§ Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
§ Major Earl WINTERTONI wish to raise the case of Sir Henry MacMahon, formerly High Commissioner in Egypt. I should like to make a few observations of a personal character. I may say that Sir Henry MacMahon is quite unknown to me personally, and I have never seen him or exchanged any words with him. I am raising this question because, having had a longer residence in the Middle East than other hon. Members, I have come into possession of certain facts which have convinced me that this gentleman who filled one of the most important administrative positions under the Crown from 1914 to 1916 has been treated with very scant consideration, and I consider that it is in the public interest that there should be a statement of the facts made ill the House of Commons. The facts are these: In the autumn of 1914–15, as a result of the late Lord Kitchener having been made Secretary for War, a vacancy arose in the representation of His Majesty in Egypt. Up to that time the representative of His Majesty in Egypt had been a Consul-General, and simultaneously with Lord Kitchener's acceptance of the Secretary ship of War it was decided to create a British Protectorate and appoint a High Commissioner there and Sir Henry MacMahon was selected for the post. Sir Henry had a most distinguished record of service under the Government of India, and at the time he was selected he was Foreign Secretary to the Viceroy. At the time he took up office it was made clear that the appointment was not to be a temporary one.
10.0 P.M.
I should like to refer for a moment to what happened immediately after Sir Henry accepted office as High Commis- 355 sioner in Egypt. I suppose there never has been a period in the rather turbulent history of Egypt during the last 100 years in which there was more risk of serious disturbance than there was from the autumn of 1914 to the late winter of 1916. The Turks made an actual attack on the canal defences, which is not generally known, and they almost succeeded in crossing the canal. It is well known that both the civil and military authorities in that country were very much exercised in their minds by the grave evidence there was that there were in the country agitators and sympathisers with the Turks, many of them of Turkish birth, who were ready to rise. It is a fact which has never been made public, though it is perfectly well known that there was a large seizure of rifles, and I believe of machine-guns in Cairo itself. During all that critical time, with a new form of government, because the British Protectorate did constitute a new form of government, with a Sultan for the first time, the Khedive very properly having been deposed, with great doubt existing in the mind of the population as to what was going to be the result of the War, with a good deal of hidden sympathy with Turkey, the man who was called upon to govern Egypt, because that in effect was what Sir Henry MacMahon was called upon to do, had a task scarcely less onerous than that of the Viceroy of India. The Gallipoli campaign was taking place, and, of course, in the East rumours not only spread quickly, but men's minds are easily influenced by other events. The effect of the Gallipoli campaign upon public feeling in Egypt was very considerable, and there were times of grave anxiety for anyone who was responsible for the government of Egypt. It is equally true that during the short two years that Sir Henry MacMahon was High Commissioner, in spite of all these difficulties that he and the Government had to deal with, Egypt was never more prosperous. All these difficulties were overcome, and the serious danger that there was at one time that we might have to send a number of additional troops there when troops could hardly be spared anywhere was avoided, and I say, without very strong evidence to the contrary, and such evidence has not yet been forthcoming, a very considerable measure of credit must be given to Sir Henry 356 MacMahon for his conduct of affairs. I make myself responsible for the statement that during these two years no official exception was taken to Sir Henry's conduct of affairs in any dispatch or communication sent to him by the Foreign Office.
