LORD WENTWORTH,in rising, according to Notice, to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he is able to confirm or correct Mr. Campbell Bannerman's explanation of the objects of the Palmer Expedition, and especially as to the fact alleged of that gentleman having received on or about the 6th of August a sum of £20,000 in gold at Suez? and to move for Papers, said, he was about to quote what had been said by Mr. Campbell-Bannerman in the other House—
§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, he rose to a point of Order. It was perfectly out of Order for the noble Lord to refer to proceedings taken in the other House of Parliament, or to comment upon statements made there.
§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, he must repeat that it was quite irregular to refer to the proceedings of the other House and comment upon them. That had always been the rule in his experience.
§ THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he hoped that their Lordships would not, on any technical ground, prevent the noble Lord from addressing the Question to him, of which he had given Notice. He would be glad to answer any statement made on this subject.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that his impression was that where the matter referred to the statement of a Minister it stood upon a very different footing from the debates of the other House generally, and that a Member of that House was entitled to ask a Question and make a statement in regard to it; 673 but his experience was not so great as that of the noble Earl (the Earl of Redesdale).
LORD WENTWORTHsaid, that what the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) represented as the ground on which he (Lord Wentworth) wished to place that matter was the correct one. He desired to refer, not to any debate in the House of Commons, but to the statement of a Minister, made in the House of Commons and to the country. One statement made was that Professor Palmer travelled as an Englishman, though he afterwards said that he wore the dress that he had previously worn among the Bedouins. Coining to what was, perhaps, the most important point, the fact alleged some time ago in one of the public journals, and repeated only that morning in a still more authoritative manner by another, that Professor Palmer received £20,000 at Suez, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman was reported to have stated that Professor Palmer received no money whatever for the purpose of securing the allegiance of the Arabs; that the only money given to him was a sum of £3,000 to procure camels for the Indian Contingent; that no money was ever given to him for the purpose of buying the allegiance of the tribes; and that he never was promised £20,000. Mr. Campbell-Bannerman expressed surprise at such a statement being made, and could, he said, only explain it by the writer having had access to the confidential Papers of the Admiralty. The hon. Gentleman again denied that Professor Palmer, or any of his party, had been furnished with any money to buy the allegiance of anybody; and, lastly, he said, in regard to the assertion that Professor Palmer received from Captain Gill, at Suez, £20,000 in gold for the Bedouins, there was no truth in it; that neither Captain Gill nor Professor Palmer received any such sum for that or any other purpose; that Admiral Hewett, at Suez, had asked for a sum of money to prepare for the Indian Contingent as soon as it arrived; that accordingly £20,000 was sent; but that he could not too strongly assert that the sending of that money had nothing whatever to do with Professor Palmer's Mission, beyond the fact that £3,000 was subsequently given to him by Admiral Hewett for the hire of camels. Now, the fact had been asserted that £20,000 674 had been given him for the purpose pointed out; and in connection with the matter he (Lord Wentworth) had intended to read certain remarkable extracts from Professor Palmer's journal, doubtless the same as that quoted by the noble Earl (the Earl of Northbrook) in a telegram which was printed in the Blue Book; and that was one of the Papers for the production of which he would move. He had a personal explanation to make in connection with that. On reading Mr. Campbell-Bannerman's second statement, his relative, Mr. Wilfrid Blunt, at once placed in his hands the whole of his papers connected with the Palmer Expedition. Among them were numerous extracts from the journal of Professor Palmer just referred to; and he considered it was due to Mr. Blunt that he (Lord Wentworth) should state no condition of secrecy was ever understood by him as being imposed on him in regard to any of the political matters alluded to in that journal. On the contrary, he (Lord Wentworth) had seen written memoranda confirming Mr. Blunt's assertion that the original Papers were shown to him as long ago as last November; and the extracts were left in his hands with the express purpose of making known the truth. However, in a public matter of that magnitude and importance he thought he could not be fairly charged with any breach of confidence, even if the circumstances had been otherwise. Now, he should have taken upon himself the responsibility of citing such extracts as would clearly have proved the accuracy of that description, had he not been that morning forestalled by portions of it which had appeared, on the authority, apparently, of the deceased gentleman's relatives, in the columns of The Daily News. He had stated enough to show that it was necessary for the noble Earl to give some better and further explanation than Mr. Campbell-Bannerman had been able to give. In The Daily News there were some most remarkable passages given from Professor Palmer's journal, which he would read to the House. It was said in The Daily News—
