MR. SOLATER-BOOTHasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether any of the financial proposals about to be submitted to the Conference are such as could not be carried into effect without the concurrence of the House of Commons; and, if so, whether he will not at least make the House acquainted with such portion of the proposals before its freedom of action is hampered by the meeting of the Conference?
MR. GLADSTONEI am afraid that I cannot vary from the decision at which the Government have arrived under the circumstances of the course; but we wish to take every care, as far as depends upon us, that there shall be no invasion of the freedom of action of this House. We cannot, however, guarantee the freedom of action of the House against the proceedings of other parties.
§ MR. GIBSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Have any communications been made by Her Majesty's Government to the French Government as to the nature, character, or extent of the financial proposals to be submitted to the Conference; at what dates and between whom did such communications take place; is the result of any such communications embodied in any writing official or non-official in the possession of Her Majesty's Government; and, has 1424 the fact of such communications been conveyed to any of the other Powers?
MR. GLADSTONEThe full proposals of the Government in regard to finance were communicated confidentially to the Powers, and also to the Porte, on Tuesday last. Previous to that time there were certain informal communications of a partial character; but no engagement of any kind has been taken by this country or given.
§ MR. GIBSONWere the financial proposals made to France before they were made to the other Powers?
MR. GLADSTONEI can add nothing to what I have said. They were partial communications; but they were not confined to any single Power, nor do they involve any engagement on one side or the other.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHasked the First Lord of the Treasury. If he will undertake that the results of the consultation with the Powers on the communications which have passed between England and France will be communicated to the House, so soon as they are received by Her Majesty's Government, whether before or during the sittings of the Conference, if it should assemble? He wished further to ask the right hon. Gentleman, in reference to this Question, whether it was in his recollection that he stated on the 27th of May—
we undertake and engage that in the event of any common understanding with France in consultation with the Powers, and of any result following those communications, all the results and the whole conclusion shall be presented to Parliament before the Conference meets;and further, on being pressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) later on on the same subject, he said—We have spoken, not of the arrangement with France, hut of laying the arrangement with the Powers before the House at a date anterior to the Conference.
MR. GLADSTONEUndoubtedly we have deemed it our duty to lay before the House all arrangements that we have been able to make, and all the results at which we have arrived. The entire result is laid before the House, so far as we have been able to arrive at it. With respect to the consultation with the Powers, we have no authority to define a limited time within which the replies shall be made, and replies have not been made by the Powers 1425 which could form the subject of communication to this House. I think this also applies to the Question of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). The question seems to be whether we intend to postpone the invitation for the meeting of the Conference until the Powers have given replies with regard to the preliminary communications with France. We have no such intention, and one of the most conclusive reasons against such intention is that the financial condition of Egypt does not admit of it.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHCan the right hon. Gentleman inform us whether he has received answers from any of the Powers; and, if so, from which?
MR. GLADSTONEI could not give any formal answer to that Question without Notice; but I think I am correct in saying that such answers as we have received are to the effect that no objection has been taken to the arrangement; but the final judgment is reserved to a later stage of the proceedings. I have no right to say so; but I think it very possible that the Powers may not give such final judgment until they have some knowledge of the proposals to be laid before the Conference.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHWill the right hon. Gentleman give his own view of what he meant when he said—
We shall lay before the House the whole conclusion at which we have arrived after consultation with the Powers.
MR. GLADSTONE"After consulting with the Powers" is exactly what we have done. We have consulted the Powers. We are not in possession of answers from them of a definitive character, and such as we could communicate to the House.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFHave all the Powers as yet agreed to attend the Conference?
§ BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, on May the 27th, he gave a pledge to the House to the effect that Her Majesty's Government would, under the contingency which has since arisen of a common understanding with France, present the whole conclusions at which they arrived to Parliament before the meeting of the Conference; whether an important portion of such conclusions 1426 is the imposing of certain pecuniary liabilities upon Great Britain with regard to Egypt; and, whether he is now prepared to redeem the pledge he then gave.
MR. GLADSTONEThe important part of this Question is in the second paragraph. In reference to that I can only say it has not entered into the arrangements that have been made.
