§ MR. M'COANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What provision or guarantee at present exists in Egypt for carrying on the control and for insuring the punctual service of the public debt?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEAs regards legality, the same provision or guarantee exists now as hitherto. As regards the temporary position of fact, the view of the Controllers is that their presence at the meetings of the Council would give strength to the Military 194 party, by seeming to sanction their pretensions, and would lower the influence of the Control. For this reason, the Controllers will abstain from presenting themselves at Council.
§ MR. GIBSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What was the date of the communication which apprised the Foreign Office that fifty European lives had been lost in the riots at Alexandria; has the attention of the Government been directed to subsequent reports which appeared in all the London newspapers, stating that very many more lives had been taken; and, has the Government ever asked for further information, or made any inquiry, as to the truth of the said reports?
§ MR. CHAPLINIs the hon. Baronet able to state to the House the number of Europeans who are known to have been murdered, up to the present time, in the recent massacre at Alexandria; and, if not, will he take steps forthwith to procure that information, and submit it to Parliament?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEIn reply to the Question of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson), the date was the 12th of June. I have seen newspaper reports giving 50, 60, 100, 200, and 300 as the number of persons killed, but not specifically stating that more than 50 Europeans were killed. I stated yesterday a fact which may account for varying estimations of the number of Europeans killed—namely, that there are in Alexandria a vast number of persons who are Greeks by race, Christians by religion, Greek in tongue and in dress, but who are not Greek subjects, coming, as they do, from the Turkish Islands and the Turkish Coast of Asia Minor, and who may have been counted as Europeans in some lists of killed. Holding, as we do, as little communication as possible with the officers of the present Egyptian Ministry, we have not received their official list of Europeans killed. We have confined ourselves to asking for the most detailed information as to the British subjects killed, for whose death reparation will have to be made to this country. Six English-born British subjects and two Maltese British subjects have been reported to us as killed; and if any other British lives were known to have been lost the Consuls would, no doubt, have reported the deaths in conformity with the in- 195 structions addressed to them. The important question is not that of the total number of European lives lost—deplorable though that loss of life is—but that of the reparation to be exacted for the injuries to the British Consul and British subjects.
§ MR. GIBSONHas no inquiry been made of the Egyptian Government as to how many lives were lost, or was the hon. Baronet content with the first report? If he has remained satisfied with that up to the present time, will he now seek some fuller information?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKENO, Sir; we considered it our duty to ascertain the exact facts as to the number of British subjects who were killed. We do not think it our duty to worry our Consuls at a time when they have a very great deal to do to ascertain the exact figures as to the number of Europeans who were killed. The number of 50 was arrived at by an examination of the persons who were visited at the various hospitals. All the Europeans who were wounded are supposed to have been carried to the hospitals, which were all visited and searched.
§ MR. CHAPLINDo I understand the Government to say that they do not think it desirable to take any further steps to obtain accurate information as to the number of Europeans massacred in Alexandria; or will the Government take steps to procure that information, and submit it to Parliament forthwith?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEI have stated the reason why there is great difficulty in arriving at the exact figures of the total number of Europeans who were killed, and I said Italian great interest of this country is to know the number of the English subjects who were killed. I think it is very possible that the Italian and other Foreign Governments have made similar inquiries as to their subjects.
§ MR. CHAPLINThen we are, I suppose, to underhand that the Government decline to take any further steps to procure information as to the number of Europeans killed?
§ MR. BOURKEPerhaps the hon. Baronet will inform us whether the British Consul, in reporting on the number of killed, has said anything about the difficulty of identifying the bodies of British subjects owing to the mutilation which has taken place?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEHe has stated that there has been a difficulty in identifying bodies; but has not spoken of that difficulty in connection with the identification of British subjects.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLPerhaps the Under Secretary will state whether there is any British Representative on the Commission of Inquiry into these lamentable occurrences?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEMy right hon. Friend opposite has given me private Notice of a Question on that point, which I am unable to answer today; but I hope to be in a position to make a statement on the subject on Monday.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked whether it was true, as reported in The Times to-day, that some Egyptian soldiers picked out to do duty at Alexandria, and to protect life and property, were mainly instrumental in the destruction of life, and that that was shown to have been the case by the bayonet wounds on the bodies of the killed?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEI have declined to answer Questions put without Notice; but I may say that I have, I believe, on two occasions—and certainly on one occasion—already stated in this House that, according to our information, the conduct of the Egyptian troops was good. We have no information confirming the statement of the hon. and gallant Baronet.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTI do not mean the Egyptian troops, but the troops appointed to act as police.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEWe have at present no information confirming the statement.