I have got £260 for paying all expenses for my journey; but £20,000 in gold was brought by ship and paid to my account here.The Daily News also quoted from Captain Gill's journal— 675£25,000 will, according to Palmer, buy up 1 50,000 Arabs. I intend to urge that the money should he sent down to him at Suez.In another extract from Captain Gill's journal, it was said that Professor Palmer had travelled much in the Sinai Peninsula, and knew all about the Arabs, and that he had just come from among them, and had said that 50,000 Arabs could be bought for £25,000. In another extract from Captain Grill's journal, it was stated that Professor Palmer had arranged for a great meeting of Sheikhs in a few days; and if he were to go North to cut the wire he would miss this meeting, which might do incalculable injury. He brought Palmer authority to spend £20,000 among the Bedouins. From this it was clear that Captain Gill and Professor Palmer considered that they bad authority to spend £20,000. The extracts spoke for themselves, and he thought that the noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty would see the necessity of throwing more light on the subject. He did not intend to go further into the details at present, but reserved the right to recur to the subject if necessary. He was not satisfied with Mr. Campbell-Bannerman's strange explanation of the facts. With regard to bribery, that might not have been included in the intention of the person who instructed Professor Palmer to offer money to the Arabs; but it seemed that the Professor had some such purpose designed for him, for he was not only in communication with the Admiralty, but also with the Department officially known as the Intelligence Department—a Department which had control over secret funds; and it might be that he had received instructions beyond those sanctioned by the noble Lord. He hoped the Government would pause in this matter, and that no more lives would be taken in retaliation for what might well have been one of the stern necessities of war. He hoped the unfortunate individuals seized as hostages, and who were now in gaol, might be restored to their tribes. British officers had been employed in the capture of these harmless persons, amongst whom were women and children, and it was due to British honour to see that they were released. He would conclude by moving for the production of Professor Palmer's journal, mentioned at page 42 in the Blue Book, containing the Correspondence of Colonel Warren, 676 and for the Papers mentioned at page 97; also Professor Palmer's Report referred to by Captain Gill in his journal, and dated the 4th of August, 1882, and forwarded to Admiral Sir Beauchamp Seymour; also Captain Gill's journal, together with any other Papers in the possession of the Government that related to the murder of Professor Palmer and his companions.
§ Moved, "That there be laid before this House papers and correspondence respecting Professor Palmer's expedition."—(The Lord Wentworth.)
§ THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKMy Lords, I have to state, in answer to the Question put to me by the noble Lord (Lord Wentworth)—whether I can confirm or correct my hon. Friend Mr. Campbell-Bannerman's statement with reference to the Palmer Expedition—that I am able most distinctly and categorically to affirm in every part and detail the accuracy of Mr. Campbell-Bannerman's statement made upon the subject by him in "another place." I beg to thank the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity, which I have not hitherto had, of saying a few words on the sad calamity which happened in the Desert of Suez, in which Professor Palmer, Captain Gill, and Lieutenant Charrington lost their lives; and in doing so I will answer the three different points the noble Lord has put to me to-night. With regard to the first point—as to what instructions were given to Professor Palmer—I may say that I am the only person now alive to give the information, because I myself gave those instructions; and I wish to explain the circumstances of the case, and how I came to give those instructions. It was in the middle of June last year, before the commencement of hostilities, and before the attack on the forts of Alexandria, at the time when circumstances were so critical that there was great probability that this country would have to interpose in Egypt for the protection of the Suez Canal, that it became necessary for me to endeavour to ascertain something about the position and condition of the Bedouin Tribes bordering on the Canal; and therefore I put myself into communication with my friend Colonel Bradford, a distinguished Indian officer, and Captain Gill, who was then attached to the Intelligence Department of the War Office, who had himself recently travelled in 677 Tripoli, and had some knowledge of the Bedouins, in order to obtain some information on the subject. After a time, they reported to me that the only person in England who could furnish the