What happened in the autumn of 1916? Without any previous warning of any kind, Sir Henry was recalled by telegram from Egypt. He was informed for the first time that the appointment which he held was a temporary one. I said that he had been treated with scant courtesy, because notification of his successor appeared in the "Gazette" before he had time to communicate with the Foreign Office by dispatch in the ordinary way. The telegram cordially thanked Sir Henry for all that he had done, but stated that His Majesty desired a man who was better acquainted with Egyptian affairs to settle matters in that country after the War. At the same time Sir Henry was promised an honour. Sir Henry, of course, was succeeded by Sir Reginald Wingate, and, as a very old friend of Sir Reginald Wingate, I should be the last person to suggest that he was not a very admirable man for the post. Probably the best man that could have been found. If it was necessary to have a man who was acquainted with Egyptian affairs, why was not Sir Reginald Wingate appointed immediately after Lord Kitchener was recalled? Why was Sir Henry MacMahon dragged—it is the only word that I can use—from his very distinguished career in India and put into a position which he certainly did not seek, but which the Government of that time said it was necessary that he should fill in the interests of the security of that country? I would emphasise again what I have already said, that his career in India was a distinguished one. I have had an opportunity of meeting several people, including a General Officer who had official dealings with Sir Henry, and they all tell me he was looked upon in that country as a very rising man, and one who was destined to hold high office for many years to come. I should like further to say, as regards his recall, that it created something approaching a sensation in Egypt at the time. Everybody said there must be some reason for such a hasty recall, and the most ridiculous rumours were abroad in the country, among both Europeans and Egyptians, as to the reasons for the recall. No doubt Sir Henry's reputation suffered great damage from the very hasty and inconsiderate nature of the recall.
357 Now comes what I think is almost the worst part of the whole case. Sir Henry returned to England; he was well under the official age limit for the Indian Public Service, but since he came back, although there has never been in any document any censure of his conduct as High Commissioner in Egypt—since his return to England ha has never been given, by the Foreign or India Office, employment of any sort. He was for two years in Egypt, and during the time he was High Commissioner, acting, as representative of His Majesty, he was naturally put to great personal expense, much greater than he would have been put to had he remained at his post in India, for in the circumstances of the time he had of necessity to keep up considerable state in Egypt. Had he remained in the office for nearly another year, he would have been entitled to the ordinary diplomatic pension which every man who fills a similar position receives. The point was, I believe, raised, and it was said that as he had not been there for the three years, he could not be granted this pension. He therefore gets no pension in respect of his services in Egypt, although he receives one for his great services in India; but that is no compensation for having had his Indian career violently disturbed by being sent to Egypt, not at his own wish, but practically by the orders of the Government. I do not want to detain the House longer. I will only make one further observation upon the case. I would like to say to my hon. Friend who represents the Foreign Office that many people in Egypt—and although the affairs of Egypt may not interest this House, they are likely to play an important part in the British Empire—many people are curious to know who is the adviser of the Foreign Office on Egyptian matters, because some very remarkable acts of policy have been done during the last three years. I said Sir Henry had received less than justice in the treatment he has got from the Foreign Office, and it is difficult to understand the apparently harsh terms meted out to him, as compared with the very kind treatment accorded to other distinguished men in Egypt, including Sir A. Murray. It would seem as if there is a lot of blinking and nodding at Whitehall. I submit that the advice which has been tendered as regards the Government of Egypt has been bad advice, and I submit, further, that the only just course for the Government to pursue is that the whole case as regards Sir Henry should be re- 358 considered by the Foreign Secretary, and that all the facts should be taken into consideration, especially the fact that since Sir Henry's occupancy of the post of High Commissioner a new form of Government has been built upon a basis which, in my opinion, is the greatest credit not only to the late Lord Kitchener, but to Sir Henry MacMahon as well.
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth)I have no complaint to make of my Noble Friend for raising this question in the House. It is quite obviously the privilege of this House, and its duty, to criticise the Departments of State if the House thinks that the Departments have not been discharging their functions satisfactorily. But it will be recognised that a question of this kind is one of very peculiar difficulty. The Minister who has to reply must be very careful that he does not do less than justice to his Department, and even more careful that he should not do anything like injustice to the distinguished public servant who is the subject of the discussion. The House will therefore bear with me, I am sure, and excuse me if I speak with circumspection and if I confine my remarks within very narrow limits. I do not complain of the tone of my Noble Friend, nor, in the main, of his description of the historical aspects of this case. It is within the knowledge of every Member of this House, I believe, that Sir Henry MacMahon had a very distinguished career in India. As my Noble Friend says, he reached the high position of Foreign Secretary to the Government of India. He was then summoned to the important and difficult position of the first High Commissioner of Egypt. He was recalled from that position by my Noble Friend Lord Grey of Falloden. My Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) spoke of Sir Henry being superseded in circumstances which displayed very scant courtesy and very little consideration. I appeal to those Members of this House who had the privilege of being Members of the House when Lord Grey was Foreign Secretary—indeed, I can appeal to every Member who knows the late Secretary of State by reputation to bear me out in saying that lack of courtesy is the last quality anyone could think of ascribing to that very distinguished statesman. One error in statement I think my Noble Friend made, no doubt quite unintentionally. He said it was made clear to Sir Henry by Lord 359 Grey that the appointment was not a temporary one. My Noble Friend is misinformed in reference to that; at least, I have seen no documents which could bear that description. In point of fact, the appointment was regarded as temporary.
