HC Deb 31 March 1885 vol 296 cc1100-1

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If there is any, and what, truth in the reported statement that the Sultan was induced to become a party to the recent Egyptian Convention under threat from Lord Granville, that, if he refused, the payment of the Egyptian tribute to the Porte would be stopped?


As stated a few days ago by the Prime Minister, the signature of the Declara- tion and Convention relating to Egyptian finance by the Ambassador of the Ottoman Porte was delayed owing to a misunderstanding, but that misunderstanding being now remove and the signature having taken place, there would be no public advantage in entering into the confidential communications which may have passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Porte.


I wish to ask whether these menaces, which we understand were used to the Porte on this question, were used with the view of obtaining allies for this country in the case of a possible European war?


Is it not a fact that Ministers in this House have stated, in regard to the tribute to be paid by Egypt to the Porte, that it was one of the preferential charges upon the Egyptian Revenue? If so, how do they reconcile that statement made here with the menaces made at Constantinople? Or do the Government say one thing in this House and another at Constantinople?

[No reply.]