§ Resolutions [12th March] reported.
§
Resolution 1 agreed to.
(2.) "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £14,750, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Expenses of Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions Abroad.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, that under this heading there was an item of £1,680 for the Afghan Boundary Commission. He did not propose to go into the question of that Commission now; but a very remarkable statement had been made in the House that evening, and he thought the House and the country would look for further information from the Government on the subject. Those who sat on the Opposition side of the House had refrained from pressing the Government for information, as they had been told that it would be contrary to the public interests to produce any. But they had refrained for this reason and upon this condition. They understood that Her Majesty's Government had insisted upon, and were endeavouring to do their best to obtain, the withdrawal of the Russian Forces from certain positions which they had occupied upon Afghan territory. So long as they understood that Her Majesty's Government were determined to maintain the integrity of Afghanistan, 1185 and to uphold the pledges which they and the Government of Russia had given to that county, so long were the Opposition content to sit in silence and wait until Her Majesty's Government were disposed to give them information. But from the statement which had been made by the Prime Minister that evening, it appeared that there had been a new departure—a recognition that the Afghan troops had made some advances forward upon their own territory—["Oh, oh!"]—well, upon "debateable or debated ground," which the whole country understood to be Afghan territory, and that those advances, recognized as made upon "debateable or debated ground," were put upon the same footing as the Russian advances upon Afghan territory. That was very much the same as the old complaint against the lamb for aggressions upon the wolf. He wanted to know what was the position in regard to certain points. Was the agreement, of which the Prime Minister had spoken as affecting the Afghan territory, a new one or not? If it was a new one, he wished to know the date of it; and he also wished to know whether there had been any advances upon Afghan territory—any further advances—on the part of the Russian troops since that agreement was made? One point which he wished to impress most earnestly upon Her Majesty's Government was the deplorable effect upon the Afghans themselves—upon the Afghan Government and people—of any signs of weakness on the part of Her Majesty's Ministers. It was now 12 years since the former Ameer of Afghanistan was driven into the arms of Russia by an act of weakness similar to that which it was suspected Her Majesty's Government were now committing, though he hoped those suspicions might prove to be unfounded. The Ameer of Afghanistan in 1873 was driven into a Russian alliance by the refusal of the present Prime Minister and of the then Indian Secretary to give the support the Ameer asked for. That refusal rendered the late Afghan War inevitable, and, it might almost be said, necessary. A similar weakness now would drive the Ameer of Afghanistan and the Afghan people again into the arms of Russia, and the fate of India would thus be placed in the hands of their enemy for use against England 1186 whenever she might be in a most critical position. Without saying anything in the nature of aggravation as to the action of Russia at this moment, though that action was certainly most aggravating to them, he would impress upon Her Majesty's Government the terrible danger in which they would place their Indian Empire and their vast Imperial interests if they showed the slightest weakness or hesitation about supporting the Ameer and people of Afghanistan. He wished to make this protest, and to ask for some further explanation of this new agreement, and of the statement that there was some arrangement on foot between the two Powers as to the settlement of the boundary of the territory in question. He trusted that Her Majesty's Government would be able to see their way to give the House some further information on this important subject.