§ Earl WINTERTONDoes my hon. Friend say that in any document received by Sir Henry at the time there was any statement that the appointment was a temporary one? I base what I say on the verbal instructions received by Sir Henry.
§ Mr. HARMSWORTHI want to be very exact. Sir Henry himself was obviously aware that, in a limited sense, at all events, the appointment must be regarded as temporary, because I think he was aware—at least, I know he was aware—that that appointment was regarded as one to which the late Lord Kitchener might return, if he wished to do so, after his term of office at the War Office. It is true, I think, to say that Sir Henry did not regard the appointment as temporary in any other respect, but it was regarded by the Secretary of State as temporary, and I think he so informed Sir Henry in the telegram in which he was recalled. Sir Henry was aware that in regard to one person his appointment must be regarded as temporary.
On the question of courtesy it has been my duty to read the telegram in which Sir Henry was recalled. Lord Grey explained that in the very difficult circumstances of Egypt, circumstances which were difficult not only during Sir Henry's term of office but afterwards, in his judgment it was necessary to have someone in that position who had special experience and knowledge of the country and of the people and the complicated problems connected with them, and he pointed out that the then Sirdar's knowledge of Egypt was of such a kind as to make him peculiarly qualified to fill the position of High Commissioner. It is no disparagement in the slightest degree to Sir Henry MacMahon's record that his experience has not lain in Egypt and that he had not, and I sure never claimed, that special knowledge of Egypt which in Lord Grey's opinion was essential to anyone who was to occupy for the full term the position of High Commissioner. If I treat this matter with brevity the House will realise, I am sure, that it is not in any discourtesy to my Noble Friend or out of any disregard for 360 the real importance of this matter. Sir Henry was rewarded for his undoubted services in Egypt. My Noble Friend has referred to the offer of an honour. Sir Henry MacMahon was created, in virtue of his services to Egypt, a grand cross of the Order of St. Michael and St. George. I do-not think it can be said that his services were altogether without recognition. I have nothing more to say. There is, in point of fact, nothing else to be said. I am very diffident of pursuing the topic, lest by a clumsy expression or a maladroit word I should do less than justice to either side in a very difficult and delicate matter. Sir Henry MacMahon's record stands for itself, and is one for which I have the very highest respect.
§ Lieutenant-Colonel Sir S. HOAREI came down with a perfectly open mind to listen to the statement of the case, and I am not satisfied with the answer which has been made By the Under-Secretary. The Noble Lord made three charges with reference to Sir Henry MacMahon's dismissal; it seems to me that none of those charges has been met. In the first place, my Noble Friend said that Sir Henry MacMahon was under the impression that the appointment was not a temporary one. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs says that he should have known it was a temporary appointment, because he was informed that it was a temporary appointment when he was actually recalled. Well, that seems to me rather late in the day. Moreover, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs says it was always well understood that if Lord Kitchener desired to return to Egypt the post would be held open to him. Well, supposing that Lord Kitchener had so desired, it would have been a very different state of affairs to that which actually took place under which Sir Henry MacMahon was recalled after two years. Whereas, supposing Lord Kitchener's life had not been prematurely cut short, it is legitimate to suppose that he would have remained Secretary of State for War for two years longer, and that at any rate Sir Henry MacMahon would have been two years longer left in Egypt and would have go this pension. My Noble Friend also stated that lack of courtesy was shown to Sir Henry MacMahon. It does not seem to me that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has really met that charge. 361 He stated that no one in this House would dream that Lord Grey would ever have been guilty of discourtesy. Nobody could dream of such a thing; it was not the charge of the Noble Lord at all. The charge of the Noble Lord was that Sir Henry MacMahon was informed of his recall by telegram, and was given no opportunity to make any observation upon his recall until he actually saw the name of his successor stated in the paper. That does seem to me to show a grave lack of courtesy in dealing with a very distinguished public servant.
