HC Deb 21 May 1885 vol 298 cc1031-2
MR. ONSLOW

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, with reference to the communication in Earl Granville's De-patch to Sir Peter Lumsden, of 3rd March 1885, in these words— Her Majesty's Goverment attach great importance to your remaining in Afghanistan, where your presence may be the means of stopping further advances of the Russian troops, and preventing the outbreak of hostilities; again, in telegraphic Despatch from Earl Granville to Sir Peter Lumsden, of 13th March— We are anxious to give you full support in very difficult circumstances, Whether these communications were sent to Sir Peter Lumsden in consequence of a wish or suggestion on his part that, after what had taken place, he desired to be relieved of the duties imposed upon him?

MR. GLADSTONE

I have referred to the telegrams alluded to in the Question, and they raise a question which cannot be answered, except by the production of the telegrams in full; and on account of the references they contain to the transaction on the frontier, they could not be produced without disadvantage.

MR. ONSLOW

asked whether they would appear in any future Blue Book on the Afghan Question?

MR. GLADSTONE

They contain free comments on things that were going on at the time, and there would be no public advantage in producing them.

MR. ONSLOW

I shall take the earliest opportunity of moving for the production of the Papers.

MR. BIGGAR (for Mr. E. POWER)

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If, having regard to the fact of the distinctions which it appears have been conferred upon General Komaroff, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to confer any marks of honour or distinction upon Sir Peter Lumsden?

MR. GLADSTONE

This is one of those Questions with a preamble which entails the necessity of explanation, and it is put in view of distinctions which appear to have been conferred upon General Komaroff. In my opinion, those distinctions are not in pari materiâ with any distinctions that may be conferred on Sir Peter Lumsden. General Komaroff, it appears, has received a conspicuous mark of honour from his Sovereign in consequence of what his Sovereign deems to have been distinguished military service which he performed on a certain occasion. But Sir Peter Lumsden is a Civil servant of the Crown. He has been engaged under circumstances of difficulty, and certainly, in a physical sense, under circumstances far from agreeable, in a long course of watchful proceedings on the Afghan Frontier; and therefore, in giving an answer to the hon. Member, I do not give it in view of the case of General Komaroff. When a series of transactions of this kind reaches its close, then is the time when it is the custom of Her Majesty, in the exercise of Her prerogative of grace and favour, to consider, on the advice of her Ministers, what marks of honour should be given in each particular case to those who have performed these burdensome and important services; and I do not hesitate to declare that it must be reserved for the Executive Government to advise Her Majesty on this occasion, and that their discretion cannot be altered by any Question which may be put in this House.