§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government propose to afford the House of Commons any opportunity of expressing its opinion on the policy of armed intervention in Egyptian affairs before the British fleet is called on to take action?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEThe question of affording opportunities for discussion is rather one for the Prime Minister than for myself; but I may state that it is the opinion of the Government that any discussion on this subject at the present moment would be contrary to the interests of the Public Service.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is a fact that the Porte has protested to Her Majesty's Government against any political intervention in Egypt which has not previously received the assent of the Sultan, as Sovereign of Egypt, and which is not carried out by the agency of the Ottoman Government; and, whether, in view of this, and of the Sultan's undoubted rights over Egypt, and of the critical condition of that country, Her Majesty's Government will invite the Porte to check the revolutionary party in Egypt? The hon. Gentleman said he wished at the same time to ask the hon. Baronet, If he will state to the House whether the extraordinary document published in this morning's papers, purporting to be an Ultimatum from England and France to the Ministry of the Khedive, requiring that Arabi Pasha should go into exile, with full pay, and that other Ministers should be exiled or resign, is correct; and if it has been really presented on hehalf of Her Majesty's Government to the Khedive's Ministry; also, whether it has been so presented with the consent of the Porte?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEI must decline to answer the first Question of the hon. Member, for the reasons which I explained yesterday. In regard to the Note which appears in this morning's papers, with the exception of two words, 1704 which are inaccurate, it represents a genuine document, though it is not an "Ultimatum."
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTwished to ask the hon. Baronet if he would state whether the assent of the Porte had been obtained to what had been done?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEI must refuse to answer the Question for the reasons already given.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEI do not wish to attempt to raise any discussion after what has been said on the part of the Government, or to put any Question which may be of an embarrassing character; but after having been informed that the statement in this morning's papers, which is of a serious character, is substantially accurate, I think we have a right to ask the Government whether there is any further information or explanation which they are able to give, and are disposed to give, before the House adjourns for the holidays?
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONPerhaps when the hon. Baronet answers the Question he will tell us whether the two words which he spoke of as inaccurate make any difference in the meaning of the Note.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKENo, Sir. No material difference. One of the mistakes is obvious. The word Egypt has been substituted in one place for Europe. I do not wish to answer Questions of that kind, as there would be no end to them. In reply to the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote), I fear that the Government are not in a position to make any further statement at the present time. The right hon. Baronet knows, of course, we are acting in communication with other Governments; and it is impossible for us to make statements here in the present delicate situation of affairs without having obtained the assent of other Governments.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEWill the document to which allusion has been made be laid on the Table of the House?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEAs I have stated that it is substantially a genuine document, there can be no harm in laying it on the Table, though I do not know that it would be of any advantage, as we have been unable to lay the Correspondence which would accompany it.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTCan the hon. Baronet give us no hope of the production of the Correspondence regarding Egypt on an early day? None has been presented for a considerable time.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKENo, Sir. Until we have reached a position in advance of the present position of affairs it would be impossible to lay the Correspondence upon the Table, because we should require the assent of foreign Governments, which we cannot at present obtain.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFMay I ask one Question, which I think it will not be inconvenient to answer? It is, whether Her Majesty's Government have taken any steps to protect British subjects in Egypt beyond merely sending iron-clads to Alexandria? I ask this because the hon. Baronet told us yesterday that he had no information from Cairo. British subjects have left the city in great alarm, and I have that report confirmed from more than one source, and I know that great alarm exists at Cairo among the English as to the present acts of the insurgents. I would, therefore, ask whether Her Majesty's Government are fully satisfied that they have taken every step in their power to protect British interests and the lives and property of British subjects?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEWe have taken every step recommended by the English and French Agents at Cairo; but we have not received any information from them to the effect that they consider there is any danger.
§ MR. O'DONNELLwished to inquire, as there was an evident disinclination on the part of the Government to communicate any information with regard to Egypt, whether, during the existence of that disinclination, it would be substantially safe for Members of the House to accept the declarations made in the French Chamber as a sufficiently accurate statement of the effect of the communications between the two Governments?
§ [No answer was given to the Question.]