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said it was necessary to send a High Commissioner to Egypt with special knowledge of Egypt. Surely, it was just as necessary at the critical moment when Sir Henry MacMahon went to Egypt, probably the most critical moment in the history of our relations with Egypt, as it was two years afterwards, when a great many of the difficulties and dangers were already passed. I personally am not satisfied that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, has answered these three charges, and I would urge him to reconsider the request of the Noble Lord, and again to consider the case. He says that Sir Henry MacMahon has been given the Grand Cross of the Order of St. Michael and St. George. That seems to me to be no recompense whatever for a public servant, who has given most distinguished service to the State in India and in Egypt during a most critical time. I do not know what is the financial position of Sir Henry MacMahon in reference to his pension, but I feel most strongly that those two years during which he served in Egypt at a most critical time should not be forgotten, and that he should suffer in no way financially from having his Indian career cut short several years below the time during which he might have served the State in India. I have no special knowledge of this case at all. The knowledge I have has been obtained in Debate this evening, but, in view of what has been said by my Noble Friend and by the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, I do think that many Members of this House would like to see this case reconsidered, as they feel that a very distinguished public servant has been treated with a lack of that fairness and that justice to which his past career entitled him.
§ Sir H. CRAIKIn the course of a long Parliamentary experience I have never heard a more weak and unsatisfactory answer to a question put to the Government than that of the hon. Gentleman. There is more than a mere personal question involved in this. What has been the nature of the advice given in regard to Egyptian affairs? It is surprising that a man with full knowledge of Egyptian affairs was not earlier placed in this post. What was the influence that prevented the selection at an earlier date of Sir Reginald Wingate? Why was it that on the early occasion the full necessity of a thorough acquaintance with Egyptian affairs, such as is possessed by Sir Reginald Wingate, was not fully appreciated, and that this only came at a later date?
Then with regard to the temporary nature of the appointment—if it was only temporary, why was not Sir Henry MacMahon allowed to keep his position in India and return to it when his work in Egypt was finished? If a public servant is lent to another service as a temporary matter his original employment ought to be kept open for him. This is not the way in which His Majesty's Government ought to treat old and trusted Civil servants. Whatever may have been the words used and the courtesy shown in framing a particular telegram is a matter which has nothing to do with the question. The question here is the position of a distinguished English Civil servant. If he was asked to occupy a temporary appointment in Egypt, then at the end of that temporary employment he ought to have had an opportunity of returning to his position in India. Are you to end a man's career when he is in possession of all his faculties and exercising very important functions? Are you to ask him, for your convenience, to take certain employment, and after two years to put him on the shelf and leave him unemployed? That is a matter which goes very much deeper than the mere question of trying to explain a particular date or the words that were understood to show the temporary nature of the employment. If the employment was temporary, then Sir Henry MacMahon ought to have an opportunity of taking up his own work and carrying on his career, and ought not, without due reason, to be laid aside prematurely, while the public loses a valuable servant.
