THE EARL OF CARNARVON, in rising to call attention, to the answer reported to have been given by the Right Honourable W. E. Gladstone on Friday, 9th May, with regard to the basis of the proposed Conference; and to ask Her Majesty's Government for some explanation of its meaning, said: I am very sorry to have to revert to a question which on previous occasions I have brought before your Lordships' House; but, considering the very great importance of the question, I trust I shall be pardoned if I, for the third time, renew the consideration of it, and endeavour to obtain some explanation, if not as to what Her Majesty's Government propose to do, at least, as to a very singular utterance which was made by the Prime Minister in "another place." On the 1st of May I asked the noble Earl opposite the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what the subject-matter of the Conference was to be; and that noble Earl gave me, so far as that point was concerned, what I thought was a very satisfactory reply. He stated that the proposed Conference was to consider whether there should not be some change made in the Law of Liquidation; and, if so, what that change should be. For the reasons I shall presently give, I thought it necessary to renew that Question a few days afterwards. The noble Earl opposite gave me, perhaps, a rather less definite and distinct answer; but, at the same time, he said nothing whatever to vary the statement of the 1st of 151 May. Although I desired more I acquiesced in the answer of the noble Earl, because I always accept everything said by him with perfect faith in its natural sense. But the noble Earl is united in the Cabinet to a Gentleman whose abilities we all recognize, but who is emphatically a doctor of casuistry, and a dialectic disputant who will succeed, not only in persuading other persons, but himself also, on every conceivable subject which is presented to him, and who has a power which is almost matchless of analyzing, dividing, differentiating, and extracting senses and meanings, subtle, recondite, and abstruse from almost every single question placed before him. If I ask the Question for the third time the fault is not mine, and perhaps the fault is not that of the noble Earl opposite, but that of Mr. Gladstone, who has placed his gloss upon the pretty plain statement of the noble Earl. Let me, in a very few words, point out to your Lordships how this case stands. We have had the despatch, containing the invitation to the different Powers, laid upon the Table. That despatch is dated the 19th of April. How does it run? The noble Earl says—
I transmit to your Excellency herewith a brief statement of the present condition and prospects of the finances of Egypt. Her Majesty's Government wish to invite the careful attention of the Great Powers of Europe to this question.The noble Earl goes on to say—It appears to Her Majesty's Government that to meet the charges necessary for the peace and good government of the country … some change in the Law of Liquidation is required;and the despatch concludes thus—Her Majesty's Government would, therefore, propose that a Conference should meet.… to determine whether such a change is necessary, and what shall be its exact nature."—[Egypt, No. 17 (1884), p. 1.]I do not think that we need quarrel as to the clearness of that language, or that anyone can doubt what the scope and object of the Conference was to be. This was on the 19th of April. My Question to the noble Earl was on the 1st of May, and his answer was in these terms—We propose a Conference to consider whether there should not he some change made in the Law of Liquidation, and, if so, what that change should be.That seems to me to be very plain. I had a reason for repeating my Question 152 three or four days afterwards; and, as I have already remarked, the noble Earl's answer, although not quite so explicit as before, varied in nothing from what he had originally said. But this did follow. My noble Friend the noble Marquess behind me (the Marquess of Salisbury) complained of the noble Earl's answer as being very reticent; and he said that if the noble Earl was so unwilling to state what the object and scope of the Conference were to be there must needs be some mystery behind. My noble Friend the Secretary of State for India (the Earl of Kimberley), rising immediately after that, said the noble Marquess had made a speech imputing motives to Her Majesty's Government.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONYes; my noble Friend said something of that nature. Although between the 19th of April and the 6th of May Her Majesty's Government became less and less explicit on this point, still I do put it to the House, whether the common-sense inference from the words used was not that the object and nature of the Conference was to be a financial one, and that the question of the administration and government of Egypt was not to come before it? About that time, however, or immediately afterwards, reports appeared in various papers stating, with more or less distinctness, that Turkey would decline to enter the Conference except on certain conditions, one of those conditions being the discussion of points which would not be embraced under the head of finance. It was also stated that France took up the same position. Therefore, on the 8th May, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was interrogated on the subject in "another place," and this is what he is reported to have said—