§ SIR R.ASSHETON CROSSI should like to ask one or two questions on this subject. We understood the Prime Minister to make an appeal to the House the other night, and to suggest that in the present critical state of affairs we should not put any questions to the Government as to matters of policy. But he said he was willing to answer any questions relating to matters of fact. Now, upon matters of fact, we want to know what is the date of this alleged verbal agreement? That is a pure question of fact which cannot affect policy. We have a right to ask that question, and to have an answer to it, under the express promise of the Prime Minister himself. Next, we wish to know whether any advance has been made by the Russian troops since that agreement was determined upon, whenever that might have been? That also is a pure question of fact, and not of policy. Then we want to know whether this verbal agreement—and this is another question of fact, and nothing else—recognizes in any way, or shape, or form whatever the present position of the Russian and Anglo-Afghan troops—that is to say, does it assent in any way to the position which the Russians now hold against our protest and against the promises which the Russians themselves have always given us that they did not mean to go forward? These are all pure questions of fact which we have a right to have an answer to. The country— 1187 the noble Lord (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) may not be so well aware of it as we are—is becoming very anxious about this matter. People have got a notion—and whether rightly or wrongly, it is necessary that it should be cleared up—that by this supposed verbal agreement something has been conceded to the Russians by the present Government as to the position of the troops. If that is not the case, it is just as well that that notion which has got abroad should be altogether disposed of; and, therefore, I venture to ask these questions—namely, what was the date of the alleged verbal agreement; has any advance been made by the Russian troops since that agreement was made; and does that agreement recognize the present position to which the Russians have advanced?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had alluded to a statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister earlier in the evening with regard to a distinction between statements of policy and statements of fact, and taking advantage of that distinction, he had, at that late hour of the night (12.30), put to him (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) a long string of questions. [Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS: Only three.] Now, it had very often been stated by the Prime Minister, and by other Members of the Government, that whenever questions were put in regard to policy or fact, it was desirable that Notice should be given. It was only fair that he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) should ask the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross), if he desired information upon questions of fact in relation to such a very delicate and important matter as this, to take the usual course, and place his Questions upon the Notice Paper for Monday next.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it was understood when they were discussing the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was remaining in his place for the express purpose of discussing this question on the Report of Supply.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he was perfectly unacquainted with any such arrangement, although it was true he was not in the House at the time the right hon. Gentleman spoke of. He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) was 1188 speaking, however, in the presence of several Cabinet Ministers, and he believed he would be borne out when he said that they were not aware of any such understanding. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the Government was unaware of the great importance and interest which attached to this subject in the country. As a matter of fact, the Government were fully alive to the great importance which was attached to this subject, not only in this country, but in all foreign countries. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had repeatedly pointed out to the House the great danger of plunging, either at Question time or on occasions such as this, into discussions upon matters in regard to which every single word that was said in the House was carefully noted and weighed, not merely in England, but everywhere abroad. He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice), therefore, hoped that the right hon. Gentleman, and also the hon. Gentleman the Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett), would not in any way think him discourteous if he refused to be drawn, at that hour of the night, into a discussion upon this subject. All he could say was that the statement made earlier in the evening by the Prime Minister was made by the right hon. Gentleman with all the authority that attached to his high position; and he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) felt that he could not, even if the occasion were opportune, contribute anything whatever to the elucidation of the question. Certainly, at that hour of the night, he ought not to attempt to make what, in all probability, would be an imperfect addition or extension of the statement which the Prime Minister made at Question time, knowing, as hon. Gentlemen did full well, the importance which attached to every word which fell from any Minister of the Crown upon important questions of this kind.