§ Mr. MacVEAGHIt is pretty obvious that this case is not one which can possibly be left where it stands at present. I knew nothing at all about the case until I heard the Noble Lord opposite open the question, but there are two points on which I would like to have some light. The first is, What is Sir Henry MacMahon's present financial position; what are his pension rights and how have they been affected? The second question is, What use is being made of his remarkable public capacity which we have heard described to-night? This country has passed through a very grave crisis in the past few years, and positions were found for a great many gentlemen, some good and some bad, and a very large proportion indifferent. They were placed in positions of great responsibility and power; and when I heard my right hon. Friend describe the very distinguished public career of Sir Henry MacMahon I could not help asking, Has no use been made of his services, and, if not, why not? It is a case that, altogether, seems to me invested with some mystery, and leaves a rather unpleasant taste in the mouth. There is something at the back of it which the House has not been told. I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to note what, I think, is the general sense of the House to-night, that this case is one which deserves further investigation, and that the House should be told what recognition has been made, or is going to be made, of the distinguished public career of Sir Henry MacMahon, and, in the second place, what is his position to-day with regard to pension.
§ Mr. HARMSWORTHI can only speak again by permission of the House. Two hon. Members have suggested that there was some mystery about this case. I do not know what kind of mystery they are thinking of, but I can assure them that there is nothing whatever mysterious about the case. I have had every opportunity of going into the subject, and have made myself master of all the details. There is nothing whatever mysterious about the matter, and my hon. Friends can dismiss that point from their minds. One of my hon. Friends said that Sir Henry MacMahon only saw the name of his successor announced in the Press, and before he heard of his own supersession.
§ Sir S. HOAREWhat I did say was that he had no opportunity of making any ob- 364 servations on the telegram recalling him before he saw the name of his successor in the Press.
§ Mr. HARMSWORTHI beg the hon. Member's pardon. As a matter of fact, the name of his successor was indicated in the telegram which recalled him. I do not think that I made myself clear on the point of this being a temporary position, but the facts are as I state, that Sir Henry MacMahon knew that the appointment was temporary. In so far as Lord Kitchener might after his term of office at the War Office be disposed to go back, and as everybody knows Lord Kitchener had a very remarkable liking for Egypt. There is no doubt whatever that in the mind of the Secretary of State the appointment was always regarded as a temporary one. Whether that fact was indicated to Sir Henry I do not know, but in Lord Grey's time it was always regarded as a temporary appointment. One hon. Member asked why it was that Sir Henry's position in India was not kept open for him. I find the affairs of one Department quite enough for me at present, and I would suggest if hon. Members wish to pursue that matter the question should be asked of the India Office. I have no information on that subject myself. My hon. Friend opposite (Mr. MacVeagh) asked what was Sir Henry's financial position, meaning of course his financial position as a pensioner under the State. Sir Henry is in receipt of his full pension from the Government of India. I have no other particulars on that head. It has been suggested that I should reconsider the whole of this question. May I say this, that I will at least—and I can say no more—submit this discussion to the particular notice of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in Paris and to my Noble Friend the Acting Secretary of State. The House will not expect me I am sure to take any further steps in this matter.
§ Major HILLSI quite agree that the House is not satisfied with the explanation which has been offered, and I most earnestly press my hon. Friend to inquire further into the reason for the recall of Sir Henry and into the treatment that he has received in respect of his pension. All I ask for is an inquiry. It is a case of a very distinguished public servant who has had his career broken for no ostensible reason at all, and there he is on the shelf, and we ought to know the reason why. I 365 press the Government most strongly, and I am sure they will gain and not lose if they give way on this point to what I believe is the unanimous wish of all the Members present here to-night.
§ Mr. DEVLINI gather that this public servant has been treated not only unfairly but with some discourtesy, and I take advantage of this discussion to make a protest against the method by which public servants who are no longer needed are treated by the present Administration. I read the other day in an Irish newspaper where the Minister for Agriculture declared that the first he knew of his dismissal from the position which he occupied was when his successor walked into the office, and I understand that the late Lord 366 Lieutenant of Ireland never knew he was dismissed at all. I do not know whether this is the code of courtesy which has been adopted by the present Coalition Ministry, but I think that, whether there is genuine complaint or not against a public servant, especially if he has been dismissed as a matter of policy, the least that might be done is that he shall be treated with a courtesy which even a crossing-sweeper would be entitled to. Nothing that I say can have much effect on the Government, but I trust my intervention will teach them official manners.
§ Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-one minutes before Eleven o'clock.