MR. GLADSTONEMy right hon. Friend opposite the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) two days ago gave a Notice of Motion, in which he expressed an opinion that the House ought to be supplied with further information with respect to the occupation of Egypt by a British Military Force. Sir, Her Majesty's Government quite agree in that opinion, and they think that the time has come when they may state very briefly to the House so much as it is in their power to state at the present moment. It will then be for the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether the statement is such as he desires, or what course he will take with respect to it. The occupation of Cairo, as the House will recollect, took place on September 14, and since that time and from that time Her Majesty's Government have been sedulously occupied in bringing away the troops and matériel, which had been sent in large numbers and large quantities to Egypt, with the exception of such force as appeared to be necessary to be allowed to remain there for a certain time. The first despatch of the troops homewards began on October 4, and the process of sending them off continued until November 8, when the last departure took place. Within that time the maximum force we had in Egypt, which I believe I rather overstated on a former occasion, and which may be taken as about 33,000 men, has been reduced to 12,000 men. That being so, we have arrived at a new state of things, which is essentially a provisional state of things, because we had no intention of maintaining such a force for any length of time in Egypt.
§ MR. LEWISI beg to rise to a point of Order. Is the House to have an opportunity of discussing the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, which is a matter of vital importance to the country? [Cries of "Oh!" and "Order!"] If we are to have this statement, a Motion should be made and the House ought to have an opportunity of discussing it. We are now, I believe, on the eve of discussing questions on Motions for Adjournment, and I beg to call 1407 your attention, Sir, to the fact that there is no Question before the Chair.
§ MR. SPEAKERMr. Gladstone.
MR. GLADSTONEI can only say, Sir, that I am acting as I believe for the convenience of the House, and for the purpose of conveying information without raising any question at all; but I can perfectly conceive that hon. Gentlemen opposite may think they ought to take some step, or no step—I do not care which it may be—in consequence of what I am about to say. It may be impossible for them to take any such step to-day; but they may take time for consideration. As far as regards the announcement of the intention of the Government, I believe I am acting strictly in conformity with precedent in giving certain information to the House. Well, Sir, the next step for Her Majesty's Government to take, having arrived at this particular position, will be to form a Convention with the Government of Egypt, and which will have reference to a variety of details necessary to be considered connected with the temporary arrangements for the maintenance of order and security in that country. One very important element in that Convention—possibly the principal one—will be with reference to the charge for the 12,000 men. We have said nothing up to the present time, although I do not know that we are precluded from making the claim if we thought fit to do so, as to the cost of the Military Expedition. But when the aim of the Military Expedition has been gained, and when the object is the maintenance of peace and security in the absence of a regular military Egyptian Force, which it will take some time to organize with prudence and efficiency, we think that it becomes pretty obvious that the question of the charge ought to be raised and considered between the Egyptian and the British Governments, and that will be an important subject for the consideration of the proposed Convention. There may be other particulars with regard to the time during which the present occupation may continue. In this matter we are fortunate in having a precedent before us, although the scale of operations was much larger, which I think in principle is perfectly applicable. It will be remembered that the invasion of France after the Battle of Waterloo was an 1408 invasion strictly analogous in principle, although it was effected by Allied Powers, and not a single Power; yet it was analogous to our entry into Egypt in this cardinal respect—cardinal in respect to the law of the case that it was conceived in point of law to be an invasion for the purpose of putting down a rebellious power which had obtained sway in the country, and on behalf of a Government which was recognized as the legitimate Government of the country by the invaders. On that occasion, and in the first instance, a Treaty was formed between the Allied Powers and with the Government of France, providing for the limited occupation of France—limited as to certain districts, limited in a number of particulars with regard to the cost and management of the force, limited as to the numbers of the occupying force, and also with respect to the charge which was to be imposed on France in respect of that force. The principles of that arrangement were contained in the principal Treaty between the Allied Powers and France; and then, as far as England was concerned, a further Convention was concluded in reference to the principal Treaty on the 20th of November, 1815—the Battle of Waterloo having been fought on the 18th of June previously. So much for the practical nature of that arrangement—an arrangement which, although I hope it is not likely so many points of detail will have to be considered in the present as in that case, lays down a precedent which may be properly followed.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEWhat is the date of the principal Treaty?
