HC Deb 16 August 1883 vol 283 cc723-5
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he will inquire if the Indian Government have any information regarding the presence of a Russian agent in Afghanistan, his friendly reception by the Governor of Kabul, and his alleged interview with the Amir; whether he still adheres to his statement that an annual subsidy of £120,000 has been granted to the Amir without any of the conditions to secure British influence and control upon which previous Amirs have been subsidised; and, what supplies of arms and ammunition have been given to the Amir Abdurrahman since 1880?

MR. J. K. CROSS

Sir, the Indian Government have received information regarding the presence of a Russian merchant, a Mahomedan by religion, in Afghanistan, who had an interview with the Ameer. No importance is attached to the incident by the Government. The hon. Member for Eye is mistaken in thinking that I stated that the subsidy of 12 lakhs had been granted— Without any of the conditions to secure British influence and control upon which previous Ameers had been subsidized. When Abdurrahman was recognized by us as Ameer of Afghanistan in 1880 an understanding was entered into that he should follow the advice of the British Government in regard to his external relations. The Ameer has so far acted in conformity with that understanding; and, in order to strengthen his position, the Government of India have decided to give him one lakh of rupees a-month. The gifts of arms to the Ameer up to 1882 are described in Return No. 18 of 1882. Since then the Ameer has received 1,500 muzzle-loading rifles, 1,000 carbines, 8,274 cartridges for ordnance, 1,778 shells, 3,604 shot, and 996,189 small-arm cartridges.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN

said, there was a strange contradiction between the answer which the hon. Gentleman had given to him on Monday on the same subject and that he had now given to the hon. Member for Eye. The House was now given to understand that the Ameer had agreed to render some service in consideration of his subsidy; but what he wished to know was, whether the engagement to that effect had been reduced to writing, and embodied in a Treaty, or whether it was merely a verbal understanding?

MR. J. K. CROSS

Sir, the answer I have given to-day is altogether consistent with the answer I gave the other day. There is no reiteration of the understanding which has been entered into with the Ameer; it was entered into in 1880, and it covers all subsequent transactions.

MR. O'KELLY

Was the understanding evidenced by any written document?

MR. J. K. CROSS

No, Sir; it was entered into between our Agent and the Ameer himself.

MR. STUART-WORTLEY

Is it a verbal understanding, or one of a more solemn nature?

An hon. MEMBER

Is it in writing?

MR. J. K. CROSS

Will the hon. Member kindly give Notice of the Question?

MR. ONSLOW

Was the Secretary of State for India consulted in this matter before the Viceroy agreed to give this allowance; and will Papers be produced?

MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

Are we to understand that there is no written Treaty or document in existence which binds the Ameer to the conditions the hon. Gentleman has just referred to?

MR. J. K. CROSS

Notice had better be given of a Question.

MR. O'KELLY

Is the allowance a permanent one, or is it given for a length of time?

MR. J. K. CROSS

I have already stated it is given from month to month.

MR. ONSLOW

Can the hon. Gentleman answer my Question now, whether Papers will be produced?

MR. J. K. CROSS

No, Sir.