§ MR. CHAPLINasked the First Lord of the Treasury, in reference to the following statements—
That the Government have arrived at this conclusion, that they could undertake and en- 1555 gage, in the event of any common understanding with France, of consultation with the Powers, and of any plan resulting from those communications, that those results and the whole conclusion which they arrived at should be presented to Parliament before the Conference met;and also, in reference to the former statement—That the Government had spoken, not of laying an arrangement with France, but of laying an arrangement with the Powers before the House at a date anterior to the Conference;whether those statements have been correctly attributed to him; and, if so, whether he is in a position, and is prepared, to lay any such arrangement with the Powers before the House, in accordance with the engagement of the Government, at a date anterior to the meeting of the Conference? The hon. Member added: I am in somewhat of a difficulty with regard to the Question which stands in my name on the Paper, because I received a communication from the Prime Minister in which he asked me to postpone my Question till Monday, not being able to make the necessary reference. I am sure the Prime Minister will acquit me of any want of respect to him; but the whole pith of this Question is to ask the Prime Minister whether he is prepared—as I contend he is bound—to lay the results of certain consultations with the Powers before the House of Commons before the Conference meets? The Conference, we are informed, is to meet to-morrow; and therefore, if I accede to the proposition of the Prime Minister to postpone my Question, it must fail in its object. With every desire to convenience the Prime Minister, I am afraid I must press for an answer.
MR. GLADSTONEThe answer the hon. Member desires me to give would have necessarily been founded on an investigation of a number of Reports; and as I have been lately compelled to spend a good part of my time in attending Cabinet Councils I have not had time to pursue those investigations. The hon. Member appears to think that the Conference may be postponed in consequence of my not answering his Question; but that would be entirely beyond our power. I may, however, state that our promise to the House was, that we should conclude, if we could, our negotiations with France; consult 1556 the Powers; and communicate the whole result, as far as lay within our power, to the House, before the meeting of the Conference. That, I believe, was the substance of the engagement. We have received no definitive answer from the Powers. No objection has been taken in such answers as we have received; but I think it appears that the Powers probably might make no definite answer until they became cognizant of the matters to be transacted in the Conference. I never entertained for a moment the idea that the question for the Conference and the communications with France were parts of one consecutive series of transactions; because, on the contrary, I was constantly questioned to know whether the Conference and the communications with France were distinct. I stated that the subject-matter of the two was distinct; but that we should consult the Powers on the communications with France. The Conference arose out of the absolute financial necessities of Egypt. France interposed the necessity of certain preliminary communications. The Powers interposed no such necessity. They had given their agreement to enter a Conference before they were cognizant of these communications. Since they have become cognizant of these communications they have not withdrawn their agreement to enter the Conference, and are now prepared to appear there.
§ MR. CHAPLINDid the Prime Minister not inform the House some time ago that there were two steps that must be preliminary to the Conference? One was the conclusion of an agreement with France; and on the conclusion of that agreement there was then to take place a consultation with the Powers; and the Prime Minister distinctly stated to the House that he would lay the result of that consultation before the House before the Conference met. Am I correct in saying that?
§ MR. CHAPLINIf the right hon. Gentleman has not received a reply from the Powers, and is not able to place the result of these consultations before the House to-day, I want to know how he is to fulfil his engagement?
MR. GLADSTONEI never made such an engagement as to await all the replies of the Powers upon the communications with France before the Confer- 1557 encemet. It would have been suicidal and absurd to do so. The Conference grew out of the financial necessities of Egypt; but the Powers did not regard the communications with France as immediately connected with the financial necessities of Egypt—at least, they have accepted the agreement to meet in Conference to-morrow, after they were cognizant of these communications. What I undertook to communicate was everything that depended on us—that is to say, our arrangements with France and our consultation with the Powers. All that depended upon us has been done, and the whole of it has been made known to the House.