MR. G. W. ELLIOTI wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If there are any matters in difference as to the administration of affairs in Egypt between that country and England; and, if not, why is the squadron in Egyptian waters, considering it has not succeeded in protecting life and property; and, since the new Egyptian Government has not been recognized by England, with whom will official communication be carried on in that country? I should also like to ask if the Conference sat yesterday; and, if not, is it a correct statement that Austria, Italy, and Germany have withdrawn, and that Austria took the initiative? I have not given Notice of the 197 last portion of these Questions; but, if the hon. Baronet desires, I will do so.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEThat is an entirely different Question from what appears on the Paper; and it would be very undesirable I should answer it now. The hon. Member will, perhaps, recollect that I have already stated, in reply to the hon. Member for Wicklow County (Mr. M'Coan), the position at present occupied by the British and French Controllers in Egypt. In the present state of affairs it would not be possible to withdraw the Squadrons from Alexandria. I stated yesterday, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen), the conditions under which communications with the Egyptian Ministry must be conducted. Her Majesty's Agency continues to be in frequent and direct communication, with His Highness the Khedive.
§ MR. CHAPLINasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What Government Her Majesty's Ministers recognize as the Government of Egypt at the present time, and who are the Ministers who compose it; and, whether Her Majesty's Government, apart from the protection given or supposed to be given by the Government of Egypt, and apart from the protection given by Her Majesty's Fleet, have taken any other measures to protect the lives and property of Her Majesty's subjects in Egypt and in Alexandria; and, if so, will the Government say distinctly what those measures are?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEAs I have just stated, Her Majesty's Agency are in frequent and direct communication with the Khedive. We do not recognize the new Egyptian Ministry. Her Majesty's Government are unable, as I stated on Friday last, to give direct protection to any British subjects in the interior of Egypt, a fact which does not diminish, the responsibility of the de facto authorities for their safety. The question as to the protection of British subjects at Alexandria is completely covered by the instructions sent by the Admiralty, to which I have several times referred. The communication of those instructions to the House will, of course, rest with the Admiralty.
§ MR. CHAPLINI beg leave to give Notice that on Monday next, on going into Committee of Supply, I shall call she attention of the House to the Minis- 198 terial replies with regard to measures of protection for the Queen's subjects in Egypt; and move—
That this House regards with anxiety and alarm the position of the subjects of Her Majesty now residents in Egypt, and the persistent refusal of the Government to give any satisfactory assurances as to the measures which have been taken to protect them; and it urges upon the Government the duty and imperative necessity of taking prompt and decisive steps for the protection of their property and lives.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTWith respect to what fell from the hon. Baronet to the effect that Her Majesty's Agents are in direct communication with the Khedive, I wish to ask whether it is a fact that the Khedive issued formal letters of administration to the new Ministry, and declared that communications could only be made through the Foreign Minister?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEI can only repeat that Her Majesty's Government is in direct and frequent communication with the Khedive. They communicated with the Khedive in the past, and they continue to do so, only with greater frequency.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTOfficial communications?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEYes; official communications.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEI beg, Sir, to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether it is true that the Porte is still protesting against the Conference; and, if so, whether it is still proposed to hold it; from whom it is intended to demand reparation for the British losses of life and property in. Alexandria; and, on whom we rely for the maintenance of peace and order there? I desire to ask, at the same time, whether the Circular or Memorandum, which is reported in the newspapers to have been sent forth by the Porte, is known to Her Majesty's Government to protest against the Conference; and, also, whether the Government can inform us whether the Conference was unable to meet yesterday in consequence of objection, or un readiness, on the part of Austria and Germany?
MR. GLADSTONEI do not know whether it was intentional; but the Question, as it was drawn—the first Question—would imply that there has been a course of continuous protest on the part of the Porte. Perhaps that was not meant; because I could not affirm 199 that there had been such a course. But, undoubtedly, at the present moment, the Porte objects to the Conference; and, while we may fairly say we are aware of that fact, the Circular to which the right hon. Baronet refers has not been made known to us. We have no official cognizance of that Circular; and, undoubtedly, its terms are not before us. He asks whether we still propose to hold it? Yesterday, at the time when the Conference was expected to meet, several of the Representatives of the Powers had not received their definite instructions; but we have now the information that the instructions from England, France, and Italy had at that time been received. The instructions from Germany and Russia have now been received. With respect to the instructions from Austria, we have, up to the present moment, no definite information; but we have no reason to believe, from the information we possess, that Austria has any intention of maintaining an isolated position; and I have no doubt whatever that the intention of the Representatives on the spot is to hold a Conference. With regard to the Question whether it is intended to demand reparation for British losses of life and property in Egypt?—undoubtedly in this, as in all cases, and without prejudice to our liberty of action, a demand would be made on the de facto authorities in Egypt—those who were actually possessed of power—quite irrespective of any question as to recognition of legality, or any other public matter. For the maintenance of peace and order we rely, in the same way, in the first instance, on the de facto authorities. The permanent question of the maintenance of the peace, order, and tranquility of Egypt is essentially involved in the matters referred to the Conference; but while I say that we look primarily to the de facto authorities, yet instructions have for some time past been given to Her Majesty's servants on the spot, to enable them to meet the case of any failure on the part of these authorities.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERWhom does the right hon. Gentleman consider the de facto authorities?