information was Professor Palmer—a distinguished scholar and Professor of Arabic at Cambridge. He was good enough to give his assistance. A Memorandum was then prepared giving an account of the Bedouin Sheikhs, their tribes, and their dispositions. Professor Palmer was then asked if he could recommend any gentleman who, from his knowledge of the language, could be employed as an interpreter to deal with these Arab Tribes in the event of any difficulty arising; and Professor Palmer, with great public spirit and with great gallantry, at once offered his services on this difficult duty. This was the origin of my communications with Professor Palmer, which, I lament to say, led to his death. That was before the attack on the forts of Alexandria, and the step thus taken on the part of the Admiralty was one demanded by the circumstances of that critical time, and necessary to be taken to provide against events that might occur. It was arranged that Professor Palmer should leave this country; and, in order to avoid any suspicion of his purpose, the Canal being then in the hands of the Egyptians, that he should travel to Suez across the Desert, and communicate with the senior Naval officer at Suez, and, if circumstances required it, should place his services at the disposal of Her Majesty's Government as interpreter. It must be obvious to the noble Lord that it was utterly impossible for me to have given him any orders to bribe the Bedouins at a time when it was quite uncertain whether the services of the Bedouins would be required. As a matter of fact, I gave him no instructions whatever to bribe the Bedouins, or anyone else. My instructions to Professor Palmer were simply to obtain information as to the disposition of the Bedouins, and to hold himself in readiness at Suez to be employed in case of necessity. About the time when Professor Palmer arrived at Suez Captain Gill, who had been engaged with him in obtaining information about the Bedouins, arrived at Port Said, where he was attached to Admiral (now Sir Anthony) Hoskins, the senior Naval officer on the Canal. At that time the 678 attack on the forts had taken place; but the expedition from this country had not arrived, nor had the Indian troops arrived at Suez. We found that Arabi had received information from Constantinople by means of a telegraph which passed across the Desert through Kantara. It was obviously necessary to endeavour to put an end to such communications, which were detrimental to our interests; and Sir Anthony Hoskins gave Captain Gill instructions to cut the telegraph across the Desert. Captain Gill then left Port Said for the purpose of consulting persons at Ismailia, and he thence went on to confer with Professor Palmer at Suez. In the meantime the expedition from India had started for Suez, and we received reports saying that it was necessary to obtain as many camels for transport purposes as could be found in the neighbourhood of Suez. On the arrival of Professor Palmer at Suez, he reported that he found the Bedouins loyal. I apprehend that he meant loyal to the Khedive, as we were informed from the first that the Bedouins of the Desert had a sincere attachment to the family of Mehemet Ali. That being so, we inferred that the Bedouins would be inclined to favour us rather than Arabi, who had rebelled against the Khedive. Professor Palmer also reported that we should have no difficulty about obtaining any number of camels, of which he was instructed to procure as many as possible for the use of the Indian troops who were shortly expected at Suez. In order that he might carry out his instructions to that effect, he was entrusted by Admiral Sir William Hewett with £3,000. He was accompanied from Suez by Captain Gill, who intended to proceed northwards to cut the telegraph wire in the Desert, and by Lieutenant Charrington, flag lieutenant to Sir William Hewett, who joined the party at Professor Palmer's request, it being his wish that the Bedouins might know, by Lieutenant Charrington's presence, that the Mission was authorized by the British Commander at Suez. Professor Palmer was to go to Nakhl to meet one of the Sheikhs. I can now dispose of the second point in the noble Lord's Question. Professor Palmer and his party did not travel in disguise in the ordinary acceptation of the term, for it was well known that Professor 679 Palmer was an Englishman. Though he were, as Englishmen do in that country, the Arab costume, there was no concealment of his identity. The other officers also wore the Arab costume; but there is nothing in the Correspondence to show that there was in anybody's mind the slightest doubt about their real character. It is needless for me to dilate upon the high public spirit which was shown by these gallant men; for I am sure that your Lordships feel with me that their devotion and patriotism deserve the highest recognition. Her Majesty has bestowed a pension from the Civil List upon Mrs. Palmer, and the other House of Parliament has voted a sum of money, which has been settled upon her and Professor Palmer's children. There was no need of any similar grants in the cases of Captain Gill and of Lieutenant Charrington; but your Lordships will, I am sure, be gratified to learn that I have been in communication with the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's, and obtained their hearty assent to my suggestion that the remains of these men, who died