MR. J. LOWTHERI should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a Question, in order to remove a misconception with regard to the statement which he made the other day. I wish to ask him whether he is correctly reported to have used the following language, in reply to a Question put by the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners):—
With respect to the action on the part of the Powers of Europe in regard to the evacuation of Egypt by a given date the despatch of Earl Granville states 'provided that the Powers are then of opinion that such withdrawal can take place without risk to peace and order.' Then the noble Lord asked whether it means one Power, two Powers, or throe Powers. Well, Sir, my answer to that is that the phrase 'reference to the Powers of Europe,' is one perfectly known to diplomatic practice and history. European questions have been decided under shelter of that phrase for half a century and more, and nothing could be more invidious than to presume a division of the Powers into separate lobbies or separate parties in such matters. We think it our duty to take the phrase which is known to diplomacy, and we are perfectly confident in its operation.I should also like to ask the Prime Minister whether, in the authenticated version of the speech of M. Ferry in the French Chamber, from, which the right hon. Gentleman quoted the other day, the following passage occurred:—It has been said in the English newspapers, and repeated in the French, that this engagement of evacuation was potential, and that opposition to the evacuation on the part of a single Power would suffice to give England the right to remain in Egypt. This singular idea of a sort of veto, borrowed from the traditions of Polish Diets, is a construction as false as it is ridiculous. When the Powers meet, in Congress or in Conference the caprice of one of them cannot paralyze their decision; and if the Representative of the Republic, who was in this 1558 instance the mouthpiece of European interests, had had the weakness to lend himself to such a comedy, the Great Powers would certainly not have ratified it. They will be consulted in 1888, and it is they who will decide whether the situation in Egypt presents sufficient danger to warrant a prolongation of the English occupation beyond the 1st of January, 1888.
MR. GLADSTONEI think if the right hon. Gentleman wishes me to put a construction of my own on the words of M. Ferry in the French Chamber he ought to have given me Notice; but I will do all I can to answer the Question he has put to me. He has read a passage from an answer of mine to the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire, and as far as I could follow him the Report is singularly accurate and exact. With regard to the statements attributed to M. Ferry, I have not in my possession at this moment the document to which I referred yesterday. With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman now read, I cannot be understood to affirm or deny its accuracy, for my memory would not serve me to such an extent; but I notice one observation ascribed to M. Ferry, that the caprice of one of the Powers would not suffice to defeat the general view that might be entertained by the Powers assembled in Conference. I should think there is no case on record in which the caprice of one of the Powers has sufficed to prevent the general view of the other Powers from taking effect; and the mode in which the question has always been dealt with is this—that the caprice of one of the Powers has always given way upon discussion in the Conference or Congress, and that unanimous conclusions have been arrived at. On the other hand, I think I am correct, speaking of the diplomatic history of this important question, in saying that no Power has ever, before going into a Conference or Congress, abdicated its right of individual action.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked, with regard to the important answer which the Prime Minister had given, whether the House was to understand from his reply that the terms of the proposed Anglo-French Agreement would have no binding force between this country and France in future, supposing it was rejected by the Conference, or by a majority of the Powers, because such a construction might be put on his language? Another question was, whether 1559 they were now to understand that the French Government did insist that there should be a preliminary arrangement between this country and themselves before the Conference was held? He understood from the speech of the Prime Minister the other day that they did not; but now he understood from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that they did.
MR. GLADSTONEThe French Government, in every strictness of speech, never, to my knowledge, made it a matter of necessity that there should be these communications; but they expressed a desire for them, and that desire was recognized by the British Government as altogether legitimate, and other communications arising out of them, necessarily occupying a certain amount of time, prevented the British Government, down to a certain date, from issuing invitations fixing the date of the meeting of the Conference. They exhausted the time that the necessities of Egyptian finance loft them in that way in a useful mode, as we think. With regard to the previous Question, I think the House has clearly understood that the Anglo-French communications are absolutely dependent, in the first place, on the action of the Conference, and then, with the action of the Conference, absolutely dependent on the vote of Parliament.