§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTESeeing the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister is now in his place, I desire to ask him, Whether he is in a position to give the House any information with regard to the position of the question relating to the Russian negotiations respecting the Afghan frontier; and, also 1159 with regard to the reports published in the newspapers to-day as to a collision having taken place on that frontier?
MR. GLADSTONEI shall do my best to answer the Question of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote), which he has put in such a considerate manner; and I likewise thank the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope) for having evinced the same disposition in regard to the Question he had proposed to put. I had prepared myself to answer the Question as put; and what I should have said to him (Mr. Stanhope) I shall state in answer to the first part of the Question of the right hon. Baronet. The House will recollect that a good deal of notice was taken in the newspapers, in the course of last week, of an answer which it was stated had been despatched by the Russian Government to the British Government on the subject of the frontier negotiations. Constructions were put upon that answer which, no doubt, had a certain effect on the public mind. That answer reached Her Majesty's Government on Thursday, the 2nd instant, and a Cabinet Council was summoned, and met on Saturday. The answer, which we then examined and considered, did not appear to us to advance the questions that were under consideration between us towards a conclusion. But a subsequent communication has been received from Russia within the last 24 hours, and that communication did appear to place the matter in a more hopeful position. However, Sir, the House will not be surprised when I say that it is impossible for me to make any further statement upon the subject of the "frontier negotiations" strictly so called. It is impossible for me to make any further statement as to the progress of these negotiations in the present very rudimentary and incomplete state of the communications between the two Governments as to the very grave occurrence that has just been reported to us, and in respect to which occurrence we shall carefully bear in mind both what is due to our engagements to the Ameer of Afghanistan and what is due to ourselves as representing the British Crown. I pass, therefore, from that occurrence, and proceed to give as good an account as I can to the right hon. Baronet and the House of the intelligence which is in our possession. I will mention, in 1160 the first place, the allegations that are made by the Russian Government; and, perhaps, I ought to state, injustice to the Russian Government, that it has been made known to us that their information is incomplete, and that a telegram which they knew had been despatched to them had not reached them when some later communications reached them, on the strength of which I now recite the principal propositions which they contain. In the first place, there are two things admitted—namely, that an attack was made on the Afghans by the Russians, and that the Afghans were defeated. On those two points there is no doubt—defeated, as we are informed, after a gallant fight. The Russian allegations are mainly these—I will not attempt to give them in strict form, but the House may depend upon the substance of my recital. The Russians attacked the Afghans, as they state, after being provoked by acts of hostility so termed—the nature of which we are not distinctly informed of—on the part of the Afghans. When the fighting was over the Russians retired. They retired, according to a phrase used in one document, "to their previous positions." The phrase used in the other document is that they retired "to the left bank of the Kushk." These two phrases may be exactly equivalent. I am not prepared to say they are not; but I mention them both because they are used in the two accounts which have reached us. It is next alleged that English officers directed the Afghans, without taking part in the actual engagement; and, finally, it is stated that the Russian Commander sent an escort to protect the English officers after the Afghans were defeated, but that the English officers had themselves left the ground when the escort arrived, so that there was no occasion for it to act. Now, Sir, these are the principal allegations that have reached us as the allegations of the Russian Government.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEWhat is the date?
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTENo, of the engagement?
