§ MR. BOURKEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can, before 1473 the House rises, give Parliament some information with respect to the recent negotiations between France and England upon the subject of Egypt?
MR. GLADSTONEI am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for having given me Notice of this Question—a practice which I think really is, in the long run, quite as much for the convenience of the House as of the Government. I will answer the Question in the most distinct manner, and likewise the Notice which I understood to be given yesterday by the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), but which does not appear on the Notice Paper. I understood him to say that he would press for some information on the subject of the Conference. I am not quite sure as to that, but that I gather to be the purport of his statement; but if I understand these words strictly, I must observe that he will not be surprised at it—that as we have already stated that the functions and scope of the Conference are limited by the invitation, and are certainly limited by our intention to the question of a financial plan which we have submitted for rectifying the balance of income and charge in Egypt, it is quite manifest that that could not possibly be made, without grave injury to important interests, the subject of explanations in this House at the present stage, when we are not yet even in view of the time appointed for the meeting of the Conference. The Question of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bourke) refers to another matter. It refers to the recent negotiations between France and England on the subject of Egypt; and for the sake of clearness I will only remind the House of what has been already said, and to which I shall make an addition that I think is of some importance, and which I hope may spare the House considerable trouble, at least to-day, especially with regard to the discussion of detail. Hitherto the House has known this much—I am not sure that I am reciting everything that has been said; but I am reciting the most important circumstances — that France had requested an interchange of explanations with us upon our general position in Egypt; that we, in common with France, had desired that interchange; that communications were proceeding; that if they resulted in our arriving at a common conclusion, at a common view 1474 with France, we should proceed to consult the Powers upon it; and that when that had been done communications on the subject would be made to Parliament. That, I think, is the substance of what is most important in previous answers. What I have now to state is this—the Notice given by the right hon. Gentleman has enabled me, with my Colleagues, to consider the matter, and in the present state of affairs we have arrived at this conclusion, that we can undertake and engage 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 we arrive at shall be presented to Parliament before the Conference meets. I am inclined to hope that this distinct engagement, which is one that we shall be prepared to meet, may have the effect of shortening the proceedings of to-day.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the despatch of British troops to Assouan, the patrolling of the Nile by British sailors, and the increase of the Egyptian forces at Dongola and Wadi Halfa, are meant as a check to the armed movement of the Mahdi?
MR. GLADSTONEThe Question is, perhaps, not accurately printed, or, if it is, the hon. Member is not quite accurately informed. There has been no despatch of British troops to Assouan. There has been, I think, a despatch to Assouan of a portion of the Egyptian force. There has been some British force—I am not aware how much, but I think it is very limited—sent to Assiout, which is a very different place, and the despatch of troops thither has not quite the same meaning. However, there has been a despatch of Egyptian troops to Assouan, and some small British force has been sent to Assiout. The Nile is patrolled, as I stated the other day, by, I think, three steamers, and there have been certain movements of Egyptian Forces towards Dongola and Wady Halfa. I beg pardon; I am not aware that there has been any increase of Egyptian force at Dongola; but, speaking generally, these measures are measures having relation to the internal security of Egypt. How far there is at present a movement—an armed movement—of the Mahdi I am not able at 1475 present with, precision to say; and what effect these movements of Egyptian troops may have, if that movement of the Mahdi exists, is rather a matter for the hon. Member to judge of for himself than one which I should give an opinion upon.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT, who had also given Notice of the following Question, Whether it is true that Her Majesty's Government have agreed to place the finances of Egypt under International control, and to specifically limit the terms of the British occupation of Egypt; and whether the Conference is to meet upon this basis? said, after the answer which the right hon. Gentleman had given to a previous Question, he did not know whether it would be convenient to him to answer the Question on the Paper; but he would put it pro formâ.
MR. GLADSTONEThe hon. Gentleman has, I think, exercised a very sound judgment. All I have to say is that no agreement has been arrived at; and I have already made a statement, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, which I hope will stand in the place of a fuller answer to the hon. Member.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURasked whether he was to understand the Prime Minister to have given an assurance to the House that, before the country went into the Conference, this House should be made acquainted with the result of the negotiations now going on between Her Majesty's Government and that of France?
§ MR. BOURKEProvided they come to an agreement?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, what he wished to know was whether the Government would give an assurance that they would not, in the course of those negotiations with France, enter into some kind of agreement which would be binding on this country, and with which the House would not be made acquainted until it was entered into? Because, although a pledge had been given by the Prime Minister that when this country went into the Conference the House should know what was done between this country and France, the House would have no opportunity of expressing its opinion on the result of those negotiations with France before they were 1476 fully accomplished. He wished, therefore, to know whether, before any agreement was made between France and England having reference to the political position in Egypt, the House should have some power of giving an opinion upon it?