§ BARON HENRY DE WORMSAm I right in supposing that no conclusion has been arrived at with regard to pecuniary liabilities?
MR. GLADSTONEI thought I had made it clear before by previous answers that the whole subject had been reserved for the decision of the Conference.
§ Subsequently,
MR. GLADSTONEexplained that when he had stated that the Powers had accepted the invitation to the Conference he had not included the Porte, which was not generally included in the term "the Powers;" but, in order to prevent any misunderstanding, he ought to say that the Porte would attend the Conference, though it was doubtful whether it would have a Representative present on the first day.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in 1855, he did not join with Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Cobden, Mr. Ricardo, Mr. Laing, and other members of the Tory Party and of the Radical Party, in strong opposition to the proposals of Lord Palmerston, with reference to a guarantee of a Turkish Loan of £5,000,000; whether Lord Palmerston only succeeded in defeating the opposition of the First Lord of the Treasury by a majority of three; whether the First Lord of the Treasury is correctly reported by Hansard as having used the following words, in his speech against the Second Reading of the Bill:—
It is the prerogative of the Crown, under the advice of the Ministers, to determine the terms of these Conventions, but I am not to he told that the functions of this House, with regard to entailing charges on the people, are to be set at nought by this doctrine of prerogative;and, if the First Lord of the Treasury, in any proposals he may make with regard to Egyptian Finance, will adhere to the doctrines and principles with regard to guarantees of loans laid down 1427 by him generally in opposition to Lord Palmerston in 1855, and particularly in the passage quoted above.
MR. GLADSTONEThis Question is made up of certain matters of public notoriety and public record. I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not go over all these matters to ascertain who did and who did not support a certain Motion, or by what numbers it was carried; but as to whether I am correctly reported, I cannot say whether these are the exact words I used, but certainly they contain extremely sound doctrine, and I could not express it better if I attempted to do so. I am glad to find from the Question of the noble Lord that he concurs in that doctrine. I have seen this Question for the first time this morning, and I have not really had the time to refer to my speech, as I have been engaged in attendance upon Her Majesty at Windsor.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman to find a few moments?
MR. GLADSTONEThe noble Lord is asking me to perform a most disagreeable task. But out of respect to the noble Lord, and to acknowledge the compliment he has paid me in rescuing from the dust of oblivion my old speeches, I will endeavour to make the reference as soon as I can.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, on the 10th August 1882, the Earl of Dufferin, Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople, and Plenipotentiary at the Conference then being held, wrote to Lord Granville in the following terms: —
I think it advisable to put on record that, when complying with your Lordship's instructions to acquiesce in the Italian proposal relative to the temporary organisation of a maritime police in the Suez Canal, I was careful to make it perfectly clear to the Conference that the arrangements under discussion did not in any sense or degree imply the neutralisation of the Canal, which was a principle to which the British Government would never subscribe. All the Representatives fully recognised the distinction, and the Russian Representative repudiated the idea of even hinting at such a proposition;whether Lord Granville, on the 29th August 1882, wrote to the Earl of Dufferin as follows:—I have received your Excellency's Despatch of the 15th instant, and, in reply, I have to 1428 state that Her Majesty's Government approve of your having explained to the Conference that their acquiescence in the Italian proposal for the temporary organisation of a maritime police in the Suez Canal did not in any sense imply an agreement on their part to the neutralisation of the Canal;and, what circumstances have occurred to alter the policy of Her Majesty's Government to such an extent, that a solemn declaration made by the Representative of Great Britain to the Powers of Europe assembled in Conference in 1882 is repudiated in a private agreement made between Her Majesty's Government and Prance in 1884?
MR. GLADSTONEThe noble Lord has, perhaps, been misled by some ambiguity as to the sense in which the term was employed. Her Majesty's Government did come to the conclusion that what is commonly called the neutralization of the Suez Canal was not expedient. The other day I stated — I am not sure that I applied the word neutralization to the Suez Canal — that there would be a plan of neutralization in Egypt, and that the Suez Canal would be embraced within that plan; but to prevent any possibility of mistake I said that the plan of neutralization of Egypt would be founded generally, so far as the case would admit, on the principles applied to the case of Belgium, and that the plan as regarded the Suez Canal would be founded on the principles which were, I think, very clearly and distinctly set out in a despatch of Lord Granville, dated January 3, 1883. There is no change in the view of Her Majesty's Government since that time.
