THE MARQUESS OF SALISBUEYMy Lords, I wish to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question, of which I gave Notice yesterday. I wish to ask as to the Proclamation of General Gordon, published at Khartoum, in favour of giving permission to revive the trade in slaves, Whether it was issued under instructions from Her Majesty's Government; and, if so, whether the noble Earl has any objection to lay those instructions on the Table of the House? I also want to ask whether, in making that Proclamation, General Gordon was representing an Egyptian or a British authority, because there are difficulties in each case. If he was representing an Egyptian authority, I should like to know whether any steps have been taken to bring the law of the Ottoman Empire—or the Egyptian law, which, in that respect, I believe, agrees with that of the Ottoman Empire—into conformity with the Proclamation of General Gordon; because, as matters stand, Egyptian subjects on one side of the Border would be covered by General Gordon's authority, but on the other side would be liable for acts performed with General Gordon's permission. The same difficulty would arise if General Gordon represented a British authority. I do not know whether the noble Earl has looked at the Statutes of 1806 and 1807, which abolished the Slave Trade; but I imagine that if there are any British subjects in the Soudan—and I fancy there may be some Maltese—they would be encouraged by General Gordon's Proclamation to do that for which, if they came within the jurisdiction of the Queen's Courts, they would undoubtedly be punished. Has the noble Earl taken the contingency into consideration? Then, further, what is the area within which this permission is to be allowed? Is it the whole of the Soudan, or up to the Second Cataract, or up 1290 to the Borders of the Red Sea? And, also, how long does the noble Earl contemplate this permission shall exist? Because, of course, if it is offered, as it appears to be, as a consideration to the inhabitants of the Soudan to induce them to do, or to abstain from doing, certain things, there would be something like a breach of faith if, immediately after they have done or abstained from doing those things, we altered our attitude with regard to the Slave Trade so revived among them. I put these Questions because I understood from the noble Earl yesterday that the Proclamation was authentic; and, therefore, I thought I was justified in directing his attention to the matter.
§ EARL GRANVILLEMy Lords, the noble Marquess, with his usual courtesy, gave me Notice of the Questions which he proposed to ask, and to which it appears that he has since added another. I hope he will not think it discourteous of me, if I am unable to give explanations, or enter into details of a Proclamation which I have never read or seen. We have a short telegram on the subject, which does hot coincide exactly with those published in the papers, but the Proclamation itself has not yet arrived. It is sure to be forwarded in due course, but in consequence of the interest which it has excited, I have telegraphed to Sir Evelyn Baring to forward it as soon as he gets the text. Until I have seen the Proclamation, the noble Marquess will easily understand that it is impossible to give any explanation on the subject.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYAs I understand, there is nothing in the instructions of the noble Earl sanctioning——
§ EARL GRANVILLEI beg pardon. I shall be very glad to read all the instructions given to General Gordon on the subject. They are as follows:—
In connection with this subject, you should pay especial consideration to the question of the steps that may usefully he taken to counteract the stimulus which it is feared may possibly be given to the Slave Trade by the present insurrectionary movement, and by the withdrawal of the Egyptian authority from the interior.These were the only instructions given to General Gordon. I may add that I am perfectly aware that what fell from the noble Marquess on the first evening of this Session was a condemnation of 1291 the mission of General Gordon; but I own that the confidence in General Gordon which I then felt and expressed is rather increasing instead of diminishing; and if there is one thing with reference to which I have special confidence in General Gordon, it is that he is not likely to do anything to help practically the trade in slaves in the Soudan.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I trust that in future, when Questions are put, or criticisms passed with respect to what is being done in the Soudan, the noble Earl will not shelter himself behind the authority of General Gordon. Our tongues are in a measure tied; according to well-known Parliamentary usage and courtesy, we cannot criticize the acts of absent officers of the Crown, and it would be very wrong to do so. But we abstain from doing so on the understanding that all that is done is done under the sanction and with the authority of the Ministers of the Crown, and it is not competent for Ministers to cover themselves under the acts of their officers.
§ EARL GRANVILLEMy Lords, I am not aware that I have used a single word which could be interpreted into the expression of a wish to shelter myself or the Government behind General Gordon. But when the noble Marquess, after a strong condemnation of the mission, takes the first opportunity of criticizing something which it is supposed General Gordon has done, there is no shirking of responsibility in declaring our undiminished confidence in that distinguished officer, and that we take the responsibility for anything he does. We have given General Gordon large discretionary powers, and for anything which he does without disapproval from us we are fully responsible.