That the introduction of any other matter would be the introduction of a new subject, and would be equivalent, in fact, to calling together a new Conference.A Member of the House having further asked whether, if other important political matters in which British interests were paramount were introduced, Her Majesty's Government would distinctly decline to discuss them? Mr. Gladstone's answer, and it is a reasonable one, was— 153It would be highly inexpedient and exceedingly disparaging to the other Powers, as well as ourselves, to enter into a discussion of them.The right hon. Gentleman did not reply in the negative to the Question, but he delivered, one of those remark able fencing replies in which he excels so greatly. This reply, however, did not satisfy the Members of the House of Commons, and the following day, May 9, the Question was renewed, and this was the answer which Mr. Gladstone then gave to it—I have to say that the basis of the Conference is really settled by the indication sent out by Lord Granville, which has been laid on the Table of the House. What I have already said amounts to this—that a discretionary power remains to raise any other question than that proposed by the Government; but no other question is within the actual range of the Conference; and if any other question should be raised it would be a new question, and it would be like calling a new Conference. We cannot undertake that the Conference shall forego the opportunity of raising a new question at a given time.If we look at this last answer given by the Prime Minister, it is one of the most Sphinx-like and oracular answers I have ever heard given by a Minister. What does it mean? Does it mean either that the Members of the Conference will be able to raise questions other than those relating to Egyptian finance, or that they will not be able to do so? If they are not at liberty to do so, may I ask, in all humility, what the meaning of this most casuistical answer is—whether it is intended to modify, in any way, the statement which has been made in this House in answer to Questions by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; and, whether the substance of that answer has been conveyed to the different Powers in a public despatch; or, whether we have to deal with the cunning fence of some casuistic gladiator? We are told that the Conference is to be called together only for one purpose; but what I wish to know from Her Majesty's Government in the meantime is, whether they are to stand by, and, if they do not initiate, will, at all events, allow other questions of vital and paramount importance to be raised by others? If that is the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, then I say that the request to the other Powers to attend the Conference is a tacit invitation to those Powers to raise other questions, and I shall be greatly 154 surprised if they do not take advantage of it. We wish to know distinctly whether the inquiry of the Conference is to be limited to financial questions; or, whether its Members are to be at liberty to enter into more general questions? If the Conference is to be a general Conference, then the financial question, which has served as a pretext for calling it together in the first instance, will be set aside, and all that our Army and money have won in Egypt will be abandoned, and we shall make our position, in that country dependent upon the will of the other Powers. The noble Earl opposite can, if he pleases, this evening, by a single word, remove the evasive ambiguity of language used in "another place," and relieve the public anxiety on this subject; but if, on the other hand, the noble Earl—I do not think that, he will descend to take refuge in the ambiguities I have referred to—wraps himself up in silence, there is but one interpretation that can be placed upon his language, and the country will believe that Her Majesty's Government, under cover of this financial Conference, really intends to permit other questions of great importance to be raised. Against such a course as that I, for one, must place upon record my most earnest and emphatic protest.
