§ MR. RICHARDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, with reference to the Declaration adopted by the Plenipotentiaries who negotiated the Treaty of Paris in 1856, and which was embodied in Protocol 23 of that Treaty, viz.—
The Plenipotentiaries do not hesitate to express, in the name of their Governments, the wish that States between which any serious misunderstanding may arise, should, before appealing to arms, have recourse, as far as circumstances might allow, to the good offices of a friendly Power;whether England and Russia were parties to that declaration, and whether that declaration does not afford just and sufficient ground for invoking the good offices of some friendly Power as regards the differences which now exist between England and Russia?
MR. GLADSTONEThe accuracy of the reference of my hon. Friend to the Declaration is beyond dispute. I shall proceed to answer the Question as clearly as I can, and I shall endeavour to do so in such a way as not to confuse the separate parts of the subject. With regard to the Afghan Frontier there have arisen two subjects of solicitude which are in themselves quite distinct from each other. One is as to the agreement made some time ago between Russia and England to ascertain the 1085 Frontier by inquiry and correspondence; the other is as to the advances which have been made by Russian and Afghan Forces respectively to points within the debatable or debated ground. I mention these because they are entirely distinct from one another—one having relation to a question of right and the other to a question of fact, which evidently does not bear upon determining the question of right. As respects the second of these Questions—namely, the advance of the Forces—it has been agreed between Russia and England that no further advance should be made on either side. With regard to the first of these Questions—that to which my hon. Friend refers—my answer is that the subject of ascertaining the Frontier by inquiry and correspondence is at present under treatment by diplomatic communication, and that it has not yet reached such a stage—there has not been as yet such a full comparison of the views of the two sides respectively—and by the two sides I mean Russia on the one hand, and England and the Ameer of Afghanistan on the other—as to treat that matter as one which is exhausted. It would, therefore, be premature on my part at the present moment to pronounce any opinion as to a mode of solution which might or might not be proper under circumstances not yet fully ascertained.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEI am not quite sure whether the right hon. Gentleman was rightly understood to speak of an agreement as having been made to the effect that the Forces—that the persons on either side shall not advance beyond the positions which they now hold. I should like to know whether that is to be a permanent arrangement, or only a temporary one, to last while the boundary question is being discussed?
MR. GLADSTONEMy only reason for not saying that it was to last while the boundary was being discussed was that I did not wish to lead to any inference whatever being drawn in regard to those positions, or to what might be done with regard to them in the course of the negotiations. But the agreement of which I spoke is not in the nature of a formal instrument, but an agreement contained in diplomatic Correspondence. It is an agreement without any specific 1086 limit of time; but it will doubtless hold good so long as there is any occasion for it.
§ MR. CHAPLINCan the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when the agreement was arrived at, which he says is to last so long as there is occasion for it?
§ MR. ONSLOWIn connection with the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I should like to ask whether the Government consider that the Afghans have advanced out of their own territory as yet; and whether this verbal agreement which the Prime Minister tells us has been come to has also been accepted by the Ameer of Afghanistan?
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERI should like to put a Question with regard to the very important statement which my right hon. Friend has made—whether the agreement which he mentioned is to be considered a new agreement, or whether it is one which has been supposed to be in force for some time past?
MR. GLADSTONEI am not quite certain what the right hon. Gentleman means by the "agreement which has been supposed to be in force for some time past." But, of course, the agreement is quite distinct from that which is known as the Clarendon-Gortchakoff Agreement, which embraces a much larger geographical range. I think this can be called properly a new Agreement, which has grown up in quite recent Correspondence, out of existing circumstances, and which has reference to the existing state of facts. I am afraid that I was not quite clear in my answer before. No doubt, this Agreement has reference to recent negotiations, and is intended to provide against a disturbance of these negotiations, and to leave a fair and open field for them. I cannot state thep recise date of the agreement; but perhaps it is not very material. I certainly could not answer the Question put to me by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) with regard to the positions taken up by the Afghans, because that would be pronouncing absolutely if I made a declaration upon matters with regard to which it is supposed that negotiations are to be carried on. Of course, I need only say that it is the duty of the Government to claim for the Afghans all the territory to which we think they are justly entitled.
§ MR. ONSLOWHas the Ameer of Afghanistan agreed to this present, or new, verbal agreement made by the Government?
§ [No reply.]
§ MR. ONSLOWI will put the Question to-morrow.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTI propose on Monday to ask the right hon. Gentleman, who says that the Russian and Afghan Forces have advanced to debatable ground, whether he considers that the positions of Pul-i-Khatun, Zulficar, Akrobat, and Pul-i-Khisti, are debatable ground?
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTThen I will add the words "or debated ground."