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he thought that the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice), if he did not choose to answer questions which he ought to be able to answer, might have abstained from reading a lecture to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) and other hon. Members of the House. It appeared 1189 that the noble Lord was not in a position to defend his Estimates—that, in fact, he knew nothing about them. Earlier in the evening the Prime Minister volunteered a statement to the House. It was not a statement in answer to any question asked by hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, but it was a statement in answer to a question upon a totally different matter, put to him by one of his own supporters. The right hon. Gentleman, in a very careful manner, volunteered a certain amount of information, which seemed, on reflection, to be merely throwing dust into their eyes. The Prime Minister told them that an agreement had recently been made with Russia. He entered, to a certain extent, into the details of that agreement; but he never told the House what the agreement actually was, and he avoided informing the House what was the date of the agreement. Now, the date of the agreement was of paramount importance. They knew that there had been differences and divergencies since the old agreement was made; but if an agreement of a peaceful character had been come to within the last few days—if the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, or any other Member of the Government, would inform them that a peaceful agreement had been arrived at within the last few days—the alarm of the country would be greatly allayed, because the people would know that, at any rate, a kind of truce had been arranged for a short time. He appealed to the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) to re-assure the House on the subject, if it was in his power to do so. The noble Marquess was really the only Member of the Government who gave the House frank and straightforward answers, and he (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) appealed to the noble Marquess to tell them whether the agreement alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was an agreement recently entered into—entered into within the last two or three days—or whether it was an old agreement on which they were to rely? He thought that hon. Members were entitled to an explanation on this subject; and he trusted the noble Marquess would not shelter himself under the peculiar pleas that had been put forward, evidently to a certain extent in 1190 ignorance, by the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLdesired to express, in a few words, the sincere pleasure with which he heard the observations which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister made earlier in the evening. It seemed to him (Sir George Campbell) that the right hon. Gentleman's words were as plain as they could possibly be; for he had distinctly said that an agreement had been made that neither party should advance until something further was settled. That seemed to him (Sir George Campbell) to be of the nature of what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) had called a truce, and he (Sir George Campbell) was very glad to hear it, because it gave time for reflection. He did not intend to justify the actions of the Russians. He thought their conduct was as bad as it could possibly be; but, after all, it was well that they should not rush into war. In his opinion, the arrangement which was hinted at by the Prime Minister was the best that could possibly be made, because, if the agreement was fulfilled, and neither party wished for war, they could not have war. It was impossible to imagine a more fitting case, if there was on either side a desire to avoid war, for arbitration than a case which concerned the boundaries of a country. He hoped that there would be a peaceful settlement of this disagreement, and that it would turn out, as he hoped it would, that the Russians had not determined on war. If it should happen that Russian officers had exceeded their instructions, there was yet room to hope that peace might be maintained.
§ MR. ONSLOWsaid, that hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House ought to take heart at the words and attitude assumed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross). At last it was found that the Front Opposition Bench were taking an interest in this subject. Many hon. Gentlemen last Session did all they could to induce some Members on the Opposition Bench to take a deeper interest in this question than they had hitherto done; and last night, when many hon. Members remained to discuss this most important Vote, the Bench below him was as bald as the 1191 palm of his hand. He was glad to see his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Assheton Cross) come to the front and take an interest in this question, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would continue to do so. After the remarks of the Prime Minister earlier in the evening, in reply to a question put, not as regarded the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the Afghan Frontier, but upon a side-issue, by an hon. Gentleman whose honesty of purpose everyone in the House appreciated, but who belonged to what was called the "Peace-at-any-price Party"—a Gentleman who put a particular question to the Prime Minister, not with regard to the policy of the question, but merely for the sake of obtaining, if possible, peace at any price—he (Mr. Onslow) thought the House ought to have more definite answers from one or other Member of Her Majesty's Government to the questions which were put in the course of the afternoon. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) was in his place, and it was due to the country that they should know exactly the position of affairs at the present time. The announcement of the Prime Minister was of the gravest importance; but was there, after all, anything in it? Would the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War come forward, and, if it were possible, appease the anxiety which had been raised in the country lately on account of the aggressions of Russia—would he come forward and say that Russia was behaving nobly in this matter? [A laugh.] Hon. Gentlemen laughed at the idea of Russia behaving nobly. So did he. Would the noble Marquess come forward to say that Russia was behaving honourably in this matter, and that she had at the last moment given way? He (Mr. Onslow) deprecated the kind of answers which were given by the Prime Minister. There was no doubt that Russia had advanced. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had said he was glad there was a truce. Why, the Afghans had not advanced. If there was a truce, he (Mr. Onslow) supposed that both parties must be aggressors. Had the Ruler of Afghan been the aggressor? The hon. Gentleman (Sir George Campbell) knew as well as he (Mr. Onslow) did—and, 1192 perhaps, even better—that the Russians had been the aggressors, and therefore it was absurd to say there had been a truce. In the interest of India he hoped that before the debate closed some remark from the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) would go forward to corroborate what the Prime Minister had said earlier in the evening. He hoped that it was in the power of the noble Marquess to tell the country, in even stronger words than those used by the Prime Minister, that after all there was no cause for anxiety, that the state of affairs was as calm and as peaceable as possible. He trusted that in the negotiations the Ameer of Afghanistan was not being forgotten. The Ameer was a most important factor in this question, and if Her Majesty's Government signed away his territory, and allowed Russia to take any part of the ground which was alleged to belong to the Afghans, did Her Majesty's Government suppose they would retain the friendship of the Ameer? If they did that, did they suppose they would get the Ameer to say—"I will support you, and do everything for you in preference to Russia?" Let him (Mr. Onslow) tell the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) and the other Members of the Cabinet who were present, that unless they behaved honourably to the Ameer of Afghanistan, they would make him and all his successors eternal enemies of this country. He (Mr. Onslow) therefore maintained that on all these matters the Government ought to consult the Ameer. He knew the difficulties of the question; he foresaw them many months ago, and he warned the Government of what really would happen. The Government seemed to have done nothing at all. They had tried to blink this question entirely, and now it had come upon them with one fell swoop, and at a time when they did not expect it. He hoped something might be said that night to allay the anxiety of the country. London had been placarded that night with—"Concessions made, and peace restored between England any Russia." Was there any truth whatever in that report? It was due to the country that it should know at the earliest moment. This was not a question of truce between Russia and Afghanistan; it was a question of peace between Russia an England; and 1193 he earnestly hoped that the noble Marquess would see his way that night to give the House and the country the assurance that there was no cause for anxiety.
§ MR. T. C. BARINGquite agreed that a distinction ought to be made between matters of policy and matters of fact. He did not think that Her Majesty's Government were called upon to give the House at this time any information on matters of policy; but he listened very closely to what the Prime Minister said on this subject, at the commencement of that day's Sitting, and he was unable to discover what was meant by the agreement made between Russia and England—England, the right hon. Gentleman distinctly said, not the Ameer of Afghanistan—that neither party should advance from the position they then occupied. If any Member of Her Majesty's Government was able to tell the House that this agreement had been made within the last three or four days, he could assert on his own positive knowledge that the news would be received in the country with the greatest feelings of relief. If the statement of the Prime Minister only referred to an agreement which was made before the Russians took up the positions they now occupied on the borders of Afghanistan, the statement was one which would not give any confidence to the country. This was a plain matter of fact. All he and his hon. Friends wanted to know was whether there had been any arrangement made—whatever arrangement it might be—within the last few days; had there been a temporary suspension so to speak of what threatened to be active military operations?
§ MR. TOMLINSONdesired to revert to a matter to which he drew attention late last night—namely, the ratification of the Congo Treaty. The effect of what he stated last night had been, in some quarters, misunderstood. In Committee, the previous evening, he drew attention to the fact that the Government had, in substance, failed to fulfil a promise they made to the House with regard to the discussion of the Treaty before its ratification. He did not wish it to be understood that he accused the Government of having intentionally ratified the Treaty after having promised that it should be submitted to the House before ratifica- 1194 tion; but the point he wished to enforce was that, having promised to submit the Treaty to the consideration of the House before ratification, they went to the Conference of Berlin, at which the Treaty was treated as being binding upon this country, without its ever being submitted to the House. The country was by this means bound by the Treaty before Parliament had had the opportunity of discussing it. In corroboration of the view he took that the Government had not, during the negotiations, kept their promise in view, he noticed that, on the 9th of May last, Earl Granville, speaking in "another place," spoke of a formal Resolution approving of the Treaty having been arrived at in the House of Commons. Earl Granville seemed to have imagined that the Treaty in which England waived a right she had long enjoyed had been submitted to the House of Commons. As a matter of fact, that was not so. He (Mr. Tomlinson) thought that, notwithstanding what the Prime Minister said last night, this was a matter deserving of attention. The Government distinctly promised that the Treaty should not be used to the detriment of what some people considered the interests of this country, until the House of Commons had had an opportunity of discussing it; but, without affording the opportunity they promised, they went into a Conference, and their Agents, acting upon instructions, were ready to make the Treaty binding upon them.
§ MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, they were placed in a rather peculiar position. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had put very simple and plain questions on matters of fact to the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington). Earlier in the evening the Prime Minister asserted that he was ready to answer any questions on matters of fact, though he deprecated—["Oh!"] Yes, he was in the recollection of the House. The Prime Minister distinctly said he had no objection whatever to answer any questions on matters of fact, though he deprecated, and, as he (Mr. R. H. Paget) thought, very rightly deprecated, any attempt to ask questions on matters of policy. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire had put questions on pure matters 1195 of fact, and how had the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) met those questions? He had entirely evaded answering any one of them. He had not said it would be inconvenient or injurious to the public interest that he should answer them; he had not said he was not in possession of information which would enable him to answer them; he had made no such reply, but had, in a cloud of words, evaded giving any simple straightforward and plain answers to what were plain questions on matters of fact. Now, he thought that the House had a right to ask Her Majesty's Government that they should either say that the information in their possession did not enable them to answer the right hon. Gentleman's questions, or that it was not convenient in the public interests that any reply should be made. Let them have one thing or the other. As it was, the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had simply endeavoured to blind the House. There was no attempt on the part of any hon. Gentleman to force Her Majesty's Government to disclose anything which would be injurious to the Public Service. All they desired was plain and categorical answers to one or two very plain questions.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONI hope the House will not be disposed to push this discussion very much further. The House has been informed on two very recent occasions that it is not by any means desirable in the present state of the negotiations between this country and Russia upon the affairs of the frontier of Afghanistan to discuss the policy which is being pursued. We are asked to make certain declarations as to matters of fact. It might be possible on some occasions to draw distinctions between matters of fact and matters of policy; but in such a discussion as this it is impossible to distinguish between them. I was not in the House when the Prime Minister gave his answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Richard) this evening; but it is now asked of me somewhat to extend the declaration which the right hon. Gentleman made. I feel that I should be taking a great responsibility, affecting not only the Government, but interests far transcend- 1196 ing those affecting any Government, if I were to attempt now to extend any answer given by the Prime Minister, the purport of which I am not sufficiently acquainted with. If hon. Gentlemen think it is desirable that this question should be discussed, it ought to be with due Notice, and with such Notice as will enable the Members of the Government to give such information as they think desirable. The Government should have the opportunity of weighing carefully what can be said and what ought not to be said at a moment like the present. Not having heard the discussion this evening, I really feel I should be doing that which I should not be justified in doing if I were to attempt to extend the declaration of the Prime Minister. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) has asked me to say whether, in our opinion, Russia has behaved nobly, and to give an assurance that there is no cause for anxiety. Well, Sir, whatever else I might say, that is precisely what I cannot say. There is cause for anxiety; and it is because there is cause for anxiety that I think it is extremely undesirable that any attempt should be made to lead the House into a discussion that cannot possibly, on the present occasion, do good, but might, if any unguarded word were used, do a great deal of harm. Under the circumstances, therefore, it is perfectly impossible to make a distinction between matters of fact and questions of policy; and I think it is extremely desirable that this discussion should be closed.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he was sure the House had no desire whatever to discuss questions of policy or to engage in any discussion which might be considered to be injurious to the public interest. He must, however, remind the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) that his right hon. Friend (Sir E. Assheton Cross) did not ask to discuss the question of their relations with Russia at the present moment in any degree; he simply put a few questions as to matters of fact, and as to the date of the agreement referred to by the Prime Minister, as to whether advances had been made on either side since that agreement had been come to, and as to whether the agreement recognized the positions already taken up by the respective Forces. He could only say this 1197 —that if it was impossible for the Government to give answers to those questions on matters of fact, the anxiety in the country would undoubtedly be very greatly increased. Personally, he thought that the statement of the Prime Minister was not so precise, so clear, and so distinct as to render questions of this kind unnecessary. The questions of his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Assheton Cross) were intended to evoke, if possible, answers which would give confidence to the country which the country desired to have; and while he had no wish to push the matter further that evening, he trusted the Government would be prepared on Monday to give distinct information on the questions which had been put by his right hon. Friend—put with no wish or desire to discuss the policy of the Government, but simply to re-assure the country as to the actual position of affairs.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he had only one word to say, and it was in support of the observations of his right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (MR. W. H. Smith). He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) could not conceive even in the interests of peace why the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) could not answer this one plain and simple question—"Is this a new agreement, or is it an agreement which was made some time ago?" It was a plain question, it was a simple question, it was a question which the noble Marquess, he was sure, could answer; and his answer, if satisfactory, would unquestionably produce a feeling of great relief in the country.
