§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If Her Majesty's Government have demanded of the Russian Government the withdrawal of General Komaroff from his command an account of his attack upon the troops of the Amir of Afghanistan, our ally, and the evacuation of the Afghan positions occupied by the Russian forces in consequence of that attack?
§ MR. O'KELLYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is true that the Afghan Forces, before the battle of Penjdeh, crossed the River Kushk, and threw up entrenchments at a point on the river between the position occupied by the main Russian Force and its advanced post at Puli-Khisti, thus menacing the Russian Forces in debateable territory?
MR. GLADSTONEI am sorry to say that I am not able to give an answer 1470 to the Question of the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett), nor am I able to give an answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly). The fact is this—that a deplorable incident has taken place of the gravest importance at a distance involving communications with a foreign capital. It has been our duty, of course, to institute, without a moment's delay, the best inquiry we can. That inquiry is going forward, and I hope for a full and complete elucidation of the facts; but pending that proceeding I think there would be no advantage whatever in my referring to any particular portion of this question, as is suggested by the Question of the hon. Member for Eos-common, and still less in announcing, in answer to the hon. Member for Eye, the general conclusions at which the Government have arrived. It would be most injurious to the public interests that we should enter on any such course. The hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) desires to know whether the Correspondence between the British and the Russian Governments will soon be laid on the Table. I have no doubt that Parliament will in due time be seised of that Correspondence. But unquestionably the moment for such a proceeding on our part has not yet arrived, and no good, I think, would arise from it. I rather gather probably that the right hon. Gentleman opposite has intended to ask me Questions on the same subject and to the same effect as those which he put on previous days. Indeed, one I anticipated would be a repetition of a Question that he himself, no doubt, felt to be of great importance, and which he put to me before, but which I was not able to answer at the time. The right hon. Gentleman asked me, I think, twice as to the communications which we had received from the Viceroy of India. I understand the right hon. Gentleman to mean with respect to other communications that might have passed between the Viceroy and the Ameer of Afghanistan, with regard to whom we must all feel that the greatest consideration is due to him under the circumstances. We have now had what I may call a full report of the detailed communications that have been held by Lord Dufferin with the Ameer, especially, of course, in relation to the recent conflict, of which the Ameer is 1471 fully aware, and also to the other questions now at issue. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to enter into any details at this time; but I can comprise the whole of them in saying that the communications of Lord Dufferin with the Ameer have been both full and entirely satisfactory. Probably the right hon. Gentleman might likewise wish to know— and the House would wish to know—what the Government have to say on the subject of a paragraph which, I believe, appeared in yesterday's papers, purporting to be the report of General Komaroff in answer to the Russian Government, and containing what I presume is the justification of his proceedings. With regard to that report, I only have to say that it has been at once referred to Sir Peter Lumsden. The reports thus far—speaking of that matter exclusively—from the respective officers of the Russian and the British Governments have differed in substance and in effect, and an inquiry is proceeding which we shall do everything in our power to render thorough and complete.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEI should like to know, if the right hon. Gentleman could tell us, within what limits of time the Government can communicate with Sir Peter Lumsden, and also what communications they have received from him with regard to these proceedings; and, further, whether the Government have now received all the communications they expect from the Russian Government, or whether they are still awaiting further answers?
MR. GLADSTONEAbout the time I would rather that my noble Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs answered. I do not know whether he can give an exact reply; but I think he can reply more exactly than I can at the present moment. But one thing I will say—that the right hon. Gentleman, no doubt, is aware that the communication on this important event at Pul-i-Khisti was abnormally delayed through the accidental breaking of the telegraph wire on this side of Meshed, and that, therefore, was no test of the regular time for communication with Sir Peter Lumsden. With regard to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's Question, I should undoubtedly anticipate a further communication from the Russian 1472 Government, because I do not think there has yet been time for us to have received in full the answers to the material parts of the representations originally made to the Russian Government on the part of Her Majesty's Government.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEThe right hon. Gentleman will understand that, although there have been various communications, we have not yet had a full account of them, and we do not know from Her Majesty's Government their view of what has taken place. I therefore asked whether they were expecting further information both from Sir Peter Lumsden and from the Russian Government. It was not so much a question exactly of days and hours, but whether they were in direct communication with Sir Peter Lumsden, and expected soon to receive his version of what had taken place, and when we might reasonably expect to receive a communication from Her Majesty's Government of their view as to what has actually happened?
MR. GLADSTONEIf it were a mere question of obtaining a reply on undisputed facts, it would be possible for us to indicate the time when we should be able to give a full answer. But, as I have already said, the reports of the officers of the Russian and the British Governments are, in some respects, at variance both in substance and in general effect, and it would be rash on my part to undertake at the present moment to fix a day by which I hoped that those differences would be cleared up.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTI wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government have received any confirmation of the statement in The Standard of this morning from it Correspondent with Sir Peter Lumsden's Commission that the Russian Forces are advancing southwards along the line of the Murghab River? I also wish to know with reference to the statements which have appeared in the Russian organ in this country, which seriously impugn the character and conduct of Captain Yate and members of the English Commission, whether the Government have any reason to discredit the account sent to this country from Captain Yate, or to believe that he was in any way the cause of the recent deplorable conflict?