MR. GLADSTONEThe date of the engagement is the 30th of March; and, perhaps, I may say that the earliest intelligence of the most material of the 1161 facts I am about to recite only reached Lord Granville and myself this morning. Well, now, Sir, I come to the allegations made by Sir Peter Lumsden and our own officers—allegations to which I need scarcely say that, as a matter of course, we give credit, and which, undoubtedly, call for very grave attention. In the first place, it is stated that no forward movement of any kind was made by the Afghans before or since the 17th of March—the 17th of March being the date of the telegram I shall now recite. On the 29th of March we were informed—and when I say "we" I speak of Sir Peter Lumsden's telegram sent to us—we were informed that, notwithstanding the Russian assurances of the 17th of March—this is the substance of the telegram which the House will no doubt recognize, because it was the substance of the statement made by me in this House and sent to St. Petersburg and recognized there, and returned thence with a certain addition stated in this House at the time—on the 29th of March we were informed by Sir Peter Lumsden that—
Notwithstanding the Russian assurances of the 17th of March that the Russian forces would not advance from the position the they then occupied, provided the Afghans should not advance nor attack them, or unless some extraordinary circumstance should happen, such as a disturbance in Penjdeh"—then the recital says—the Russians were drawn up in force almost within range of the Afghan position, though the Afghans had neither attacked nor advanced, and Penjdeh was perfectly quiet.Next, that every endeavour was being made by the Russians—this is in the nature of a general statement—to induce the Afghans to begin the fight; and that the Russian forces had twice attempted to forcibly pass through the Afghan pickets. The next point is, that on the failure of those attempts, Captain Yate met the Chief of the Russian Staff by appointment, and was informed that no such arrangement as that referred to in our telegram of the 17th of March, as to the non-advance of the Russians, had been received. ["Oh, oh!"] These are very grave statements, and have been made the subject of proper communication. Next, that the Chief of the Staff—the name of the Russian General I do not recollect—would not give an assurance to Captain Yate that the Afghans would not be attacked without 1162 previous notice, and he claimed the right to turn out the Afghan posts, whenever they might inconvenience the Russians, without reference to any third party. That, of course, must be taken in connection with the statement immediately preceding it—that he had not received from St. Petersburg instructions corresponding with the telegram of the 17th of March. Next, we learn that, on the 29th of March, Sir Peter Lumsden desired Captain Yate again to see the Russian Commander and effect an amicable arrangement if possible. We learnt, again, on the 7th of April, that down to the 30th of March, the Afghans had made no forward movement before or since that telegram of the 17th of March. I must make this recital, because it brings down to a somewhat later date the statement with which I have commenced. On the 7th of April we also learnt that Captain Yate had, on the 1st of April, sent a note from a point which he had reached with all the British officers and escort safely on the previous day, at 8 P.M., on the way to Gulran. It stated that the Russians had attacked and defeated the Afghans, and had occupied Penjdeh on the 30th. The Afghans were said to have fought gallantly, and to have lost heavily, two companies being killed to a man in their entrenchment". The survivors retreated along the Murachak road. The British officers were neutral in the engagement. The House will not be surprised when I say, speaking with measured words, and in circumstances of great gravity, that to us, upon the statements I have recited, this attack bears the appearance of an unprovoked aggression. We have asked for explanations from the Russian Government; but there has not yet been time to receive such explanations. We shall endeavour to arrive at a just conclusion on the facts. But before receiving our communications yesterday, and when we had not the important communications of this morning, but something preliminary in the same direction, the British Ambassador at St. Petersburg reported to us last night (at 40 minutes past 5) in these words—The Minister for Foreign Affairs expresses his earnest hope and that of the Emperor, that this unhappy incident may not prevent the continuance of the negotiations;and he also reported a statement in the 1163 words of M. de Giers, that the Russians retired to their previous positions, and did not occupy Penjdeh. I may say that I have laid these statements before the House as being the incomplete and partial statements which the very short time that has elapsed since the receipt of the news alone enables me to offer; but such as they are, they are as much as our public duty will permit us to make; and I think I may say that they comprise the whole of the material statements of fact which have reached us upon this important and, for the moment, I may say very painful matter.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEAfter the very grave statement the right hon. Gentleman has made, of course I do not wish to put questions that would be embarrassing to the Government; but I do not quite understsnd whether the Government believe that Penjdeh is now occupied by the Russians or not. The reports seem to be conflicting.
MR. GLADSTONEYes, Sir, there is much that is conflicting in the statements. I may also say that this particular point, I think, is not yet quite elucidated, because the statement that the Russians occupied Penjdeh comes to us from a British officer who had left the spot. Under these circumstances, it is not for me to say what has taken place; but it is evidently possible that when they defeated the Afghans in the intrenchments at Penjdeh, and entered those intrenchments, the natural inference would be that they may have occupied Penjdeh; but I do not presume to give an opinion, or any explanation on the point. I merely suggest it as a mode in which, possibly, the conflicting statements may be reconciled.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEI understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that representations have been made to the Russian Government, but that Her Majesty's Government have not yet received an answer. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can tell us when he expects to receive an answer?