MR. GLADSTONEI am extremely glad that the hon. Member, especially considering the relation in which he stands to us, is so anxious about the rights and Privileges of the House. But he evidently does not appear to have quite understood the answer that I gave to the right hon. Gentleman opposite. My answer was that if there was a result of those communications it should be made known to Parliament. There might be no result, and I did not state anything affirmatively or negatively as to what should be done in that case. The hon. Member places me in a difficulty, as he must know, when he requests me to give a pledge that the House shall be made a party to negotiations while they are going on. That is a demand which it is very difficult to answer without being involved in questions of difficulty and delicacy. Still, in the present instance, although I cannot give a literal answer to my hon. Friend, yet I will-venture to say this—that I am quite satisfied that when these matters reach their proper conclusion—that is to say, when we come, as I hope we may coma, to a result in our preliminary communications, and when, as I hope it will, the Conference may have provided a sufficient and effective remedy for the financial difficulties of Egypt, I am quite satisfied—and I say this on my responsibility—that the House will find that due regard has been had by the Government throughout the proceedings to the rights and the Privileges of this House.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI should like to call attention to two expressions that fell from the right hon. Gentleman in his answer to the right hon. Member for King's Lynn. The Prime Minister stated that the Conference would be limited by the terms of the invitation addressed to the Powers—that is to say, to the financial question in Egypt. Then he stated, in answer to the Question of my right hon. Friend, that the interchange of negotiations going on with France was one with regard to the general position of this country in respect to Egypt, and that if 1477 an agreement, an arrangement, or a result was arrived at, then they would consult the Powers upon it. That is to say, the Powers in Conference would be consulted upon the agreement come to between France and England on the general position of England in Egypt. I wish to ask, therefore, whether, if the Powers are to be consulted on the result of the negotiations between France and England as to the general position of England in Egypt, how is the Conference to be limited to the financial question solely?
MR. GLADSTONEI can only say that what I have already stated is literally accurate. We have defined the scope of the Conference, the invitation to the Conference has been accepted without any extension of that scope, and the intention of the British Government remains on that point entirely unchanged. I think, therefore, that I am justified in saying that the scope of the Conference will be thus limited. The answer made by me to-day as to the nature of the preliminary communications with France is not new. The only thing that is new is the engagement to communicate the result of those communications to Parliament before the Conference meet. I have not the least reason to suppose that anything connected with the preliminary negotiations, on which the Powers are to be consulted, are likely to raise any difficulty as to the scope of the Conference.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLIs it not the fact that the negotiations with France on the general position of England in Egypt far exceed the limits of mere finance? Well, then, I ask, is it the fact, as the Prime Minister stated, that if a result was arrived at in respect to those preliminary negotiations, the Powers would be consulted as to that — namely, the result of the negotiations between France and England as to the general position of England in Egypt?
MR. GLADSTONEI think I see how the noble Lord may have been misled by the use of an expression of mine. The consultation with the Powers is not to be a consultation with the Powers assembled in Conference. It means a prior consultation. The communications with France would be but a preliminary proceeding.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLWill the Conference have no connection 1478 whatever with the result of the preliminary communications between France and England?
MR. GLADSTONESo far as I am able to answer, I have given the grounds to the noble Lord and the House in respect to the limited scope of the Conference, the acceptance of that limited scope for the Conference by the Great Powers without the widening of it, the adherence of the British Government to that limited scope, and the absence of any intimation from the other Powers.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEDo we understand that the communications that may take place, or are taking place with France, will be concluded before they are communicated to this House? Suppose, then, that any question is raised, that any agreement is made with France on any important point—such, for example, as the fixing of the time for the withdrawal of the British troops—such a question, as I understand the right hon. Gentleman, would be decided between this country and France before any communication was made to Parliament. Is that so?
MR. GLADSTONENo, Sir; I think not. We are proceeding with reference to European law, and by European law all the Great Powers have a title to be considered in matters affecting the position of Egypt as a part of the Turkish Empire. It is a European arrangement, undoubtedly, that we should contemplate, and not a separate arrangement with France; but the commencement of negotiations in the preliminary form has been with France.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSWill the communications to Parliament be after the preliminary consultation with France and before any thing has been definitively settled with the other Great Powers of Europe?
MR. GLADSTONEWhat I have said is that it will be made before the Conference meet. To make it before the preliminary consultation with France was completed would be entirely out of place.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSWill the question be definitively settled by the Great Powers before the communication is made to Parliament?
MR. GLADSTONEAgain, I say, I am glad to see this liveliness with 1479 regard to Parliamentary rights and privileges. I have already said, knowing the responsibility under which I say it, that I have the utmost confidence that, when the time comes for the whole proceedings to be placed before Parliament, Parliament will find that its rights and prerogatives have been carefully considered.
§ BARON HENRY DE WORMSThe right hon. Gentleman says that the preliminary arrangements for the Conference would be settled between England and France. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No.] Supposing this country and France were to arrive at the conclusion that a Multiple Control was necessary, and might submit it to the Conference as the basis of the Conference, would that question be submitted to the House before being submitted to the Conference as the joint conclusion of England and France?
MR. GLADSTONEIf any such arrangement were arrived at, it would be made known to this House before the Conference.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTI am sorry to trouble the right hon. Gentleman again; but the importance of the statement of the Prime Minister and the gravity of the situation are such that I venture to ask one more Question on the point. As I understand, negotiations are now going on with France. I wish to know whether, supposing a Multiple Control, and also the time during which this country is to remain with its Army in possession of Egypt, are proposed, and before they are definitively settled, the House will have an opportunity of discussing whether the Multiple Control is a wise proceeding or not, and whether our stay in Egypt is to be put a stop to by the Powers of Europe, and not by the decision of that House.
MR. GLADSTONEIt is impossible for me to recognize, I am sorry to say, all the suppositions contained in the Question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for West Sussex; and I must be content to stand on the declaration I have made—a declaration going far beyond what is usual in such cases. I am quite sure that the House will find, when we make our final communication to it, that ample provision has been made with regard to its rights and privileges.