read the Correspondence, that it is not easy to answer accurately Questions on this subject.

MR. J. LOWTHER

Has the Sultan declined to take part in the Conference?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

All I can say is that there is an actual conflict of words on the fact.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, on the 25th of September 1881, Sir E. Malet wrote to Lord Granville in the following terms:— During the late crisis there was a considerable panic in the large Foreign population at Alexandria and Cairo, arising not so much from the expectation that the movement would turn against Foreigners, as from the sense of helplessness on their part if it did. In connection with this point, I would venture to recommend that one of Her Majesty's ships of war should he stationed at Alexandria during the winter; whether, on the 24th of October 1881, after the withdrawal of the "Invincible," Sir E. Malet again wrote to Lord Granville, as follows: — The despatch of H.M.S. 'Invincible' to Alexandria, which was ordered by Her Majesty's Government in consequence of a passage in my despatch of the 2.3th ultimo, in which I had ventured to recommend that a ship of war should be stationed at Alexandria during the winter, assumed, from the force of circumstances, a different character from that which was intended. The complaint and the presence of the Turkish Commission gave it a political significance which had not originally belonged to it, with the ultimate result that, instead of being stationed at Alexandria, and fulfilling the object of preventing panics among the Foreign population, the 'Invincible' quitted the port on the day following her arrival. I trust that this circumstance may not prevent Her Majesty's Government from carrying out the design with which the 'Invincible' was first despatched; and, whether ho can state the dates of the arrivals and departures from Alexandria of any of Her Majesty's vessels of war between that date and the present time, and of the class, tonnage, and armament of such vessels?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

Sir, the passages in Sir Edward Malet's despatches, to which the hon. Member refers, are correctly quoted. For the information respecting the movements and size of Her Majesty's ships, I must refer the hon. Member to the Secretary to the Admiralty.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

asked, How long it was since the 25th of September, when Sir Edward Malet wrote to Lord Granville that Alexandria had been left without the presence of any English man-of-war?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

The hon. Gentleman's Question only appeared upon the Paper yesterday, and it was impossible for me to obtain the necessary information from the Admiralty by 2 o'clock to-day. I think it would be best to address the Question to the Secretary to the Admiralty.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

said, that the hon. Baronet had referred him yesterday to the Secretary to the Admiralty, who, when he had put a Question to him to-day, tad declined to give him any answer.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

The hon. Member is inaccurate in saying that I referred him yesterday to the Secretary to the Admiralty.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

I understand my hon. Friend to say that yesterday the hon. Baronet referred him to me, and that I have declined to answer him. The hon. Baronet did not refer my hon. Friend to me. The words used, which, for greater accuracy, I have brought with me, were these; he concluded his answer by saying— In the opinion of the Admiralty, however, it would not be right for me to state the purport of those instructions. That is hardly a reference to me for further information.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

I am very sorry I cannot quite agree with my hon. Friend. I therefore wish to ask him a Question. I want him to inform me, not what instructions the Admiralty have issued to Sir Beauchamp Seymour, but what were the measures taken for the protection of British life and property in Egypt up to the 11th of May, the Under Secretary of State having stated that he had received a despatch from Sir Beauchamp Seymour containing information on that question. It is a question of fact, and not of instruction.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

I cannot understand how the hon. Member can think that this Question can be answered by me. The answer of my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if I must read it in its whole length, was this—"The despatch of Sir Beachamp Seymour containing an answer to the first part of the Question is on its way home." He did not say it had come, but that it was on its way home.

MR. BOURKE

said, that if it was not inconvenient to the Prime Minister, he should like to ask him one Question arising out of the answer he had given as to the bases of the proposed Conference. The right hon. Gentleman, in his answer just now, had referred to a despatch of the 6th of February, in which the bases of the Conference were stated to be, as far as he understood them, the maintenance of life and property, the welfare of the Egyptian people as secured by the Firman of the Sultan, and the strict observance of International engagements. He should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a Question with regard to the last paragraph. Alluding to the Conference, the last paragraph said that it was also, in their opinion, the right of the Sultan to be a party in the proceedings of the discussion which might ensue. He wished to ask whether that portion of the arrangement so proposed by Lord Granville in February with respect to the Conference had been departed from, and whether the Government had abandoned the idea of the Sultan taking part in this discussion?

MR. GLADSTONE

No, Sir; undoubtedly, it was our opinion that it would be his right, and it is so now; but the Sultan himself is of a different opinion, and in this particular ho does not fall in with the opinion which all the other Powers have arrived at. We have neither the inclination nor the power to override his judgment.

MR. ONSLOW

asked whether, as the Porte had decided not to join the Conference, it would still be held at Constantinople?

MR, GLADSTONE

Yes, Sir.