MR. GLADSTONEThe date of the principal Treaty is also the 20th of November, 1815. It is headed, "Definitive Treaty between France and the Allied Powers, signed at Paris, the 20th of November, 1815." I am unable to say whether it was signed in duplicate or in triplicate, or in a multiplied form; but it was only signed by Castlereagh, Wellington, and Richelieu. I am quoting from the Parliamentary Debates of 1816. Then comes the question of the relations of that occupation to Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman opposite suggests—and he is perfectly right in his suggestion—that the attention of Parliament should be called to this opera- 1409 tion, and that it should be under the control of Parliament. The course taken in 1816 was this—that at the commencement of the ensuing Session the Estimates were presented; and with the Army Estimates of 1816, which will be found in page 32, there is the Memorandum—
The troops stationed in France being by Convention liable to be maintained at the expense of that country, it is not proposed to submit to the House of Commons any Vote on account of the charges included in the above Estimates.I cannot say at the present moment that that will afford an exact parallel for us to follow on this occasion; but in principle it affords a parallel, because, being a charge, we shall submit that charge to the House. And although, on that occasion, no Estimate of the charge was submitted to Parliament, yet the matter was properly brought under the control of Parliament by taking a Vote for the number of men, "34,031 Cavalry and Infantry, stationed in Prance," costing £1,234,596 13s. 6d. No Vote, however, was taken for the cost, although the Estimate was laid before Parliament for its information, as provision had already been made for it by the Treaty. I think that that is all that I need state to the House upon the present occasion. I have no doubt that we shall, in the course of the next few weeks, proceed with the Convention in this matter; and before Parliament meets in the ensuing Session we shall be able to insert in the Estimates any particulars that may be proper for the purpose of enabling Parliament to exercise its judgment upon the arrangement which has been made. I have not attempted, at this moment, to give any statement as to the absolute cost of the Expedition down to this time; but that belongs to an entirely different subject. I hope, however, that in a short time we shall be in a position to give Parliament information on that subject.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEI understand the statement of the right hon. Gentleman to be virtually in the nature of an answer to the Question which I addressed to him a few days ago, and which he promised to answer to-day. It does seem to me that the House is entitled to early and full information upon this important question as to the employment of the Forces of the 1410 Crown, and as to the mode in which the expenses of those Forces are to be met. The right hon. Gentleman refers to the precedent afforded by the Army of Occupation of France in 1815. It does not seem to me, I must say, that the cases are by any means parallel. They are not much more parallel than the North-Western Railway is with the Great Western Railway. There are, no doubt, some points of analogy between them. I rather think that if the right hon. Gentleman looks into the case he will see that there was a money Vote taken to meet the possibility of the failure of the French contribution. I think that he will see that in the Budget Speech of 1816 the matter was put in this way—that there must be a certain expenditure incurred, but that against it there was, as a set-off, the expected contribution from France, and I rather think that in one of the Appropriation Acts there was a sum of £200,000 inserted for the Army of Occupation. The House, therefore, had the opportunity of being consulted upon what had been done. It will be observed that one great difference between the two cases is that the occupation of France was a matter agreed upon in a Treaty to which all the Powers who had been engaged in the war were parties, and to which France was a party, and in which it was provided that France was to bear the whole of the expenses. We have no information of that kind with respect to Egypt before us, and it would be reasonable that the House should be informed upon the matter. I am quite aware of the power of the Government to decline to discuss this subject; but if information of that kind is still withheld, we shall certainly feel it absolutely necessary, when the time comes for taking the Vote, to ask the House to express its opinion upon the subject. There may be an opportunity, before the close of the present year, to discuss the matter of which we shall avail ourselves; but I do not think it is satisfactory to the people and Parliament of this country that we should be sitting here for several weeks in the autumn, called together at a time when these important arrangements are going on, and that we should be denied an opportunity of discussing them. In the present circumstances, however, we can do nothing but put in our protest in such a form as we may find it possible to 1411 do, by moving the adjournment of the House, or taking any other course that may be open to us. My ground of protest is this—that we were asked, in the month of August, to vote a considerable sum for military purposes for the next three months. These three months are now expired, we are aware that considerable expenditure is going on, and that that expenditure is not of the same character as that for which the Vote was taken in August; and, therefore, we have a right to complain that we are not informed more fully than we have been as to the purpose for which that money is required. Financially, I must say that, looking at the extremely rigorous doctrines which the right hon. Gentleman used to lay down if we did not give Parliament the fullest information as to any expenditure we had reason to expect we should incur, I am surprised that so much greater latitude is now claimed for the Benches on which the right hon. Gentleman now sits.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTENo; but I am protesting against the course which the right hon. Gentleman has taken in this matter. If the right hon. Gentleman will give me a proper opportunity, I will not further pursue this subject now. I merely wish to say that both upon this and the other matter referred to yesterday, upon the Motion of my right hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bourke), we are dissatisfied, and very seriously so, with the course which the Government have taken. I think that great misfortunes may result from the reticence practised by the Government; and, reserving for ourselves entire liberty to deal with this question as opportunity may occur, we are content simply to record our protest against the silence of the Government.