QUESTION. MOTION FOR PAPERS. (Hansard, 26 June 1882)

§ LORD LAMINGTON
rose to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to a letter which appears in the "Times" of Friday the 23rd instant, from Mr. Wilfred Blunt, addressed to Mr. Gladstone, in which the following passage occurs:— You are aware, Sir, that I was engaged during the past winter as mediator in a variety of unofficial but important negotiations carried on between Sir Edward Malet and Sir Auckland Colvin on the one side, and the Chiefs of the National Egyptian Party on the other, negotiations in which I engaged my personal honour for the loyalty of Her Majesty's agents; also that I have been in close communication with those Chiefs since my return to England; and to move for any public correspondence which has passed between Sir Edward Malet and Sir Auckland Colvin and Mr. Wilfred Blunt. The noble Lord said, this letter involved the character of certain important officials in Her Majesty's Government. Their Lordships were aware that, during the last two months, two gentlemen had been very actively occupied as amateur diplomatists in Egypt; and, in his opinion, a great deal of the unfortunate condition of affairs in the East was due to the action of these two gentlemen. This was apparent from an account which he would read from The Standard of last Saturday, of an interview the correspondent of that paper had had with Arabi Pasha. He said— To-day I had an interview with Arabi Pasha. He was surrounded by about a score of officers. …. His bearing was quite haughty. ….. He displays no desire to communicate his views to England. 'My friends, Blunt and Gregory,' he is fond of saying, 'have told all that there is to tell that is true. What is the use of asking me to recapitulate their observations?' At the same time, he so far unbent himself as to converse a little with me. He said, 'I attribute all the evils of the present crisis to Malet, Colvin, and several of the correspondents of the English newspapers. They have all with one accord made it a point to mislead the English public by persistent misrepresentations. England had the whole truth from Blunt and Gregory, but she preferred to believe not these honest men, but the lies, official and unofficial, to which she lent a too-ready ear. Let her, then, take the consequences of her folly. I hold her responsible.' Without saying anything as to the insolence of Arabi Pasha, the passages he had quoted showed the influence which those 373 two gentlemen—Mr. Blunt and Sir William Gregory—had exercised in Egypt, an influence which he (Lord Lamington) could not but say was mischievous. Sir William Gregory, who was well known in this country, had passed the winter at Cairo, whence he sent long letters to The Times upon the Egyptian Question. He (Lord Lamington) was much surprised at the publication of those letters by such a great organ of public opinion, and he did not hesitate to say that those letters were copied and sent back to Egypt as the expression of public opinion in England upon the subject, and that a great deal of harm had been done by this attempt on the part of Sir William Gregory and Mr. Blunt to create an ideal for the National Party in Egypt. With regard to Mr. Blunt, he must ask the Government for an explanation. Had he held any position under the Government? In the letter to which he had referred, Mr. Blunt stated that he had been engaged as mediator in a variety of unofficial but important negotiations, carried on between Sir Edward Malet and Sir Auckland Colvin on the one side, and the Chiefs of the National Egyptian Party on the other; negotiations in which he engaged his personal honour for the loyalty of Her Majesty's agents; also that he had warned Her Majesty's Government of the danger they were running from a false appreciation of facts, and that he had repeatedly urged the necessity of their coming to a speedy understanding with those in whose hands the guidance of the movement lay; that he had counselled them to the best of his ability during the recent crisis, and spared no pains to urge them to come to that settlement of their differences with the Khedive to which they had then happily arrived; and that in this he took upon himself a great responsibility. As in the case of Arabi, he would say nothing of the insolence of the general tone of Mr. Blunt's letter; but it was most desirable that the public ought to have some statement from Her Majesty's Government as to what Mr. Blunt's position really was; whether he was authorized to act as a negotiator and mediator between Sir Edward Malet and the Chiefs of the National Party. Having regard to this letter, it was, in his opinion, most desirable to know from Her Majesty's Government what was Mr. Blunt's precise 374 position; and he, therefore, begged to move for the Correspondence on the subject.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
My Lords, your Lordships are aware that Mr. Blunt is a man of ability. He was formerly in the Diplomatic Service; he is a personal friend of Sir Edward Malet, and he is also, from long residence in Egypt, acquainted with many Egyptians. It appears that he has had certain personal and unofficial communications with Sir Edward Malet on Egyptian matters; and, on one occasion, in December of last year, he was requested by Sir Edward Malet and Sir Auckland Colvin to obtain a promise from the War Minister that no disturbance should arise at the moment when the Controllers refused to allow an increase in the Army. I am sorry to say that Mr. Blunt's views were such as Sir Edward Malet—and I must say that I entirely agree with Sir Edward Malet—disapproved of. The noble Lord asks for the private communications which Mr. Blunt has had with the Government. They are simply these—When Mr. Blunt arrived in London I was very glad to see him, and to hear what he had to state, whether I agreed or did not agree with him, on a matter on which he was well informed. He spoke to me very eloquently upon his views. Those views did not produce any impression on me; for though I could agree with him that it was not the part of this country to prevent a prudent development of Egyptian institutions, I entirely differed with him as to the part Arabi Pasha had played in this matter. Since then I have not been in communication with Mr. Blunt on Egyptian affairs. It is hardly necessary for me to state to the House that the Foreign Office have not endeavoured to support Dervish Pasha in any illegitimate mode of getting rid of Arabi Pasha.

§ EARL DE LA WARR
asked, if the noble Earl would produce a despatch of the 24th of December last or thereabouts relative to this subject?

§ EARL GRANVILLE
, in reply, said, he would inquire whether there was a despatch of that date; and, if so, whe- 375 therthere was any objection to produce it. He had forgotten to state, with reference to the question raised by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Lamington), that there were no Papers, and, therefore, he supposed the Motion would be withdrawn.