§ MR. J. R. YORKEgave Notice that he would on Thursday move—
That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the circumstances under which the arrangement, commonly called the 'Kilmain- 1412 ham Treaty,' was alleged to have come into existence, and to report to the House how far the stipulations and conditions involved in such arrangement, if it should be proved to exist, were in accordance with public policy, and the interests of peace in Ireland.He put the Motion down for Thursday, because he understood from what passed between the right hon. Gentleman and himself that it was to be taken as an unopposed Return. If the right hon. Gentleman wished to make any alteration in the terms of the Resolution he should be happy to postpone the Notice till Monday.
MR. GLADSTONEIt is not possible for me to agree to any terms such as those read out by the hon. Gentleman, because he speaks of an arrangement commonly called the "Kilmainham Treaty." It looks as if those words were put into the Motion for the purpose of getting it opposed.
§ MR. J. R. YORKEIt is strictly because the right hon. Gentleman said he would allow the arrangement which he referred to as having been called the "Kilmainham Treaty" to be inquired into that I gave Notice of the Motion in these terms.
MR. GLADSTONEI never recognized its being called the "Kilmainham Treaty." It is, indeed, assumed by the hon. Gentleman and others who think with him that there is such a Treaty. But if there is no Treaty, as I assert, why should this term be introduced into the Motion?
§ Subsequently,
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI beg to ask whether the Prime Minister will consent to any form, and, if so, what form, of Motion for the inquiry which the right hon. Gentleman challenged last night, which he severely denounced my hon. Friend (Mr. J. R. Yorke) for endeavouring to shrink from, but from which it appears the right hon. Gentleman himself is now anxious to back out?
MR. GLADSTONEUnless the noble Lord removes from the Question the concluding words of it, I decline to answer.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI can assure the Prime Minister that if he attached any offensive sense to these words, nothing I used was meant in an 1413 offensive sense. I withdraw them. I did not mean anything offensive; but those words are continually used by the Government. But I will substitute any other words the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
MR. GLADSTONEI think it would be very unwise on my part to draw a form of words for the noble Lord. What I referred to last night was that Her Majesty's Government would consent to an inquiry into an arrangement described by the noble Lord opposite as "a most disgraceful transaction." I conclude there will be no difficulty in designating a form of words referring to that subject sufficiently indicating it, which, at the same time, shall not contain any assumption of a nature that is not possible for us to admit. That is not an unreasonable limit to lay down; and the hon. Member, if he takes a little time to consider it, will have no difficulty in finding proper words.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERasked the right hon. Gentleman whether, in the event of opposition to the Motion of which Notice had been given, he would take care that proper facilities for bringing the subject forward should be given to his hon. Friend?
§ MR. MACFARLANEwished to know whether it was usual or in Order for an hon. Member to move for a Treaty, the existence of which had been uniformly denied?
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would adhere to the spirit and letter of what he stated last night, and thought it best to defer giving a precise answer to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther) until an Amendment to the proposed Motion of the hon. Member opposite should have been placed on the Notice Paper.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERexplained that he had in view the Notice given by the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds), to the effect that he would oppose the Motion of the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. R. Yorke). That Notice would subject the Motion of the hon. Member to the Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule. He wanted to know whether, in the event of his hon. Friend's Notice being amended in such a way as to command the Prime Minister's approval, the right hon. Gentleman would make arrangements by which the Motion of his hon. Friend would escape the opera- 1414 tion of the Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule.
MR. GLADSTONEthought that the words which he had used on Monday ought to have made it clear that he would act in the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to desire that he should act. But as the Question of the right hon. Gentleman was concerned with a double contingency—namely, an amended form of Notice and an opposition which might not be offered, he must decline to discuss the matter any further on the present occasion.
§ MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked why, if Her Majesty's Government were following the precedent of 1815 as to the cost of the occupation of Egypt, they did not also follow that precedent in their treatment of the leader of the military movement which they had suppressed?
CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, that, as the Prime Minister had stated that in the case of the French War a Treaty was framed with France in regard to the occupation of the country, he should like to know whether there had, up to the present time, been any Treaty, Convention, or Agreement between England and Egypt in regard to the occupation of Egypt?
MR. GLADSTONENo, Sir; none whatever. Our first duty in our view when we had 33,000 men in Egypt, who had accomplished their work as an army, was to get as many as we could out of that country, in order to relieve this country from the heavy charge of continued occupation. That is a very arduous work, it has been rapidly performed, as I think, and it was concluded for the present on the 8th of November last, or just six days ago. Now it is our duty to proceed to the next stage; but we have yet no Convention of any kind existing between us and Egypt—certainly not of the kind that existed between this country and France.