MR. GLADSTONEThat, Sir, is a question I am not able to answer; but I cannot doubt, from the grave nature of the case, from the nature of the representations made, and, I am bound to say, from the spontaneous communications from the Russian Government on the subject, I expect that it will arrive 1164 with full expedition; but I cannot presume to point out the exact time when it may be expected. But the Government will take care that every communication which can properly be made to the House is made without delay.
§ MR. O'KELLYI wish to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can say that the statement that no advance took place on the part of the Afghans is confined to the locality of Penjdeh; or, whether any advance, or any other act of aggression on the part of the Afghans, took place in any other portion of the territory?
MR. GLADSTONENo, Sir; the statement is given to us in general terms, and so I have quoted it. But we have no reason to believe in any forward movement, or in any aggressive act on the part of the Afghans.
§ MR. NORWOODI beg to give Notice that, to-morrow, I will ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether any provision has been made for the protection of British commerce in the Baltic and Black Seas?
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLI wish to ask the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, how many days it takes Sir Peter Lumsden to communicate with this country; and, also, whether the Russian communications take a longer time?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEThe wire on a part of the route—namely, that viâ Meshed—has quite recently, I am sorry to say, been broken—I believe, by a snowstorm—and, therefore, communications are taking longer than they did a short time ago. The communications between Sir Peter Lumsden and London before the wire was broken took three or four days. Now, the communications referred to by the Prime Minister take six days—that is, in consequence of the wire having been broken.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLWill the noble Lord tell us what time is occupied by the Russian communications?
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLBy what route could the Russian communications take place?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEI cannot give accurate information on that point now; but I will make inquiry.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEHas this communication come through the Viceroy; or, are the Government 1165 aware whether the Viceroy has been made acquainted with what has occurred?
MR. GLADSTONEThese communications have come to us direct from Sir Peter Lumsden, and not through the Viceroy; but it is the invariable practice of Sir Peter Lumsden, on every subject of importance, to telegraph to the Viceroy; and his telegrams invariably end with the words "Sent Viceroy."
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEHave the Government had any communications from the Viceroy since?
§ MR. MACFARLANEMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether, when the Russian Government made statements to our Ambassador in St. Petersburg, with reference to this regretable incident, they, at the same time, offered any explanation why the arrangement between the Russian Government and Her Majesty's Government, communicated to this House on 17th March, had not reached the Russian Commander on the 30th?
MR. GLADSTONEI cannot undertake to make any additions to the statement I have made before the House; but I will point out to the hon. Gentleman that we have no knowledge entitling us to say that the Russian Government, when M. de Giers saw the British Ambassador last night, was aware of what had been said by the Russian Chief of the Staff. That statement of the Russian Chief of the Staff would only reach the Russian Government through us, and it had not reached them at the time when the explanation of M. de Giers was made.
§ MR. ONSLOWIs it the fact that Sir Peter Lumsden is in telegraphic communication with the Viceroy? My impression is, that the telegrams come to this country, and then are sent on to the Viceroy.
MR. GLADSTONEI have explained that all this intelligence is regularly communicated by Sir Peter Lumsden to the Viceroy.
§ MR. ONSLOWHow; not by telegram?
MR. GLADSTONEBy the best means of communication at his command; and we have a communication from the Viceroy which shows that Sir 1166 Peter Lumsden had communicated with him, so far as the time permitted, on this very matter.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLI suppose we may assume that the information that was in possession of the British officers as to the agreement of the 17th March was formally communicated to the Russian Commanders on the spot by the British Commissioner?
§ [No reply.]
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORIs it within the knowledge of the Government that the Afghans have been fortifying Penjdeh?
§ [No reply.]