THE EARL OF CARNARVON, in rising to ask, Whether Her Majesty's Government can give any information relative to negotiations which it is understood are proceeding between Her Majesty's Government and the French Government as to Egyptian affairs; and whether it is the case that any arrangement has been made or promise given to withdraw Her Majesty's troops at a given time? said: My Lords, I am anxious, as many of your Lordships are, before we separate for the holidays, to ascertain somewhat more than we know upon a subject which embraces so much public attention just now. I am the more induced to take the step by the reports in circulation during the last few days-reports so serious that I sincerely trust Her Majesty's Government may be able to give an explicit negative to them. Without going too much into details, it is sufficient to premise that it is said—in fact, it is admitted—that Her Majesty's Government are engaged in negotiations with the Government of France; that such negotiations are going on no one doubts or denies. It is said that a proposal which has been made by Her Majesty's Government for the holding of a Conference upon a purely financial basis has been met by contentious on the part of the French Government for some form or other introducing the principle of International Control in the affairs of Egypt. It is said that both Governments have arrived or are arriving at this compromise—that an international audit, as it is termed, with regard to the Law of Liquidation shall be accepted; and I must argue on that hypothesis. This has been stated very distinctly, and if the Government can deny it no one will be better pleased than I; but I must point out to the House that an audit, a financial audit, differs, as far as I can see, in no respect from a financial control, and a financial control opens the door to the whole administrative control. He who holds the purse-strings controls the policy of the country, and it is abso- 1440 lutely impossible either to discuss finance or the control of finance without touching every one of these questions in which British predominance in Egypt is involved. A distinction between a financial audit and a financial control seems, therefore, to me to be flimsy and practically nominal, and I can conceive that no one will be misled by it. It may be said that the audit may be purely an arithmetical one; but I cannot suppose that the French Government will agree with a purely arithmetical audit, or will accept it. Whether the officials who sit round the Table are called Auditors or Controllers of Egyptian Finance, seems to me a matter of extremely little importance; but every person who is familiar with this subject entertains but one opinion—they all regret the introduction of the International Control in Egypt, whether by this name or under any pretence whatever. It means, of course, the subordinating all those questions which we consider British interests, such as the Canal, the high road to India—it means subordinating them all to a certain number of persons appointed by the Great Powers of Europe; and, for my own part, I can conceive of nothing so dangerous to the whole interests of Europe as bringing together representatives from the different Powers to discuss control of Egyptian affairs. If you really wish to introduce complications among all the Powers of Europe you cannot do so more effectually. If this be true, what am I to say with regard to the language of the Prime Minister? Mr. Gladstone, a few days ago, assured the country that he had no idea whatever of reviving the Dual Control; and if, while those words were being said, he was entering into negotiations for what has been called the Multiple Control, I ask whether there could be the slightest logical distinction drawn between the two, and whether the Multiple Control is not the larger which contains the smaller? Mr. Gladstone said, two or three days ago, that the first object to obtain was what he called a perfectly mutual cooperation with France; and he added when once this was achieved he should be perfectly willing to lay all the proceedings before Parliament. I assume, therefore, because those proceedings have not been laid before Parliament, that perfect mutual co-operation has not yet been accomplished. I am inclined 1441 to hope that it has not been accomplished, because there is no mystery as to the objects of France, and the objects of France are not likely to satisfy us. There is another matter quite as serious, if not more serious. It is stated that an Agreement at this moment is being discussed for the definite withdrawal of the English troops from Egypt at a given period. Some statements fix that period at five years, and others at two years. I must take the liberty of saying that no proposals whatever, no promise, and no undertaking to withdraw troops from Egypt at a given period seems to me to be anything but full of objections. I do not care whether the periods be two, three, or five years. Who can foresee what the position of this country or Europe may be five years hence? God forbid that it should happen, but you may have a mutiny in India. Are you, then, to sacrifice your position? You may be at war—Are you to vacate your position in Egypt? You may be on the edge of war, your political relations may be strained, and are you at such a moment to bind yourselves with regard to the future withdrawal of troops from Egypt? It is a proposal so mad that I cannot conceive Her Majesty's Government agreeing to it. Again, if you name a period within which you will withdraw your troops you inevitably destroy the sense of security in Egypt and the sense of confidence in you which alone can give good government in the country. Those who have only a short tenure of office cannot secure that confidence. An old man may inspire some respect because no one knows at what time he may die, but a man under sentence of death can inspire no reverence at all; therefore, such an arrangement as this which has been proposed by Her Majesty's Government seems to me to be fraught with all possible mischief. What is to be the position in this case of the British Army? If it is to be an Army of Occupation for two or three years, is it to be subject to the International Board of Control? Those who hold the purse strings hold the key of the position, and I cannot help asking, if this is to be so, is it for this we have borne the burden and heat of the day in Egypt? Was it for this we bombarded Alexandria, that we incurred blood-guiltiness in Egypt, that we allowed the massacre to take place at 1442 Sinkat, and shed the blood of 7,000 Arabs? The position would be as painful as it would be ridiculous. For two years we have been in Egypt, and during the whole of that time confusion has become worse confounded. Everybody tells some story of the discontent among the population, of the difficulty of collecting the taxes of the country, and dreads the still greater dangers in. the distance. But it is an endless picture. The Government has been warned over and over again, alike by friends and foes. I know of no similar case. We are on the edge of a very great disaster, and I, therefore, once more appeal to Her Majesty's Government, and I urge upon them not to ratify this ill-omened Agreement, at all events until Parliament has had an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it.