§ SIR EARDLEY WILMOTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the statement made by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of the Porte, when inviting Turkey to the Conference, that financial questions would only be considered thereat, the proposal made by Her Majesty's Government to that of France, that the Military Occupation of Egypt by England should be continued till January 1888, was communicated to Turkey either before or at the time of making it?
MR. GLADSTONEYes, Sir; the statement of arrangement with France was communicated to Turkey even before the time of making it. The arrangement was communicated to Turkey as well as to the other Powers.
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid, Ms Question had been anticipated by an impromptu Question put to the Prime Minister by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith); but he wished a reply to the last paragraph — Whether the engagement referred to the laying of an arrangement with the Powers, and not to the laying of an arrangement with France, before the House, at a date anterior to the Conference; whether the replies from the Powers who had been consulted had been received; and, if they were not received before the date fixed for the meeting of the Conference on Saturday next, how he proposed to fulfil his engagement to Parliament unless the meeting of the Conference was postponed?
MR. GLADSTONEYes, Sir; I consider we are bound, as soon as any arrangement with the Powers is made, to make that arrangement known to Parliament. We have not made it known now because it has not been concluded. We have no right to say that definitive answers will be received until the Powers are aware of the whole of the propositions we intend to make. Then, the hon. Member asks whether we are to propose that the Conference should be postponed. I do not consider that we have ever made an engagement to postpone the meeting of the Conference for the purpose of receiving these replies. I have the gravest doubts whether we could obtain those replies before the meeting of the Conference.
§ MR. CHAPLINIs it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman undertook on the part of the Government, after several consultations had been held with the Powers, to place the result of those consultations before the House of Commons at a date anterior to the holding of the Conference?
MR. GLADSTONEAs far as regards our consulting with the Powers, that is certainly true. We have made known our consultations to the House; but, as far as regards the answers from the Powers, we never made any engagement.
§ MR. CHAPLINHow can you fulfil your engagement to place them before the House before the meeting of the Conference?
MR. GLADSTONEI have made no engagement at all to give those answers 1430 before the meeting of the Conference, nor was it in my power to make any such engagement. The Conference was invited for the purpose of considering urgent financial questions connected with Egypt; and it would not have been tolerated that we should postpone such a meeting until we had the answers of the Powers with regard to our communications with France.
§ MR. CHAPLINI wish to ask the Prime Minister, if he is correctly reported to have used these words—
We have spoken not of laying the arrangement with France, but of laying the arrangement with the Powers before the House at a date anterior to the Conference;and I wish to know how the Prime Minister reconciles his language on that occasion with the course he has taken?
MR. GLADSTONEI cannot say, on a challenge across the floor of the House, whether the words quoted by the hon. Member are precisely reported or not. I should require to have an opportunity of comparing the different reports. We have consulted the Powers on this subject; and, undoubtedly, I am under the belief that I conveyed to the House that that which we contemplated would ultimately come to be an arrangement with the Powers, and not with France alone.
§ MR. CHAPLINI beg to give Notice that I shall ask a further Question on the subject; and I shall give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of verifying the reports of his speech.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORI wish to ask the Prime Minister, whether the engagements made with the Powers will be made dependent upon the decision of the House; and whether the Powers will be told that the engagement will not be final or conclusive until it has been submitted to the House?
MR. GLADSTONEI have said, I think many times, that the whole of the preliminary engagements and the plans, which may be accepted and adopted by the Conference, will ultimately depend upon the vote of Parliament.
§ MR. PULESTONDoes the right hon. Gentleman mean by Parliament both Houses of Parliament?
MR. GLADSTONEI think I need not go further than to say that it will be dependent upon the vote of Parliament. I wish to qualify what I said in reference to a reply which I gave a short time ago to a Question of the hon. Mem- 1431 ber for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) as to the Forte's accepting the Conference. What I said was about the acceptance of the Porte. It is what we have reason to believe; but it has not been notified to us in any formal or official manner.
§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDI wish to ask the Prime Minister, whether the first meeting of the Conference will be on Saturday?