§ EARL GRANVILLEMy Lords, the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon) has asked me a Question of which he has given me Notice. I wish to avoid, in the most particular way, making the slightest criticism on anything that passes "elsewhere;" but I imagine it is a fact, which everyone will admit, that latterly a habit has sprung up, not only of questioning Ministers on most important matters, but sometimes on matters of no importance whatever, and not only of questioning, but of examining and cross-examining them in a way that I have not the slightest recollection of in past years. The noble Earl opposite has read the words of Mr. Gladstone's answers; but I am not sure whether he has quoted them correctly or not. I should prefer hearing the words from Mr. Gladstone himself. But it appears to me that, taken as a whole, the matter requires no explanation; and I do not see any difference between the statements of Mr. Gladstone in the other House and the statements I have made here. I decline to become an accomplice 155 to creating a new precedent; and if these cross-examinations and re-examinations are to be continued from House to House, and the Ministers in one Assembly are to be called upon to answer any incidental Questions of that kind, I decline to assist in them. I perfectly admit that the noble Earl has a right to put Questions to me, and I answer them in the best way I can; but I will not answer them when prefaced in a manner which I think the noble Earl ought not to have adopted, and when they are couched in personal language directed against Mr. Gladstone behind his back, and contain references to casuistry and other most offensive expressions. I think that it would be better for the noble Earl to request some of his Colleagues, with whom he is again reconciled, to ask the Question in the presence of Mr. Gladstone, who, I imagine, is a person perfectly capable of answering for himself. I repeat that the noble Earl has a right to put these Questions to me, and I should be glad to answer them again; but, as the noble Earl has himself stated, I have already twice answered them. Although he says there is, I did not intend that there should be the slightest difference between the answers I gave to the two Questions which were put to me, and those answers I am perfectly ready to repeat and abide by. What the noble Earl has said has been singularly illustrated by what has fallen from him—namely, that when Ministers on their own responsibility decline to go into details as to present negotiations, every sort of charge should be made against them, and every sort of question should be put to them, in order to force them from their reserve, which they do not hold for their own comfort, but which they think is for the advantage of the public service.
§ EARL CAIRNSI think that the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) will see that this is a matter of very grave importance, and that it is one which, more than any other, is at this moment engaging the attention of the country; and we have an absolute and a perfect right to have full and frank information with regard to it from Her Majesty's Government, or otherwise the country, which is anxious and disquieted, will not be satisfied. I must at once take exception to the observation of the noble Earl that we, in this House, are not at 156 liberty to ask for an explanation of the answers which have been given in the other House by the Prime Minister to Questions which have been put to him on this subject. Whatever the Prime Minister says in his official capacity, whether in one House or in the other, whether at a meeting, or at Charing Cross, is public property; and, if what he says is at all ambiguous or doubtful, the public have a right to an explanation. If Mr. Gladstone had a seat in this House, we should demand an explanation of his answers from him; but he is not here, and we cannot, therefore, put any Questions to him with reference to them. Happily, however, the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is hero; and he, above all Members of Her Majesty's Government, is in a position to give us the information we ask for. I will tell the noble Earl what it is that disquiets me. I take it for granted that the answers attributed to the Prime Minister are substantially correct; because, on each occasion, he appears to have gone over the same ground, and there is no serious difference between them. But what I wish to ask is this—the Prime Minister states, in the first place, that the basis of the Conference upon which we are entering is that indicated in the despatch of the noble Earl. His second proposition is, that it will be open to any Member of the Conference to raise any other questions besides those relating solely to finance as proposed by the Government. Then, in the third place, the Prime Minister says, that the raising of any other question will be tantamount to calling a new Conference. How shall we test this matter? How are the two answers to stand together; the one saying that there will be a discretionary power to raise any other questions; and the other saying that the exercise of such a discretionary power will be tantamount to calling a new Conference? It is on this point that the public require further information. If you say that it will be mechanically or physically open to raise such other questions, but that to do so would be wrong, and that the moment it was done there would be an end of the Conference, because our Envoy or Representative would withdraw, that would be a sufficient answer to our inquiries. But that is exactly what we and the country 157 want the Government to tell us. Will you tell us that the moment any new questions are raised at the Conference, you will at once protest, and will withdraw your Representative? If you will tell us that, you shall not hear another word from us on the subject, and you shall have no further cross-questioning from me in reference to it. But we have a right to clear and distinct information upon the point. If that is not the noble Earl's view then our worst fears are realized. But if that is the view of the Government, then it would be much better to state the basis of the Conference, not only affirmatively, but negatively also. If so, you would prevent a great deal of misapprehension and annoyance when the Conference meets. If the Conference meets and you take that attitude you cannot depart from this question, because that would be tantamount to calling a new Conference. How is it possible to tell what; questions would be raised by the other Powers? No objection could be raised to their bringing forward any question in view of what the Prime Minister had said—namely, that it would be discretionary to produce a new Treaty, and even to speak about Gibraltar. The noble Earl has said that the Government relies on despatches; but I would ask what despatches? The one which was sent to the Powers was essentially different from that which was sent to Turkey, or rather to Lord Dufferin.