MR. GLADSTONEThose who are in possession of power in face of the world, and who are pretty well known to the entire world. We have no official relations with them, but they are those who are 200 set forth—and apparently there is no reason to doubt the fact—as the actual Ministers of the Khedive. But there is a question on which I should like to preserve entire liberty of action to the Government—the question whether the Commissioner of the Sultan, by accepting joint responsibility with Arabi Pasha at a certain date, likewise became a de facto authority. That is a question of importance, and one which we shall not allow ourselves to lose sight of.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEThe point to which I referred in my Question was that reference had been made to the joint responsibility of the Commissioner with Arabi Pasha. I will repeat the Question on Monday.
§ LORD EUSTACE CECILAre we to understand that a demand has been made for reparation, or that it is going to be made?
MR. GLADSTONEThe Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs stated that we have not deemed it to be our duty or sound policy to enter into official communications with the existing Ministry in Egypt; but our Agents have received instructions on the subject of the demand referred to by the noble Lord.
§ BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked how, taking into consideration the statement just made that the Government did not recognize the de facto rulers of Egypt, that fact was to be reconciled with the subsequent statement that they were held responsible by Her Majesty's Government for the massacre of Her Majesty's subjects?
MR. GLADSTONEI think that is a Question on a matter of opinion. It appears to me there is not the smallest justification for it.
§ LORD EUSTACE CECILOn Monday I shall ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can state the number and amount of claims for compensation which have been made by British subjects in reference to the recent riots in Alexandria?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEI think that that will be too soon. Up to the present but two claims have been received; but, of course, there will be a great many more.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTI wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government will give an assurance to Parliament 201 that they will not assent to the neutralization of the Suez Canal, and will withdraw from the Conference if this question is insisted upon by the other Powers? I also desire to know, whether the Government will lay on the Table of the House, in the early part of next week, a copy of the Instructions issued to Her Majesty's Ambassador accredited to the Conference?
MR. GLADSTONEI observe that the hon. Member's Questions invariably assume a dual form—one Question is on the Paper, and the other he puts without Notice. Conforming myself to the practice of the hon. Member, I will say, in regard to the presentation of the Instructions as an isolated Paper, that, although those Instructions will undoubtedly come under the cognizance of Parliament at the proper time, we have certainly no intention of presenting them as an isolated Paper. In regard to the Question on the Notice Paper, as to the neutralization of the Suez Canal, I had hoped it had been made sufficiently clear by other answers; but I do not object to state that the subject of the control, the government, the neutralization, and the legal position of the Suez Canal is one which has never been referred to the Conference, and appears to us to be altogether outside the purpose of the Conference. That is all that it would be regular on my part to state. I have been asked what we should do if the other Powers were to insist upon entering into questions with regard to matters not before the Conference, and which no person has ever suggested were questions for the Conference? To that question, my reply is, that if we were to start with a set of negatives, or rather, of minatory declarations, I doubt, in the first place, whether such action would be consistent with international courtesy. In the second place, I doubt whether such action would contribute to the maintenance of harmony, of mutual confidence, and of identity of views among the Powers taking part in the Conference. And, thirdly, if we were to admit that the Conference could discuss one subject that was outside of the purview of the Conference, we should not be able to exclude the discussion of any others outside of that scope.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTThe Prime Minister having brought a general charge against me, I beg to ask per- 202 mission from the House to make a personal statement. Following well-known lines, I will simply deny the accuracy of the charge. I am not in the habit of always putting dual Questions. My second Question to-day arises out of the first. It is not contrary to the practice of the House to place important Documents, although isolated, on the Table. It was done in the case of the Joint Note of the 10th of January; and, in view of that fact, I repeat my Question to the Prime Minister, whether he cannot see his way, for the satisfaction of Parliament and the country, to place the Instructions to Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople on the Table?
MR. GLADSTONEI am sorry to say that it is my duty to decline answering a, second time a Question I have already answered.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFI beg to give Notice that on Thursday next I shall ask the Prime Minister, Whether Her Majesty's Plenipotentiary at the Conference will be instructed to advocate that, within the limits of international obligations, the people of Egypt should have some Constitutional control over their own affairs?