MR. GLADSTONEI stated on Thursday the substance of the communications we have received from the British officers, and that we thought it our duty to give credence to them. As to the report referred to by the hon. Member for Eye, we have not received intelligence to the effect described by the hon. Member; but a report of that character has reached us.
§ MR. E. STANHOPEHave Her Majesty's Government received any information from the British Ambassador at St. Petersburg as to the statement which has been widely circulated that the Rus-sian Government has already distributed rewards and decorations to their officers commanding the Force on the frontier of Afghanistan?
§ MR. ONSLOWI beg to ask, whether, without detriment to the Public Service, all the Correspondence previous to Sir Peter Lumsden's leaving this country could be produced; and whether the Government have considered the propriety of prosecuting without delay the construction of the railway between Quetta and Candahar?
MR. GLADSTONEAs to the first Question, I cannot give a pledge; but if the hon. Member will put it down, I will inquire how the matter stands. As to the railway, also, I cannot make any statement without Notice of the Question.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORI beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he would state the time taken to communicate with Sir Peter Lumsden; also, where that officer is now located; and whether the statement which appeared in the newspapers from General Komaroff has been officially communicated to Her Majesty's Government by the Russian Government as to the official explanation of the action of Russia?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEI informed the House the other day that the telegraph wire was unfortunately broken near Meshed. Communications with Sir Peter Lumsden took from three to four days; but since that the time has been considerably longer. Messages from Gulran, where Sir Peter Lumsden was till quite recently, apparently take about seven days. The message which the Prime Minister quoted the other day 1474 in making his statement was despatched some time on the 1st, and arrived at the Foreign Office late on the evening of the 7th. As a considerable part of the distance has to be accomplished by messengers, the time must vary according to the speed of the particular means employed. Sir Peter Lumsden has now left Gulran, and is at a place further south called Tirpul.
§ MR. O'DONNELLI beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, if it takes something like a week to communicate with Sir Peter Lumsden, it is the case that there is easy communication between the Government of St. Petersburg and the Russian advanced posts — namely, 24 hours at the outside, by ordinary Russian courier post; and whether a message from St. Petersburg to General Komaroff has not habitually taken less than 24 hours?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEI do not think it is within my power to give an opinion on the details of the communication between St. Petersburg and General Komaroff. The Prime Minister stated the other day the facts so far as they are known to us. It does not appear to be certain up to what exact point the Russian telegraph is complete, nor as to what exact point the field telegraph has been laid down. Undoubtedly there is a telegraph to Aska-bad, and, of course, if it were completed to Merv, it would be nearer the point where General Komaroff is. But it is not a matter on which the Foreign Office is exactly informed.
§ BARON HENRY DE WORMSHas the telegraph wire by which communications were forwarded to Sir Peter Lumsden been mended?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEI have no doubt that every effort has been made to do so; but I have no information of its having been restored.
MR. ASHMEAD-BAETLETTinquired whether General Komaroff's explanation of the attack on the Afghans had been officially communicated to Her Majesty's Government as the Russian official reply to Her Majesty's Government from the Russian Government, or whether it was merely a report?
MR. GLADSTONEI told the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition that we expected further information.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTThen it is not their reply?
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTAre we to understand—[Cries of "Oh, oh!"] I am sorry to press the right hon. Gentleman; but the Question is one of vital importance, as to whether General Komaroff's explanation of the attack on the Afghans has been simply transmitted to Her Majesty's Government by the Russian Government as their General's report, or whether it is also the Russian official explanation of what occurred?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEWhat the Prime Minister said was that it had been communicated, but that further explanations were expected.
§ MR. GRAYThe right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was asked a Question a moment ago as to a statement in The Standard with respect to the advance of the Russians. He replied, as I understood, that he had not received any official intimation of that advance, but had received a rumour to that effect. Can he see his way to explain this, and say whether the rumour was from an official source?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEI think the hon. Member had better put that Question on the Paper. cries of "Oh, oh!"] I have no objection to repeat what fell from the Prime Minister, which was that no intelligence—that was the word—had been received, but that a rumour had been received. That is to say, intelligence from a source which would make it certain has not been received. Undoubtedly a rumour stating this belief has been received.
MR. GLADSTONEI am responsible for asking my noble Friend that Notice should be given of this Question. I stated that we had no intelligence, but that a rumour had reached us. That appeared to be satisfactory to the right hon. Gentleman who put the Question; but, as the hon. Member now appears to require nicer information than I can give from memory, I requested my noble Friend to ask that Notice should be given. I must confess that I lament, both in the interests of the present and of the future, that the Questions which of all others are most evidently within the competence and discretion of the Executive Government to answer or not are so frequently put without Notice, 1476 and that the request for Notice should be received with derision.
§ MR. GRAYA number of Questions have been put to the right hon. Gentleman without Notice, and I imagined that I had an equal right with any Englishman.
§ MR. GRAYI would ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether I was in Order? I did not intend to interfere in any improper way.
MR. GLADSTONEI have not found the smallest fault with the hon. Member, nor had I the slightest intention of doing so. The hon. Member, so far as I know, is always courteous in his proceedings.