§ EARL GRANVILLEIs the noble and learned Earl not aware that the Porte is not a party to the Law of Liquidation?
§ EARL CAIRNSThe Conference is the same whether the Porte was a party to the Law of Liquidation or not. The Powers have been invited to discuss the Law of Liquidation; but there is no word on that question in the despatch sent to Turkey; indeed, the only construction to be placed on the despatch to that Power is that the Conference was to discuss the whole question of the government of the country. And yet, in all this state of confusion, the noble Earl seems to think that we are to sit here with our hands folded, and not to press for answers to our Questions. That is a course which I will not entertain, and one which I do not think the country will in any way approve. I regard the noble Earl's answer as unsatisfactory; and he will make 158 a mistake if he thinks the Opposition and the country will desist from asking an explanation of the difference between the two despatches.
THE LORD CHANCELLORIt is, of course, impossible to doubt that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon) thought some useful public end would be served by bringing forward this matter; but I must confess that I am at a loss to understand how such a view can be held by men who have had the responsibility of government on their shoulders, and who expect to bear those responsibilities again. As far as the despatches which have been referred to are concerned, I maintain that they both point to the same thing, and that there is perfect consistency between them; because, while that to the Powers mentioned the Law of Liquidation, that to the Porte spoke of the financial difficulties of Egypt and the pressing necessity for concerting some measures, if possible, for relieving those difficulties. The proper place to ask for an explanation of an answer given in Parliament and the person of whom to ask it is the place in which the answer is given and the person by whom the answer is made; and I am happy that the noble and learned Earl opposite (Earl Cairns) has not given his direct countenance to the idea that explanations should be asked in one House of answers and statements given and made in another; and the fact that no explanation was asked by the Friends and Colleagues of the noble Earl in the other House is to me a complete proof that those who asked the Question understood the meaning of the words used by the Prime Minister, and did not seek to put upon them the extraordinary construction now sought to be put upon them by the noble Earl. If they had not done so, I must presume they would have given the Prime Minister an opportunity of making an explanation there. As to the matter in question, the plain, commonsense view of it is that we are in communication with the Great Powers of Europe. The preliminaries of the Conference are not yet settled; and if we intended to do any good by our Conference, Ministers must, in answer to Questions, speak with that respect and reserve towards Foreign Powers which they have a right to expect from us. It is plain, therefore, that if Questions are put, con- 159 cerning matters beyond the basis of the invitation, there is no other answers which, with due respect to the Powers, and in ordinary common sense, could be given, than to refer to the only basis on which the Conference has been called, and to say that matters which are outside the invitation, if they are to be dealt with at all, must be dealt with as being outside it. I cannot perceive why there should be any misunderstanding by those who have the will to understand.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, it is precisely because we have held Office, and know something of the meaning of these things, that the language of Her Majesty's Government fills us with disquietude. I know that the Foreign Office, whoever may be at its head, is an admirable machine, and I am quite sure that it was not by any carelessness or inadvertence that the double version of this invitation was recorded in the Circular to the Powers and that addressed to Turkey. The difference must have been made by some special order, and there must have been some reason for it. The noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack seems to think that it may be sufficient to say that Turkey was not a party to the Law of Liquidation, and that, therefore, that law could not be mentioned in the invitation addressed to her; but that does not alter the character of the words in which the invitation was conveyed. The references to the arrangement of the bases of a good Government for Egypt, which are contained in the invitation to Turkey, must be held to have the same meaning, and to be equally useful to other Powers, whether the Law of Liquidation is or is not mentioned, as a proof that Her Majesty's Government really mean, under cover of these words, to introduce considerations which far transcend the scope of any financial matters or international arrangements. Well, we shall see. The noble and learned Earl also complained of our asking for an explanation in this House of