§ Resolution agreed to.
§
Resolutions 3 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.
(11.) "That a sum, not exceeding £20,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for a Grant to the Family of the late General Charles George Gordon.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he did not desire to raise any discussion at all upon this Vote; but he did not wish it to pass by without some remarks with regard to the great services of the late lamented General Gordon. Little, very little, had been said of the services which General Gordon had rendered to the country; and he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) presumed that this Vote of 1198 £20,000 was intended as some acknowledgment by the Government of the extraordinary work that this great and good man had done by his unselfishness, by the Christian feeling he had shown on every occasion, by his singleness of purpose, by his strict determination to do his duty, and by those unparalleled resources which he had shown in maintaining the honour and dignity of this country under the most trying and most difficult circumstances. His defence of Khartoum would fill a great page in the history of the world; and he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) presumed that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, and those who were associated with him, had thought that, at any rate, his family did deserve at the hands of this country some recompense for his great and extraordinary services.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that it was at a very late hour last night when this Vote was brought on in Committee of Supply; but when it did come on, he ventured to say a few words to show how much the Government felt the great loss of General Gordon. He gave then the reasons why they thought that this Vote should be passed. No one could deplore and regret General Gordon's loss more than he did, particularly as he had the honour of his friendship. He trusted, however, that at that hour of the night (1 o'clock), the House would not expect him to say more upon the subject.
§ MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, he thought the House was indebted to the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) for having elicited, even at that time of night, a few remarks from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon this matter. The Vote was one of an exceptional character, and therefore it ought to have been brought on at a time when the House was full, and when the debate would find prominence in the ordinary channels of information. General Gordon was no ordinary man, and to give this Vote to his family was, after all, but a meagre recognition of his services. He thought that Her Majesty's Government was distinctly at fault in having forced the Vote on when it could not receive other than the most scanty consideration.
§
Resolution agreed to.
1199
(12.) "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £292,500, he granted to Her Majesty, to make good the deficiency in the provision made for the service of the Army during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, owing to the Non-payment by Egypt of the extra cost of the Army of Occupation.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he did not intend to detain the House more than one minute; but here, again, they had a very large Vote to be devoted to a very peculiar purpose, brought on at a time when it was utterly impossible to adequately discuss it. He remained in the House until very late last night, only leaving at an hour after which he thought the Government would not attempt to take this Vote. As a matter of fact, the Vote was brought on somewhere between 3 and 4 o'clock in the morning. It was a Vote which at any other time would have led to a considerable amount of discussion. When it was considered that this money ought to have been paid by the Egyptian Government, and not by the taxpayers of this country, it would be generally considered that it was but fair there should have been an opportunity of debating the great and serious question involved. He would not now enter into the question when they were to have the Agreement before them; but it was a very remarkable fact that very nearly two years ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that Egypt was on the point of bankruptcy, and that it would be impossible for the then Egyptian financial arrangements to be carried on. Two years had since elapsed, and nothing had been done to settle the Egyptian financial difficulties; but they were called upon to pay a sum which ought to have been paid by Egypt. The fault, in his opinion, laid at the door of Her Majesty's Government; and, in one sense, he was glad that the Egyptian financial matters had not been settled. He hoped that for some time they would not be settled, except they were settled by England, because England, who had spent her blood and her treasure in the interests of that country, ought to have the sole determination of what should be done in Egypt.