§ SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE (Kensington, N.)asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true, as stated in the telegram of The Times of yesterday's date, that the Government of India has published a Memorandum stating that the Home authorities were alone responsible for the Mission of Mr. Colman Macaulay to Pekin; and, whether all the Correspondence relating to Mr. Macaulay's proposed Mission to Thibet, which was stopped at Darjeeling, will be laid upon the Table of the House?
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST) (Chatham)The Secretary of State has no knowledge of any such Memorandum as that described in the Question of the hon. Member. The second Question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON) (Manchester, N.E.)Article IV. of the Convention 764 with China of July 24, 1886 (Parliamentary Paper No. 5, 1886), gives the reason why Mr. Colman Macaulay's Mission was countermanded. It would not be convenient that the Correspondence should be published.