words used in the "other." It was not so much an explanation of words used in "another place" that we wanted, as to know how those words were to be reconciled with the assurances which we have received in this House. Therefore, it is here that we ought to ask for the explanation. As for trying to extract 160 from the Prime Minister a clear, explicit, and satisfactory explanation of his own words, the noble Earl opposite knows it is a sheer mockery to recommend that to us. He knows that neither we, nor anyone else, has ever yet been able to accomplish that Herculean task. In the course of the debate this evening, obscure utterances on grave questions, in connection as they are with issues plain and simple, such as have been made tend rather to increase than to dissipate the apprehensions which the country has conceived upon this subject; because, whether we go to the cautious acuteness of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, or the dramatic indignation of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville), got up for the moment, both are parts of the same circuitous mode of proceeding adopted by them, and which enables them, entirely to avoid giving a plain answer to the question before us. There is, however, one assurance which they could give, which would dissipate all apprehension on this subject. If they will say that—"If any other Power seeks to introduce any matter not within the bases of the conditions we lay down, we shall decline to discuss it." If they will give us that assurance, then all difficulties and apprehensions will be at an end. But in the midst of the cloud of words to which we have listened, there is no assurance of that kind, and nothing would induce Her Majesty's Government to give it. Now, the object we have in view is to know whether we can look upon the conditions that have been laid down for this Conference as a security to us that nothing else than the finances of Egypt shall be dealt with in the Council Chamber. If there is such a security, we may approach these negotiations without disquiet; but we now know that no such security is contained in these words; and, if they are not a security, they are a screen. If nothing but the finances of Egypt are to be discussed, we might have a fair issue; but, if they do not give us that pledge, we may have a very shrewd idea that, under very slight pressure from other Powers, other and far wider questions may be introduced, conclusions may be come to with respect to the future condition of Egypt which will not be honourable to us, not profitable to the British Empire, and which will be arrived at behind the back of 161 Parliament, and against which Parliament, after it is done, can only enter an empty protest.
THE EARL OF KIMBEELEYMy Lords, there is one point in the remarks of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) to which I may refer before I proceed further. He imputed to the Government that they disingenuously, and by way of a screen for what they are about to do, devised certain words in the despatch addressed to the Porte different from the words addressed to the five Powers. This we are charged with doing, in order that other matters may be brought forward for discussion in the Conference which are not in the invitations sent to the Powers.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYWhat I said was, that there was a difference in the terms of the invitations, that it was intentional and meant something, and that it might have a disastrous effect. I never said that by this means other Powers would be allowed to introduce other matters; that was an observation I should not have ventured to make.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYI understood the noble Marquess to say there was an intention on our part, undercover of these words, to introduce other subjects. On that I give a complete assurance, and I am glad to hear the denial of the noble Marquess. It would be entirely erroneous to ascribe any such motive to Her Majesty's Government, and I can assure him no such difference was intended. The difference between the two despatches has been already fully explained. The Turkish Government and the Governments of the five Powers stand upon somewhat different footings. The latter are concerned directly with the Law of Liquidation. The Porte has a connection with it very close, but not the same. There is no other reason for it. The noble Marquess tells us it is a mockery to ask Mr. Gladstone for any explanation of his words. I would, in reply to that, tell the noble Marquess, as regards the declaration which he made that if the Government gave a certain assurance, all their doubts and fears would be dissipated, if the noble Marquess thinks it a mockery to ask Mr. Gladstone for any explanation, I think it is a perfect mockery to ask the Government to make any declaration with the view of dissipating 162 the fears and apprehensions of the noble Marquess and noble Lords opposite, because we are perfectly well aware that, whatever the Government say, those fears and apprehensions will still remain exactly the same.