in the service of their country, shall be interred in the crypt of St. Paul's Cathedral. Now, as to the other point in the noble Lord's Question—namely, the reported expenditure of £20,000—some extracts from Professor Palmer's journal do not appear to correspond with the statement made by Mr. Campbell-Bannerman in "another place," This question, however, is settled beyond all possibility of dispute by the Naval Accounts. It appears that £10,000 was drawn by the paymaster of the Penelope, the flagship of Admiral Hoskins, on the 26th of July, 1882, and another £10,000 on the 4th of August. This £20,000 was sent by Admiral Hoskins, from Port Said, to Sir William Hewett at Suez, in charge of Lieutenant Grove, R.N., and he went in the same picket boat which took Captain Gill from Ismailia to Suez. The money was not paid to Professor Palmer; it was taken on charge by the paymaster of the Euryalus, Sir William Hewett's flagship, and expended for the use of the East Indian Squadron in Egyptian waters, with the exception of £3,000 advanced to Professor Palmer. It is clear that there must have been an impression upon Professor Palmer's mind that the £20,000 was intended for him. The mistake must have arisen 680 from the circumstance that the money came in the same boat with Captain Gill, and that Professor Palmer had shortly before reported to Sir Beau-champ Seymour that he could buy the allegiance of 50,000 Bedouins for from £20,000 to £30,000. This proposal was telegraphed by Sir Beauchamp Seymour to the Admiralty, on the 6th of August; and as there did not seem to be any need at the time for such a proceeding, we told Sir William Hewett, in reply, on the same day, to instruct Professor Palmer to keep the Bedouins available for patrol or transport on the Canal. We added—
A reasonable amount may be spent; but larger arrangements are not to be entered into until the General arrives, and has been consulted.This telegram will be found in the Papers laid before Parliament. Thus, whatever may have been the impression on Professor Palmer's mind, it is clear that the sum in question was not paid to him. I should like to say that I attach very little importance to the controversy about this £20,000, whether Professor Palmer received it or not, excepting in so far as the accuracy of the statement of Mr. Campbell-Bannerman in "another place" is concerned. I can quite understand that Mr. Wilfrid Blunt, who was one of Arabi's allies during his rebellion, would think it a most abominable thing for any money to have been paid to Bedouins by us for any services; but, as we desired to dispose of Arabi, I should not have hesitated for a moment to authorize expenditure for the purpose of doing anything I considered desirable to protect the Suez Canal, and dispose of Arabi and his rabble. I wish to take this opportunity of clearing up a point with reference to a very gallant officer, who has done most excellent service for the protection of the Canal. I mean Colonel Warren. Colonel Warren, as soon as it was rumoured that Professor Palmer and his party were missing, volunteered at once to go out and assist in the search. He has pursued that search with gallantry, determination, good judgment, and a perfectly judicial mind. He has taken the greatest care to ascertain who were the really guilty parties; and I must protest against the inference of the noble Lord that in prosecuting these murderers—for I can find no other term 681 for them—there has been anything whatever done of which an Englishman can be for a moment ashamed. The inquiry has been conducted with the greatest care, and I am as certain as I am that I am now addressing the House that the men who were hanged deserved their fate. By some means or other a letter appeared in a newspaper that had been addressed by Colonel Warren to Moussa Nassier, one of the Arabi Sheikhs, in September last, and this letter contained two statements, one that Arabi was making his escape on a swift camel, and the other that Turkish troops had arrived at Port Said. This letter was written to Moussa Nassier to induce him to escort Colonel Warren into the Desert for the purpose of finding Professor Palmer. It must be observed that this Sheikh was not one of the guilty men, and that the letter was not sent in order to decoy him into our hands. The charge made against Colonel Warren was that he stated these things, knowing them not to be true, for the purpose of inducing the Sheikh to help him in the matter. When Mr. Camp-bell-Bannerman had to reply to this attack in "another place," he was able only to say that, to the best of his belief, Colonel Warren made these statements believing them to be true. He gave that answer without communication with Colonel Warren; but since that time I have received a telegram from Colonel Warren, who is still in Egypt. He said—The news I sent to Moussa Nassier, on September 14, relative to the 6,000 Turkish troops landed at Port Said and the preparations for Arabi's escape on swift dromedaries, was sent to me in Bombay telegrams from Suez by Admiral Sir William Hewett about September 10.Colonel Warren, therefore, simply repeated the news sent to him by Sir William Hewett, which was at that time, as the House will remember, by no means an unlikely piece of intelligence. I believe I have now answered every one of the Questions put by the noble Lord, and I am certain of the absolute accuracy of every word I say.