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he would not enter into the political question to which the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) alluded. He wished, however, to make 1200 it quite clear to the House that this Vote would not, as was stated, fall upon the taxpayers of this country. The Egyptian Government ought properly to have paid before the 31st of this current month of March a certain sum of money towards the expenses of the Army of Occupation. That payment for this year had been postponed from time to time in consequence of the financial condition of Egypt. It was hoped, until within a week or two ago, that this money would have been paid before the 31st of March. It would not be paid, however, until the financial year beginning in April, because until then the loan would not be raised. When the loan was raised the money would be paid, and the taxpayers of this country would not have to pay one single farthing of the amount. He thought he had made the point clear last night, for he answered several questions which satisfied hon. Gentlemen. He had only now to repeat that this was not a proposal to charge the taxpayers of the country one single farthing; but in cousequence of the failure of the Egyptian Government to raise a loan in the present month, this money was required to be voted now. When the money was paid, which it would be by the Egyptian Government next financial year, it would be paid into the Exchequer.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he could not agree with the view of this matter which was taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and therefore he could not allow the Vote to pass without protest. It was all very well to say it was only a question whether this money was to be paid before or after the 31st of March. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that they ought to have got this money from the Egyptian Exchequer, and tha when the Egyptian Exchequer did have it, it would pay it over to them. Would the Egyptian Government have the money after the 31st of March? What he understood was that they were to raise money to pay themselves; they were to take money out of one pocket in order to put it in another. It might be that the taxpayers of this country would not have to pay the money at this moment; but there would be a liability in the matter which he had every reason to suppose would last. He would not so much mind if that were the only sum 1201 they would have to pay; but it seemed to him that this was a continuing sum. It might be, by raising a loan on their security, that this particular sum would be repaid; but what was to happen in the next year, and in the years after that? What he had understood was that the Egyptian Exchequer was only to meet what might be called a nominal sum—something like £100,000. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (MR. Childers): No.] He (Sir George Campbell) was very glad to hear that that was not so; and he only hoped and trusted that the financial arrangements might be something entirely different. This country, and indeed all the countries in Europe, had been led to believe that the financial condition of Egypt was of such a character that the main burden, or almost the whole of the charge, for the defence of Egypt would fall on this country. There was no prospect that they would ever be relieved of the charge. It seemed to him that this had been a very radical error in regard to their arrangements in Egypt. All their troubles arose from the failure to take into consideration the necessity of the defence of the country. They dismissed the Egyptian Army, and what was the result? Their troubles in the Soudan had been the result. Indeed, all their troubles had been the result of such a policy; and unless the financial position turned out to be something very different from what it was supposed to be, they would have a continuing burden for the defences of Egypt thrown upon the taxpayers of this country, while the creditors of the sequestered estate went scot-free. He hoped the financial arrangements of the country would turn out better than he imagined; but, at present, he protested against this Vote, and would not accept the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had done good service in calling attention to this matter. The House was now asked to vote a sum of money to insure the payment to the bondholders of their interest. The plain English of the matter was that the Egyptian Treasury was in default, and that Her Majesty's Government were putting a burden upon the taxpayers of this country, in order that the Egyptian bondholders should be 1202 paid in full. Unquestionably, this was a bondholder's question; and, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy had pointed out, the question which not only that House but the country at large would have to face was, whether or not the bondholders were to be paid in full? If they were, it was the taxpayers of England who would have to make good the deficit. The House was told by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he hoped in future Egypt would be able to pay this sum. But the right hon. Gentleman alluded to some visionary loans and agreements to which, as hon. Gentlemen well knew, no sanction had been given. Even yet the settlement of Egyptian finances was in abeyance; and for the moment they were face to face with this state of things—that they were now paying out of their income a sum of money which they were led to expect would be found by Egypt, and which could not be found by Egypt, because the bondholders had to be paid in full. It was just as well that the people should know what this Vote which was hurried through the House at 4 o'clock yesterday morning really meant.
§ Resolution agreed to.
§ Remaining Resolution agreed to.