§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked whether the announcement made by the Prime Minister would be followed by any change in the manner in which the Vote of Credit would be put before the House? There was very little chance of the troops in the Soudan being engaged elsewhere. Had the Government considered the advisability of separating the Vote into two items?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEYes, Sir; the Government have considered it, and they do not intend to make any change in the form of the Vote.
§ MR. ONSLOWasked whether the decision of the Government regarding the negotiations recently concluded between Russia and England had been communicated to the Viceroy of India, and had been accepted by him; and whether they had also been communicated to the Ameer of Afghanistan, and whether he was a consenting party?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEI think the hon. Member had better ask those questions on the Vote of Credit?
§ MR. BOURKEreminded the right hon. Gentleman that during the debate on the Vote of Credit it would not be possible to obtain information from the Government by means of questions. The fact of every Member of the Government, with the exception of the President of the Local Government Board, having gone out of the House before they could be questioned with reference to the Prime Minister's statement had placed the Opposition in an unsatisfactory position. He wished to ask several questions. He desired to know whether there was any truth in the report which had appeared in the newspapers that certain coolies, who, having been ordered back from Suakin to India, had, on their arrival at Aden, been told to return to Suakin? He hoped he should get a definite answer to that important question. Secondly, whether the Government had received any Reports from Lord Wolseley with respect to their policy of abandoning the Soudan—a policy which was sprung upon the House in a most extraordinary manner? Thirdly, whether any Report had been received from Lord Wolseley with respect to the engagements which that noble and gallant Lord solemnly made to the Chiefs at Dongola and along the Nile that they would not be deserted when he returned in the spring to take Khartoum? Fourthly, whether the Government had received any information from Lord Wolseley respecting Osman Digna, with regard to whom Lord Wolseley had stated most distinctly that the Military Authorities were determined to crush? [Ministerial cries of "Order!"] He did not wish to do anything irregular; but the Opposition were placed in a very awkward position by the extraordinary desertion of the Treasury Bench by the Members of the Government. Then there was another question which he desired to ask. The right hon. Gentleman had told the House distinctly that there were two capital heads of negotiations on the Russo-Afghan Question. First, that the breach of the agreement of March 10 was to be referred to arbitration. [Ministerial cries of "No, no!"] That was what he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say. The other head was that the negotiations as to the delimitation of the frontier were to be proceeded with in London. He wished to know whether these two subjects were 1519 to be dealt with simultaneously? He wished also to know whether the Papers were to be presented to the House forthwith, and, if not, when? Until these questions had been answered thoroughly and satisfactorily it was impossible that the House should be in a position to proceed with the debate on the Vote of Credit. In the circumstances, would it not be reasonable to move the postponement of this Vote?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEThe right hon. Gentleman, in the form of asking questions, has made something like a speech. In answer to the last question, it is, in the opinion of the Government, imperatively necessary, in the interests of the country, that the Vote of Credit should be proceeded with. With regard to the first question, as to the coolies, I must ask him to give Notice in the usual way? It seems to me eminently a question of the class requiring Notice. As to Lord Wolseley's Report, I have myself read his despatches, and I do not think that if they were laid before the House they would bear out the view the right hon. Gentleman seems to take. No doubt, they will ultimately be laid before the House. But I imagine they are not despatches of the kind which it would be customary, during such operations as are now taking place, to lay before Parliament.
§ MR. BOURKEWhat about the other question as to Russia?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEI imagine the Prime Minister's statement was to the effect that the difficulties which had prevented the going on with the Frontier Question were now in the course of removal or solution, and that, therefore, it was now possible to go forward with the consideration of the question.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked how they could go on with the Vote of Credit in the absence of the Prime Minister and the Heads of every Department concerned in the Vote?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEThe Prime Minister and the Heads of the other Departments are at present meeting a few yards off, and they are prepared to come back the moment the discussion on the Vote of Credit begins. They would not be absent at this moment were it not for important Public Business.
§ MR. CHAPLINasked that the Prime Minister's statement should be read again to the House?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that the most important part of the agreement had been already read a second time by the Prime Minister.
§ MR. GIBSONThe right hon. Gentleman has stated that the Prime Minister repeated the most important part of the agreement, that is, with respect to what he called "the sacred covenant." Will the reference to arbitration include the point whether that "sacred covenant" has been broken; and, if so, will the Power who is to arbitrate be requested to indicate what reparation is to be made for its violation?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONMy right hon. Friend said that it was not possible to state more fully at the present time the nature of the arrangement come to between the two Governments. I do not understand that the actual terms of reference to the friendly Power have as yet been agreed upon.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHThough the terms of reference may not have been drawn up, Her Majesty's Government surely must have made up their minds as to the matters with which the arbitrator will have to deal. The Prime Minister stated that Her Majesty's Government had agreed to refer to the Sovereign of a friendly State any differences of opinion as to the violation of the agreement of the 16th of March, but that the gallant officers were not to be put upon their trial. What is the question to be referred to arbitration if not the conduct of those officers? I must press for an answer. Unless we do have an answer it will be quite impossible to go on with the discussion.