LORD WENTWORTHHow does the noble Earl explain the paragraph in Captain Gill's journal about the £20,000?
§ THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKI have seen Captain Gill's journal, and 682 there is nothing in it to the effect that £20,000 was actually given to Professor Palmer. There is, however, a sentence to the effect that Professor Palmer had authority to spend £20,000. If Captain Gill supposed that this sum was sent to Professor Palmer, he was in error, as I have proved that the money was not sent to Professor Palmer, but to Sir William Hewett, and was taken on charge by the paymaster of the Euryalus. My account is not only that given to me by Lord Alcester and Sir Anthony Hoskins, but it is conclusively proved by the accounts which are audited by the Audit Office. The noble Lord asks me to produce the journals of Professor Palmer and Captain Gill and other Papers that may have been found since the murders. Now, I cannot produce any such Papers at all. They do not belong to me; and as regards the noble Lord's relative, Mr. Blunt, I feel bound to tell the noble Lord that Mrs. Palmer asked me to call upon her, and complained to me in strong terms of Mr. Blunt's conduct in having made use of her husband's journal, and that the brother of Captain Gill called on me spontaneously two days ago, and made the same complaint respecting the use made by Mr. Blunt of certain passages in Captain Gill's Papers. I must decline altogether to comply with the Motion of the noble Lord, either to produce Papers over which I have no control, or any other of the Papers for which the noble Lord asks?
LORD WENTWORTHsaid, he thought that the noble Earl (the Earl of Northbrook) had rather gone out of his way to attack Mr. Blunt, to whom it was due to say that in November last Mrs. Palmer brought her husband's journal, and asked Mr. Blunt to take a copy of it for his use in preparing an article for The Fortnightly Review or The Nineteenth Century. The noble Earl seemed to him to weaken his own case in denying the fact of the £20,000 having been paid, by his strong expressions as to the necessity of buying the Bedouins if an opportunity had occurred. He would read some extracts which he had before mentioned from the journals of Professor Palmer, both on this point and on the other too, on which the information supplied by the noble Earl was quite inconsistent with the facts as made known in the journals. First, as to the 683 object of Mr. Palmer's Mission, he read from Mr. Palmer's own journal—
§ EARL STANHOPEI rise to Order. Is the noble Lord in Order in quoting from a private journal not before the House?
§ EARL GRANVILLEHas the noble Lord the authority of Mrs. Palmer for quoting extracts from the journals?
LORD WENTWORTHsaid, that he had not. He was entirely in the hands of their Lordships; but he must say, in defending Mr. Blunt, that he felt it his duty, from any evidence in his possession, to give their Lordships accurate information.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, their Lordships had a Standing Order that no reply was to be made; but that Standing Order could be, and was often in practice, waived by the indulgence of the House. There might, however, be occasions on which it would be necessary to insist upon it; and if the noble Lord (Lord Wentworth) insisted upon referring to the journals he (Earl Beau-champ) should insist upon the Standing Order being read at the Table.
LORD WENTWORTHsaid, he had understood that he had a right to reply by way of personal explanation. He would not, however, quote the journals if it was objected to; but he would restrict himself to the statement of facts within his knowledge. It was a fact that Mr. Palmer travelled as a Syrian officer and as a Mussulman in the Desert, and the war had actually commenced before he went into the Desert, for he received the news of the bombardment of Alexandria before he had gone far from Gaza. He wished to offer an explanation as to Mr. Blunt's authority from Mrs. Palmer. It appeared from a journal kept by Lady Ann Blunt that Mrs. Palmer had called upon her, and left the documents with her, for the purpose of extracts being made for a magazine article. They were given for the distinct purpose of having the truth made known, and there was no violation of confidence on the part of Mr. Blunt. He believed the noble Earl would regret denying the existence of the £20,000, for it was absolutely confirmed by the journal of Captain Gill. He should take another opportunity of bringing the matter before the House.
§ On Question? Resoled in the negative.