§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, when Despatch No. 285 (Turkey, No. 1, 1887), dated 6th September, 1886, from the Earl of Iddesleigh to Sir F. Lascelles, desiring the latter to urge upon Prince Alexander of Battenberg—
That he should remain and guide the country (Bulgaria) through the present crisis,left the Foreign Office, Her Majesty's Government were in possession of the fact that Prince Alexander had, on the 2nd of September, 1886, telegraphed to the Emperor of Eussia—Russia gave me my Crown, I am ready to return it into the hands of her Sovereign;and that, on the same day, the Emperor of Russia had replied, in a telegram to the Prince—Cannot approve your return to Bulgaria, foreseeing disastrous consequences to the country, already so severely tried;and, whether, in view of the fact that, on 2nd of September, 1886, the Earl of Iddesleigh wrote to Her Majesty's Representatives at Vienna and Berlin, desiring them to inform the Governments to which they were respectively accredited, that—It would be advisable that support should be given to His Highness in such a manner as will enable him to devote himself without anxiety to the task of governing the country over which he has been placed by Europe,he can give an assurance that no engagements with one or more European Governments, involving responsibility on the part of this country in regard to Bulgaria, will be taken by Her Majesty's Government, before this House has been informed of their nature, and has had an opportunity to express an opinion upon them?
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON) (Manchester, N.E.)No doubt, Her Majesty's Government were aware that 1239 some such messages had passed between the Emperor of Russia and Prince Alexander when the Secretary of State directed Her Majesty's Agent in Bulgaria—
To urge upon His Highness that he should remain and guide the country through the present crisis;and the Earl of Iddesleigh based this advice upon a representation that—The difficulties in which both Bulgaria and Europe would be involved through the abdication of Prince Alexander are of a serious nature.The House is aware that the Earl of Iddesleigh's anticipation has been realized. With reference to the pledge which the hon. Member asks—That no engagements with one or more European Governments, involving responsibility on the part of this country in regard to Bulgaria, will be taken by Her Majesty's Government before this House has been informed of their nature, and has had an opportunity to express an opinion upon them,no Administration in this country has ever undertaken such an obligation; and it would render the conduct of foreign affairs impossible were every important step to be made the subject of debate in Parliament in advance. The conduct of foreign affairs in this country is a matter of confidence in the Administration. But this House is left in no doubt as to the policy which guides Her Majesty's Government at the present time. It is to act in conformity with our public engagements; and the First Lord of the Treasury, on the first night of the present Session, defined this in the clearest terms, stating that our interference would be absolutely limited by the duties and interests of this country, and by our obligations under Treaties.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)said, he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, when the Government were using pressure on Prince Alexander to remain in Bulgaria as Prince of Bulgaria, they were acting in concert with any other Power, or absolutely alone?
§ [No reply.]
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsubsequently asked whether, in exerting pressure upon Prince Alexander with the object of inducing him to remain Ruler of Bulgaria, the Government were not taking isolated action in opposition to the other Powers?
§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSONI am sure the House will excuse my not answering Questions on matters of such importance when proper Notice has not been given.