§ MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether 562 the Judge Advocate General went to Cairo as the private agent of the ex-Khedive Ismail without communicating the fact and circumstances of his journey to Her Majesty's Government, or to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; or, if not, what communication did he make to Her Majesty's Government, and what answer did he receive from them or from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; and, whether Her Majesty's Government, after learning the circumstances, informed the Government of Egypt that the Judge Advocate General was nothing more than the private agent of the ex-Khedive, or otherwise took steps to prevent the Egyptian Government from being influenced in its consideration of these claims by the fact that they were being pressed by a member of the Government of a country whose troops were occupying Egypt?
§ THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)The hon. Gentleman has only asked me, as the House will be aware, as to one particular part of the transaction; but I prefer going back to the beginning of it. The Judge Advocate General, on taking office in 1885, stipulated that he should retain his private practice—a course which was followed by his successor, Mr. Mellor. Before he took office, among his clients were Ismail Pasha and other members of the Khedivial family. When, a year ago, there was a prospect of an arbitration taking place in regard to the affairs of these clients, he did mention the matter to the Marquess of Salisbury, who said that he saw no objection to his so acting, so long as it was clearly understood that he only appeared in his private capacity. With regard to the arrangements, the only persons the Judge Advocate General saw in the matter were Sir Evelyn Baring and Sir Edgar Vincent, and they both knew exactly his position in the matter. The arrangement, we are informed from Egypt, is one that has put a stop to a series of litigious suits, is advantageous to Egypt, and satisfactory to members of the Khedive's family.
§ MR. BRYCEasked whether the term private practice was understood to cover the case of going out as a private agent to prosecute a claim against a foreign Government.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHI think I have stated fully and accurately all that transpired. He was at liberty to retain his private practice, and he did so, and included in that practice was the busi-of his client, Ismail Pasha.
§ MR. BRYCEAm I to understand that no communication was made to the Judge Advocate General before he went to Cairo in November or December last?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHI think I have said so; but I thought it better to make a full statement, in order that the House should understand the circumstances.