§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEI think it would be convenient to the House that Questions should be asked, whether we are able to get any further information or not, in order that we may know where we stand. The Question I am particularly anxious to ask the Government is whether they are yet in possession of a full account, or a sufficiently full account, of the proceedings of the 30th of March and the days following? A'considerable time has now elapsed, and we should like to know whether the Government are now, and, if not, when they expect to be in possession of a full account?
MR. GLADSTONEI have no difficulty in saying that we are in possession of no full account of those proceedings, nor of anything approaching to a full account. But a request, which I think I signified before, was addressed to Sir Peter Lumsden to ask for a full and consecutive account; and my noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs informs me that a telegram has arrived, and is now in course of being deciphered, which may contain that full account. I cannot say whether it does or not; but, of course, the right hon. 29 Gentleman will see that it would be necessary to have it compared with the accounts which may be received elsewhere before we should be in a position to give a definite or conclusive judgment to the House upon the matter. We have, however, an independent telegram from Sir Peter Lumsden which clears up an important point. The House will, I have no doubt, remember that—because I recollect that it naturally produced a considerable sensation in the House—on the first occasion of referring to this question of the engagement on the 30th of March I used, I believe, these words—that Captain Yate had met the Chief of the Russian Staff by appointment, and the Chief of the Russian Staff informed him 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. The House will, I am sure, recollect those words. There was no date attached to that meeting between Captain Yate and the Chief of the Russian Staff. It must, of course, have been before the 29th, and we now see that it must have been two or three days before the 29th, because we have received to-day a telegram from Sir Peter Lumsden containing an account of some further communications of Captain Yate with the Chief of the Russian Staff. Writing on the 28th of March, the Chief of the Russian Staff says that—
He has received a notification from our side respecting the account which Lord Granville had given of the arrangement made;and he goes on to say that—what was stated by Lord Granville was in accordance with the orders received by us—namely, the Russian officers, and consequently, on the 28th of March, the Russian officers were in possession of the orders given by the Russian Government in conformity with the arrangement of the 17th. The question whether they had acted on these orders remained a matter for future consideration, and therefore the point of the communication of these orders is so far disposed of. I am bound to say that, putting together the dates as best we can, I am inclined to think that probably that was about as soon as the Russian officers upon the spot could have received the orders sent from 30 St. Petersburg in conformity with the arrangement of the 17th of March. There is nothing else of a conclusive character in the telegram which Sir Peter Lumsden writes, nor is there anything of an unfavourable character as to the communications which are still going on.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEIs there any truth in the report that Penjdeh has been occupied by the Russians, and that Her Majesty's Government have assented to that occupation?
MR. GLADSTONENo, Sir; we know nothing more on the subject of Penjdeh than we knew yesterday. What we were informed of yesterday was that an administration had been established in Penjdeh. There is no intimation whatever of a military occupation of Penjdeh. I had better not undertake to explain what the administration is. The explanation was given in the newspapers yesterday; but whether that be authentic or not I cannot undertake to say, because we are not officially informed.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEIn regard to the present position of Sir Peter Lumsden, can the noble Lord tell us whether Tirpul, where he is now, is in Persian or in Afghan territory?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEIt is in Afghan territory, but it is not far from the Persian Frontier. It is marked on nearly all the maps which are now arriving.
MR. J. LOWTHERIn regard to the despatch which is now being deciphered at the Foreign Office, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in the event of its not being injurious to the public interest, he will undertake to make its contents known to the House before its rising?
MR. GLADSTONEThat must depend upon what they are. If anything of great importance or interest should arise we will, undoubtedly, take the earliest opportunity of making it known.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTThe Prime Minister has given the 17th of March as the date of this agreement, under which neither the Russian nor the 31 Afghan Forces should advance. I would ask him if it is not a fact that the real date on which that agreement was first announced to this House was the 13th of March, and not the 17th, and that we were informed it really dated from the 2nd of March? And are we to understand that the responsibility for the attack on the Afghans is now shifted from General Komaroff to the Government of St. Petersburg; and, if so, whether, the Government of St. Petersburg have offered any reparation to our Allies, the Afghans, and have they offered to restore a considerable number of guns taken from the Afghans on that occasion? I should like to know also if the noble Lord can tell us how far the town of Kushk, not the river, is from Herat; and whether we are to understand from his answer that not only have the Afghans retired to Kushk, but that the Russians are free to follow them to the point?
MR. GLADSTONEWith regard to the question of dates, I am not aware of having been inaccurate; but there were several statements made to the House, and it would be better that I should ascertain exactly what those statements were.
§ MR. CHAPLINAs to the administration which we are informed has been established as Penjdeh, I should like to ask the Prime Minister this Question—whether the administration has the sanction and consent of Her Majesty's Government, and whether Her Majesty's Government have made any communications with regard to it to the Russian Government?
MR. GLADSTONEWe have made no communication on the subject. We have nothing before us except the fact that there is an administration, and the explanation of it placing it on the ground of necessity for the maintenance of peace, which I have seen in the newspapers. I cannot say whether it is authentic or not. But I am bound to say, taking the facts as they appear, there is a fair presumption attending the case which would make us desirous of having fuller information on the matter before we made it the subject of official representations.
§ MR. ONSLOWasked whether it was Sir Peter Lumsden's intention to remain at Tirpul, or whether, if the Russians advanced thither, he would be driven to 32 any other portion of Afghan or Persian territory?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEI must ask the hon. Gentleman for Notice of this Question.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEI cannot state. It only arrived at the Foreign Office a short time before I left the Office.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEI presume it is undoubtedly from Tirpul.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTI beg to give Notice that, on Monday, I will ask the Government what is the exact position of the Russians in their advance towards Herat, and whether Her Majesty's Government have received any assurance from the Russian Government that they will not seize Herat itself?