§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to recall Sir Peter Lumsden to London during the proposed arbitration and the discussion of the Afghan frontier; and, whether, if so, he will be commissioned later to complete the work of delimitation?
MR. GLADSTONEIn consequence of the decision that communications in reference to the main points of the Afghan Frontier should be carried on in London, there is a change in what will be required in the qualifications and 1648 character of the officer whose services will be required on the spot. Communications with Sir Peter Lumsden have taken place; and, I believe, in conformity with his own views, he has been informed that it is desirable that both he and Colonel Stewart should come home to London forthwith.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHIn the course of the statements made yesterday, in this House and in the other, with respect to the negotiations with Russia, the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs stated that it was the intention of the Government to lay certain Papers on this subject without delay on the Table of the House.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHI think those words were used; at all events, they appear in the newspapers this morning.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHI understood the statement, whatever it was, not to refer to the whole of the Correspondence—of course that would be very voluminous—but to Papers connected with the immediate subject of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. It would be extremely convenient if the House were put in possession of these particular Papers before resuming the debate, and I would ask whether they can be in our hands before Thursday; and, if not, whether the debate might not be postponed for a few days to enable the House to obtain them?
MR. GLADSTONEUnless my memory grossly deceive me, I never made an engagement to lay the Papers on the Table without delay. I think I may have said that there would be no unnecessary delay, and, further, that I was in hopes that no very long time would elapse before they were in the hands of Members. I had no idea of separating one part of the Papers from the other, nor, so far as I could see, would it be possible to give an adequate impression of this important matter without producing the whole Papers. We certainly are not able, depending as we are upon communications and transactions with foreign Governments, to give the House adequate information upon the subject 1649 until we have arrived substantially at a certain stage of the proceedings. We are not in a position to promise the Papers by any particular date. It would be deceiving the House were I to pretend that we could do so. With respect to the debate on Thursday, and its postponement, now that the Vote of Credit has been reported there is no matter of public importance that would issue on that; and we are quite willing to be governed by the convenience of the House at large and pay attention to what may be desired by hon. Gentlemen opposite as to the date of resuming the debate.
§ MR. ONSLOWMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman if we are to understand that Sir Peter Lumsden himself desired to be recalled, or that the initiative step recalling him was taken by Her Majesty's Government? May I also ask, if Sir Peter Lumsden and the gallant Officer next to him are to be recalled, whether the troops with them are also to go back to India, and by what route?
MR. GLADSTONEI need not tell the hon. Gentleman that these proceedings are not matters immediately under my notice, and that I have no record in my own possession of the order of details. I believe what I said was in strict conformity with the facts; but as to the order of priority of the arrival of Sir Peter Lumsden's communication and the decision here, while my impression certainly is that the communication was received from Sir Peter Lumsden to the effect I have described before the decision here, yet I will not bind myself on that subject, as I had no Notice that this Question was to be put. If the hon. Member will put the Question on the Paper I will be glad to give an answer.
§ MR. ONSLOWWith regard to the troops who are with the Mission as well?
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEYesterday the right hon. Gentleman gave us to understand that there was an Agreement under process of arrangement between this country and Russia, and part of it was the transfer of the discussion of the Frontier from Afghanistan to London. That was a portion of the Agreement which we understood from the right hon. Gentleman was in 1650 process of negotiation, but which has not yet been completely settled. I wish to know whether this part of the Agreement—the settlement of the delimitation of the Frontier—is now considered to be settled, or whether it awaits the final settlement which will take place on the whole Agreement; and, if so, whether Sir Peter Lumsden is to be recalled before the whole of the matter is completed?
MR. GLADSTONEI never intended to convey that the arrangement to carry on the communication in London was a formal document. It is part of the communication between the two Governments, and it is agreeable to the views of the two Governments. Of course, if it be desired, we can ascertain the dates of any formal proceeding in relation to that matter; but it is not included in any document, and consequently I do not think the Question of the right hon. Gentleman requires any specific answer.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI should like to ask, in the first place, with regard to the Papers, whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the last official document produced to this House is dated in July last, a telegram from Sir Edward Thornton announcing the occupation of Merv; whether, with regard to Papers which relate to events that are past and over, such as Papers relating to the original despatch of the Mission and the Papers relating to the demand addressed by the English Government to the Russian Government in November last, that the Russian troops should retire — whether those Papers cannot be without loss of time laid before Parliament? In the second place, I should like to be allowed to ask whether, if Sir Peter Lumsden and his Staff and escort are to be recalled, the Government will have any sources of knowledge whatever as to the movements of Russian troops on the Afghan Frontier; and, thirdly, whether it is not the case that in the delimitation of the Afghan Frontier the Ameer was directly represented on the Staff of Sir Peter Lumsden, and whether the Ameer will be directly represented if the delimitation is settled in London?