§ MR. ONSLOWsaid that at the end of July they had a very important discussion as to the portion of the expense to be paid by India, when the Secretary of State for India laid down the principle that India should pay her portion. Three months had since elapsed, and a very important despatch had come from India. He would, therefore, ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would tell the 1415 House within a reasonable time—say, a fortnight before the end of the Session—what was the determination of Her Majesty's Government as to the proportion of charge between India and this country to be paid for the Indian troops engaged in the Expedition to Egypt?
MR. GLADSTONESir, it is only within the last few days that we have received anything like a near estimate of the actual or probable cost of the Indian troops. The estimate which was made in the summer has been subjected to a good deal of reconsideration. We shall have to compare that with similar estimates to be formed by the Secretary of State for War and the Admiralty before we can arrive at a conclusion upon the subject; but I think I may give every reasonable hope that within the time that the hon. Gentleman names before the Prorogation we shall be able to make a communication on the subject substantially corresponding to what he describes.
§ MR. BOURKEsaid, he thought there was another Question they might ask, and which the right hon. Gentleman might be able to answer. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of a Convention. Would that Convention be laid upon the Table of the House this Session, and would it have reference to any other matter than the expense of the troops? Would it refer to anything connected with the Suez Canal, and was it intended to enter into a Convention or Treaty with any other Power but Egypt with respect to the future government of that country?
MR. GLADSTONESir, the right hon. Gentleman is very sanguine if he thinks I can answer the whole of these Questions. I cannot even answer the first beyond giving him an affirmative answer in principle. He wishes to know whether the Convention when concluded will be laid on the Table of the House during the present Session? Well, the first question is how long will it take to conclude the Convention, and that I should hope would be a short time. At the same time, I cannot say, considering that we have only ended bringing away troops six days ago, that we are yet definitively prepared to conclude a Convention. The draft of it is in preparation, but it has not yet been definitively prepared. However, I do not anticipate 1416 that that will be a very complex matter, or will take a very long time, and there can be no doubt it will be presented to Parliament when concluded. Whether it will be presented during the present Session must depend upon the length of the present Session, and upon that subject it is for hon. Gentlemen opposite to ask themselves how long it will be rather than for us to say.
COLONEL STANLEYDo we understand the right hon. Gentleman rightly in saying that a force of 12,000 men will be left in Egypt; and, if so, may I ask whether it is intended to vote this number as additional to those nominally voted for the ordinary service in this country?
MR. GLADSTONENo, Sir; I think not. I do not think the way would be to vote them as additional. At the same time, that is a question which evidently enters into the preparation of the Estimates for the ensuing year, and to which no complete answer could be given at this moment; but I do believe that even then we would put them in as additional. I ought to have gone a little further in my reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bourke), and said that the Convention of which I have been speaking will be confined to the subject of the military occupation. It will not be a Convention including other matters, nor are the Government yet in a condition to say whether any other Convention with Egypt will be requisite.
§ MR. BOURKEOr with other Powers?
§ MR. R H. PAGETMay I ask whether, in any Convention with Egypt, that country will bear any portion of the expense of the late War, or the expenses of the occupation previous to the signing of the Convention?
MR. GLADSTONEThe Question of the hon. Member involves an assumption of some date. The date for which the Convention would run would have to be considered and to be fixed probably upon the spot. Substantially, I understand the hon. Gentleman to mean to ask me whether we intend to ask Egypt for the expenses of the War, or a portion of the expenses of the War. I have stated with regard to that subject all that we can state. We have made no mention of 1417 that question, and no claim upon Egypt for that purpose. I do not know that it would be right in us absolutely to preclude the exercise of the discretion of Parliament with regard to it; but we have made no claim of that kind. I may, perhaps, say, though I would rather have had my attention called to it by regular Notice, that Her Majesty's Government have no intention—have not arrived at any decision—that it would be desirable that any such claim should be made.
§ MR. SALTsaid, speaking under correction, that he had a suspicion that the expenditure now going on with regard to Egypt beyond the total sum voted in July last was contrary to the terms of the Appropriation Act. He did not wish to press that too far, because in difficult times, either of war or of the occupation of a country, it was absolutely impossible to keep the expenditure strictly within the letter of the law. At the same time, it was most important that any departure should be at all times and on all occasions as small as possible. [Cries of "Order!"] The House happened, perhaps by a fortunate accident, to be sitting now; and there appeared to be, according to law, a recognized opportunity for asking for Votes of Credit should occasion arise. Now, he wanted to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to tell the House somewhat more definitively on what day he would be able to give information to the House on a question of such great importance?
MR. GLADSTONESir, I am necessarily dependent for my power of answering that Question upon intelligence which I have not yet had from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Childers) and my noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty (the Earl of Northbrook). If my hon. Friend will bear in mind that only six days have elapsed since we brought away the latest detachment of troops from Egypt, which must necessarily be made the basis of arriving at this calculation, he will see that no time has elapsed which could possibly have enabled us to make the calculation. At the earliest possible moment I am supplied with the information I shall be glad to furnish it to the House.