HC Deb 20 April 1885 vol 297 cc159-63
MR. ASHMEAD - BARTLETT

, who had the following Question on the Paper:— To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Ministers have fixed any limit beyond which the advance of the Russian Forces will not be tolerated; and, whether the Czar's Government have undertaken not to seize Herat? said, that he would postpone the Question until he heard the reply of the Prime Minister to the Leader of the Opposition.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

I wish to ask the Prime Minister a Question with regard to the position of affairs on the Frontier of Afghanistan; Whether the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared in presenting the Estimates for the Vote of Credit to make a statement upon that subject; and whether the Ameer has made any representations to the Government of India on the matter; and, if so, with what result? I had understood that the Estimate of the Vote of Credit was to be presented to-day; but I have now learnt that it will not be presented till to-morrow.

MR. GLADSTONE

There is no difficulty, Sir, in answering the Question. It was stated that the Vote of Credit would be presented either to-day or to-morrow, and it will be presented tomorrow. On the presentation of the Vote of Credit my intention has been, on the part of the Government, to limit myself to a very concise statement, having no other view, in fact, than that the Vote of Credit should be thoroughly understood. I shall not proceed to enter into considerations of policy tomorrow. Those, no doubt, will come up upon the debate on the Vote of Credit; but it will be premature, I think, to attempt to state them to-morrow. With regard to the Frontier of Afghanistan, we have, in point of fact, little to add to what has been said on former occasions. On Friday I stated that a telegram had been received from Sir Peter Lumsden, and that if it were found to contain anything of a very important character interesting to the House which could properly be communicated, I would not fail to take the first moment to make it known to the House. But that was stated under the belief that the telegram, which was then in course of being deciphered, was in answer to inquiries and instructions despatched to him from this country on the 10th of April. But it was not that answer, and for that answer it will be necessary to wait before I can make any complete statement to the House. I do not mean that the telegram of Sir Peter Lumsden was an unimportant telegram; it was a telegram tending to confirm his previous statements, and certainly it was in apparent conflict with the telegram forwarded to us by the Russian Government as the statement of General Komaroff. The right hon. Gentleman may depend upon it that what I said on Friday with respect to the further information we were expecting still holds good. With respect to the Questions put to me by the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) it is not in my power to answer either of them. I have been obliged to give that answer before, and I am still obliged to give it. Until we can see our way further with regard to essential matters it will not be in my power to give specific answers. The hon. Gentleman asked on a former day as to the date of the arrangement with regard to the non-advance of Russian troops; whether it was correctly described as the arrangement of the 17th of March. The explanation of that, I think, is that the arrangement arrived at was recognized in London by the exchange of telegrams on the 16th of March. The telegram was sent on to Teheran, and was telegraphed thence on the 17th of March, and so it came to be known under the name of the agreement of the 17th of March. There is no doubt about the arrangement intended. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition also asks me whether the Ameer had made any representation to the Government of India on the subject of the Frontier, and with what result. No doubt the Ameer has made representations to the Viceroy, and the Viceroy has made it an important part of his duty to exchange ideas and views with the Ameer on that subject. I had in view those representations on a former day when I gave, on the part of the Government, an assurance that the communications between Lord Dufferin and the Ameer were of a most satisfactory character.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

I should like to ask a Question of the right Hon. Gentleman as to the telegram from Sir Peter Lumsden which he does not desire to communicate to the House. All Europe has been in possession for some days of the Russian version of the transactions at Penjdeh. I understand now that a full telegram has been received from Sir Peter Lumsden containing a version of the transaction. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, if that be so, how much longer he thinks it expedient to withhold from the country and the House the version of Sir Peter Lumsden?

MR. GLADSTONE

The Question of the noble Lord contains an argument, which might have been entirely spared, because it is founded on an erroneous supposition. We are not in possession of any complete version, or what we consider a complete version. [Ironical Opposition laughter.] Well, I suppose we are entitled to form an opinion. Hon. Gentlemen opposite who laugh appear to think that it is not the duty of the Executive Government to form an opinion. I repeat, we are not in possession of a complete version of the essential circumstances leading to or connected with that engagement, and it is that version for the arrival of which we are looking. When that version has arrived, if we should not be in a position to communicate it, then, I imagine, Questions like that of the noble Lord may be fairly put.

SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE

I do not know whether this would be an unfair Question to put; but, in view of the very grave tension out-of-doors, it would be of great benefit if the right hon. Gentleman will give some approximate date when any Question with regard to these negotiations is likely to lead to a definite reply?

MR. GLADSTONE

If the settlement of these matters depended upon ourselves, it would be my duty to give a distinct answer to that Question; but I am unable to say when we shall receive from Sir Peter Lumsden his version of the affair, after the various incidents that have interrupted the communications with that country. It so happened that the communication which arrived on Friday last came with comparative celerity. But I am not able to say when we shall be in possession of full information upon matters which are material and, indeed, essential to an understanding of this case. In regard to the negotiations between the two Governments, all I can say is that no time will be lost on our part in prosecuting these negotiations to a termination, because we feel how very disadvantageous it is to have so much delay and uncertainty.

MR. ONSLOW

I should like to ask the Prime Minister this Question. The right hon. Gentleman, in his answer the other day, said that the Russians had made an unprovoked assault; and the Viceroy of India, in a public speech, made use of exactly the same language. I wish to ask the Prime Minister a Question which I think it is due to both countries should be answered—namely, whether the Government believe in the version of Sir Peter Lumsden or in the version of General Komaroff?

MR. GLADSTONE

It appears, on reference to what I previously said, that this is no place for the Question put by the hon. Member. The hon. Member has not even taken the trouble to quote with accuracy the words used by me in describing the impressions of the Government in reference to the state of affairs on the Afghan Frontier. I must point out to him that, whatever he may think to the contrary, great accuracy is requisite in these matters; and the House may recollect that when, on the first day, I mentioned the purport of the allegations we had received from our own Agents, I stated that, of course, we gave credence to what proceeded from them. But the hon. Gentleman must remember that we are not dependent entirely upon British Agents; but the British Agents are dependent very considerably on Afghan officers. I have nothing to say against them; but, of course, the case is not the same; and, considering what results may depend upon precision of language, I will not be driven into any premature or incomplete statement on any points connected with this great question.