MR. GLADSTONEWith regard to the third Question, I am afraid I cannot answer it with the requisite accuracy unless I have an opportunity of making 1651 inquiries; but there is no doubt we did think, at the early stage of the proceedings, that it was material that those connected with Afghanistan should have an opportunity on the spot of urging what they thought fit in regard to the Frontier; but the state of affairs has greatly changed in that respect, and since the interviews between the Ameer and Lord Dufferin the matter has assumed a different aspect. With regard to the noble Lord's second Question as to the withdrawal from the country of those persons connected with the Frontier Commission, the order sent has been strietly, I think, in the terms in which I stated it—namely, that it was desirable that Sir Peter Lumsden himself and Colonel Stewart should come home at once. I did not say that that order requires the withdrawal of all persons connected with it. With respect to the Papers, it is not for me to say, but for my noble Friend, whether it is possible to mate any division of those Papers; but I must confidently state this opinion, that it is not possible to give to the House Papers out of which it could form an effective judgment unless these were brought down not only to the point at which we now stand, but to a further point which, I believe, will be rapidly reached, and which I trust and hope will enable us to place Papers on the Table within a short period, and give the House the opportunity of taking its own course.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSIt was stated the other day that Mr. Stephen was on his way to England, and I understand that Sir Peter Lumsden and Colonel Stewart are also recalled. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the negotiations that are to be carried on in London for the delimitation of the Afghan Frontier will be postponed until these gentlemen have arrived in England, and are able to take part in advising Her Majesty's Government on this important subject?
MR. GLADSTONEI am not prepared to say that we are not sufficiently in possession at the present time of the advice of Sir Peter Lumsden, which is of the greatest importance in consequence of his accurate knowledge of that country. We are in possession of that advice as far as regards the work that has to be done in London. When I formerly spoke in the House, I stated 1652 that it was estimated that Mr. Stephen would require three weeks to reach London; but I find from recent information that the time will be shorter, and our anticipation is that he may reach London on Monday next.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSPerhaps the right hon. Gentleman will excuse me asking a further Question. Having understood from him that Mr. Stephen was in possession of very important information and a useful map, I should wish to ask whether those negotiations will be postponed until Mr. Stephen arrives with that information and that very useful map?
MR. GLADSTONEThe communications that we have about Mr. Stephen are very brief indeed. They are telegraphic communications, in one word. My own impression certainly is that Mr. Stephen is the bearer of important information; but that that information relates especially to all the facts and minute details connected with the engagement at Ak Tepe. I have no reason to suppose that it has been part of Sir Peter Lumsden's object to send to us any particular information as to the points of the Frontier.
§ MR. CHAPLINI wish to ask the Prime Minister whether General Komaroff is to be recalled as well as Sir Peter Lumsden from the Afghan Frontier; and, if Sir Peter Lumsden is recalled, by whom is the delimitation to be traced out on the Frontier, which, I think I am right in saying, the right hon. Gentleman informed us last night was an essential part of all these transactions?
MR. GLADSTONEThere is no relation whatever between the case of Sir Peter Lumsden and that of General Komaroff. General Komaroff is the Commander of the Russian Forces. Sir Peter Lumsden has been engaged in the discharge of a civil office, for which he had the qualifications of great knowledge and experience. It would be an entire mistake to say that Sir Peter Lumsden has been recalled, because the sense conveyed by that word would not be borne out by the facts. The desire that your Representative should repair to the Metropolis in given circumstances need not in any way bear the sense of what is commonly understood by a recall. As to the latter part of the Question, care will be taken to appoint fit persons to 1653 delimit the Frontier. There will be no difficulty whatever in appointing fit persons. Of course, Sir Peter Lumsden has had other agents under him who are quite capable of discharging that important but, as I hope, not very difficult duty.
§ MR. ONSLOWI should like to ask whether, considering that all the arrangements for Sir Peter Lumsden's Mission were made in this country, the Government will seriously consider the propriety of repaying to India the very heavy cost of this Expedition?
MR. GLADSTONEThat is hardly in the nature of a Question, and as to the preamble I am not prepared to answer it. The hon. Gentleman founds himself upon a statement that the body of certain arrangements have all been made in this country. I am not at all prepared to admit that that is the case, and I cannot consent to raise a subject of this kind in answer to a Question.