§ MR. PLUNKET (for Mr. GIBSON)asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Has Her Majesty's Government received confirmation of the statement in The Times of May 19th, that the Ameer has issued a proclamation complimenting his troops on their gallantry at Penjdeh, and laying stress on the value of the British alliance; and, whether he will lay a Copy of the Ameer's proclamation upon the Table?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEThe Proclamation has not yet reached Her Majesty's Government, although a report, without details, of its issue was received in a telegram from Colonel Ridgeway dated the 10th ultimo.
§ MR. HICKSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is a fact, as stated in The Times newspaper of May 19th, that the Ameer has issued a proclamation to his troops, in which he not only emphasises the value of a British alliance but compliments his soldiers on their gallantry at Penjdeh; and, if so, whether he has now any reason to doubt that the Ameer attached importance to the retention of Penjdeh?
MR. GLADSTONEMy noble Friend has answered this Question as far as regards the Proclamation; and, as far as it regards the bearing of anything that has been said by me, even supposing or assuming for the sake of argument that the hon. Member has been correctly informed, it would not in the least degree affect anything I have said with regard to the position of the Ameer in reference to Penjdeh. I would take this opportunity of asking the permission of the House to make an explanation which I was not able to make for want of leisure before the Recess. On 1190 the 13th of March I stated to the House that Her Majesty's Government and the Russian Government had arrived at an agreement that the Russian troops should not advance, and that we should also use our influence with the Afghans to prevent them from advancing. On the Monday—the 16th of March I think it was—I repeated that statement, and I added that a reserve had been made by the Russian Government in the meantime with respect to the contingency of the occurrence of any serious event, such as the disturbance at Penjdeh. When the Papers were printed which contain the events of those dates, the Questions put to me were naturally referred to, and it was found by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) and others, that on the day after my statement a letter was addressed to Sir Edward Thornton by Lord Granville, requesting to know whether my statement accurately represented the views of the Russian Government. In that despatch of Lord Granville there were certain despatches of Sir Edward Thornton referred to; and the noble Lord, I presume, on referring to those despatches, found that they did not go the full length of my statement. They spoke of the precautions that had been taken, and of the possible movement of the Russian troops within a certain line; but they did not come up in terms to the statement I had made—that they should remain without advancing. It was a long time after the facts; and it was impossible for me from memory, in a matter which certainly required verification, to make an accurate statement. I took the earliest opportunity when I had leisure afforded by the Recess of examining the matter, and I now find exactly what took place. In the first place, the words ascribed to me by the I reports on the 13th and 16th of March are, I believe, perfectly correct; and, in the second place, I must say that the answer of the 13th of March was not given lightly or inconsiderately, or without due consultation; but it stated the effect and purport of certain communications which had been received from St. Petersburg put together, and not the simple and single effect of any one communication. After I had made that statement, it was thought at the Foreign Office that a statement of that 1191 kind, where we had, as it were, bound the Russian Government to words reported by Sir Edward Thornton without having given the Russian Government an opportunity of judging whether they were correctly reported, made it desirable to refer to St. Petersburg for confirmation of the statement. That reference accordingly was made, and on the 16th that statement was confirmed—entirely and unreservedly confirmed—as far as the question now at issue is concerned—namely, that the Russian troops were not to advance; but a qualification was added with reference to the contingency of serious disturbances on which I need not now dwell, because that is a collateral and distinct matter. Now, what I have found, upon examining the Papers, is this—that the letter of Lord Granville did not contain references to the whole evidence in the case. On the 151st page, under date February 19, in a letter to Sir Edward Thornton, there are contained these words, reporting a conversation with M. de Giers—"Instructions had been given that the Russian soldiers should remain where they were." It was the concurrence of those words that entered into the evidence on which I made my statement. It was our opinion at the time, and it is my opinion now, that the statement was entirely justified, and that these words, not noticed by the noble Lord that the Russian soldiers were to remain where they were, completely vindicate and sustain the statement I made. But perhaps it may be asked how it is that I did not insert a reference, or suggest a reference, to those words in Lord Granville's despatch? Well, it so happened that Lord Granville's despatch for the purpose of verifying my statement—there being anxiety that not a moment should be lost—was sent without my knowledge, and I never saw that despatch, I believe, until I saw it in the Papers. Certainly, if it had contained those references, it would have contained the whole of the evidence on which my statement was founded; but, as it was, it perhaps did not contain completely those references, which were not intended for this House, but for Sir Edward Thornton; and, no doubt, Sir Edward Thornton was perfectly aware of all the materials on the subject. That, Sir, is, I think, all I need state on the question. I am cer- 1192 tainly of opinion at this moment, as J. was on the 13th of March, that my statement was entirely borne out by the despatches; but I think it was a wise act to refer to the Government of St. Petersburg, in order to know whether they recognized the words used by Sir Edward Thornton and subscribed to them as being in reality their words.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLMay I ask whether the House is to understand that the explanation of the statement of the 13th of March was made to the House of Commons by the Prime Minister without the knowledge of the Foreign Minister and without communication with the Foreign Minister, and whether the inquiry of Lord Granville to the Russian Government was made without the knowledge of and without communication with the Prime Minister?
MR. GLADSTONEI have already said, but perhaps the noble Lord did not hear me, that my statement was made after due consultation, and no doubt with the Foreign Minister. Lord Granville's despatch was sent without my knowledge, and I believe it was most properly sent. It was sent for the purpose of making good an important point—namely, whether these words were owned by the Russian Government. My statement was made on a Friday, and the object was that we might be in a position at the next meeting of the House, in case any error had occurred, to set it right.
§ In answer to Mr. BRODRICK,
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he had understood his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India to state before the Recess that any communications with the Viceroy of India would be included in the last Blue Book. That had been laid upon the Table in dummy, and the Papers would be presented as soon as the state of the communications permitted.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSasked, whether the Prime Minister had any further information to give to the House with respect to the delimitation negotiations and with respect to the project of the proposed arbitration?
MR. GLADSTONEWith respect to the delimitation of the frontier, the communications have not yet been brought to a close, and therefore I have 1193 no further information to give to the House. As to the proposed arbitration, I would rather answer that Question tomorrow, with the permission of the noble Lord.
MR. JOSEPH COWENasked the Prime Minister, if he could state when it was proposed to introduce the Irish Coercion Bill?
MR. GLADSTONE,in reply, said, he hoped to be able to-morrow to make a statement respecting several important subjects which awaited consideration. Those subjects would certainly include what his hon. Friend called the Irish Coercion Bill.