§ MR. R. T. REIDI wish, before that question is answered, to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he considers it is for the public interest that questions of this character should be asked at this time without Notice?
§ MR. ONSLOWDoes Russia agree to be bound by the decision of the Sovereign who is to arbitrate on this question?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONI understand that while I was absent from the House a request was made that the terms used by my right hon. Friend should be repeated to the House. I am prepared to do that now; but I do not 1521 think I am in a position to make any further statement. [The noble Marquess then repeated the words used by the Prime Minister with reference to the agreement between the two Governments.]
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSDo not those words imply this—that any action taken by one or other of the two Powers consequent upon their interpretation of the "sacred covenant" shall be taken into consideration by the arbitrator?
§ LOUD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLCan the right hon. Gentleman say whether the words "the gallant officers" refer to General Komaroff and Sir Peter Lumsden, or to General Komaroff and the Afghan officer?
MR. GLADSTONEI have no authority to interpret a term of this kind; but if the noble Lord asks me my opinion, I should say it refers to anybody that falls within the definition of officers on either side.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL"The two general officers" is the expression.
MR. GLADSTONEThe words are "the gallant officers on either side." There are other persons who had a share in the transaction than Sir Peter Lumsden—British officers who were near the scene of the engagement.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTAs it is evident that the Government do not know the meaning of their own statement, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the House is to understand that the words which he has road to the House as expressing the so-called arrangement between the two Governments are words drawn up by the Russian Government, and not by the English?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURIf I rightly caught the statement made by the Prime Minister, the question which is to be put to arbitration is the interpretation to be placed upon the agreement of the 17th of March; but I think the matter in dispute between the two Governments was not the interpretation of the agreement, but the action of the Russian officers, and I should like to know which of these two things is to be submitted to arbitration?
MR. GLADSTONEHere again, Sir, I cannot carry the agreement further than the language of the agreement. But if my hon. Friend should ask me 1522 my opinion, I should say the question has never been the trial of any officer at all. What the arbitration has to do with is the honour of the Governments involved in the agreement of the 16th of March, and we have the right, and the Russian Government have the right-each party to a compact of that kind has the right—to hold the other party to the execution of that agreement. That is the point of view from which alone I think we can try the question.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEDo we understand that to mean that the one Power considers that the agreement has been violated, and that the other Power considers that it has not, and that it is to be referred to a friendly Power to decide whether the one or the other is right?
MR. GLADSTONEThe reference is to be made in the terms of the agreement itself, and I could not bind myself to say—I carefully avoided saying on Monday night—who had violated the agreement. I simply said that there had been a failure in the fulfilment of its terms. Beyond that I did not go and do not go.
§ BARON HENRY DE WORMSI would ask the Prime Minister whether he did not say on Monday night that the attack was a Russian attack? If he did, I wish to know whether the question is to be raised again whether this was a Russian attack or not; and, if not, whether the Prime Minister withdraws his expression or qualifies it?
MR. STAVELEY HILLDoes the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the question to be referred between England and Russia can go no further than this—namely, whether the Government of St. Petersburg passed on at once the terms of the solemn covenant to General Komaroff?
MR. GLADSTONEI have no power or disposition to place any such limitation as the hon. Gentleman has suggested upon the meaning of the words.
§ MR. MACIVERasked whether it was the fact that Russia was to retain the fruits of General Komaroff's action, or whether it was intended to withdraw the Russian troops pending the arbitration?
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSI must repeat the question which the Prime Minister has omitted to answer—namely, 1523 whether the agreement will exclude the consideration by the arbitrating Power of any action taken in consequence of disagreement as to the interpretation of the agreement?
MR. GLADSTONEThe ground upon which I am invited to enter is entirely beyond me. It is not in the power of one of two States which have agreed to an arrangement to claim an exclusive right of interpretation. What I would suggest is that the House should wait until it has the agreement before it. I think it will be found to be sufficiently clear.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSWill the Sovereign of a friendly State have power to determine who has broken the agreement?
MR. GLADSTONEThe Sovereign of a friendly State will have the power of determining on any difference which may be found to exist as to the interpretation of the agreement between the two Governments.
MR. MACARTNEYasked whether it would be competent to submit to the arbitrator the advance of the Russian Army, and whether that was to be considered tantamount to putting on his trial the officer who commanded?
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL(who was received with cries of "Oh, oh!") said: I am not going to ask any embarrassing question; but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would answer this question, Whether "the Sovereign of a friendly State" included the President of a Republic—say France, Switzerland or America, or whether the arbitrator was confined to Sovereigns in the sense of Kings or Emperors?
§ [No reply.]