§ EARL GRANVILLEMy Lords, without noticing the language in which the noble Earl has addressed your Lordships, I will, in answering the noble Earl, recapitulate very shortly what the House is already aware of—namely, that it was found absolutely necessary that an arrangement in regard to the finances of Egypt should take place; that in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government it was needful to make alterations in the Law of Liquidation; and that with that object we addressed a Circular to the Powers proposing a Conference to deal with that subject. Your Lordships are aware of the terms of the Circular which we addressed to the Powers on that subject and to which we still adhere. Your Lordships are aware also that four of the Powers have agreed to the Conference; and France agreed to it in principle, but desired to have an exchange of views on the position of Egypt, which we very readily agreed to make. Since that time communications have gone on between the French Government and Her Majesty's Government, and they are still going on in a very friendly way. It will be impossible for me at this moment to say what will be the final result. As soon as we come to that result we shall communicate with the other Powers, and as soon as that is done we shall communicate the Anglo-French Agreement to both Houses of Parliament; and I may add that we shall do so previous to the meeting of the Conference.
§ EARL CAIRNSMy Lords, the position of Her Majesty's Government is somewhat singular. The noble Earl says that Her Majesty's Government thought it was necessary to make an alteration in the Law of Liquidation in Egypt, and that for that purpose it was desirable, and perhaps necessary, to obtain the assent of the Powers. A proposal was made for a Conference for that purpose. Parliament was taken into the confidence of the Government on that subject, and the Government said to Parliament and the public— "We have invited the Powers to come to the Conference, and in order that you may know what is going to happen we will lay all the Papers connected with the Conference on the Table. "Those Papers were laid on the Table; and when a suggestion was made here and "elsewhere" that the Conference might lead to the discussion of other matters we were told by Her Majesty's Government to look at the language which they had used, which was clear and precise, and was limited to the one question of finance connected with the Law of Liquidation; and we were further told that if any Power went beyond that it would be tantamount to a new Conference, and that as Parliament had been consulted with regard to the first Conference, so if there were anything in the shape of a new Conference, of course Parliament would hear of it before any step was taken. Three or four days ago for the first time Parliament and the public heard to their extreme surprise that we were in a fools's paradise on the subject of the Conference, and that a negotiation was going on with one of the Powers which negotiation might come to a conclusion—and, we hear now, will come to a conclusion—before the Conference will be entered upon. And we are told now that if a conclusion is come to between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of France the result of that conclusion will be submitted to the other Powers and then Parliament will be informed. Informed of what? That the matter has been already concluded. Some Treaties require ratification, and a certain time is given to Parliament occasionally to become acquainted with the contents, and to express its opinion before the ratification of the Treaty. We are told now, however, that what is going on between 1444 Her Majesty's Government and the Government of France will not necessarily result in a Treaty, but that some-tiling will be concluded by means of despatches and by correspondence, so that it will be too late for Parliament to express any opinion when Parliament is informed that the whole matter has been settled between England and France. We are about to adjourn for nearly three weeks, and when we meet again, perhaps, Parliament will be informed that the whole matter is over, that it is concluded, and that it is too late to take any steps or to express any opinion. The Government will, of course, offer their responsibility to Parliament, but what does Parliament care about that? Parliament wants to know what is to be done in regard to Egypt. My noble Friend asks this question of the noble Earl—"Is it the case, or is it not, that there is no question about removing Her Majesty's troops from Egypt in a limited time?" If there is no such communication going on the noble Earl has only to say so; and if he does not say so we are entitled to assume that it is going on, and that that is the question which is now being negotiated between the Government of Her Majesty and the Government of France. I protest against the House being thus set at defiance by the Government in a matter of this kind.
§ EARL STANHOPEsaid, he was surprised that no Member of the Government had risen to answer the noble and learned Earl. He felt clearly that it was the duty of the Government to say plainly "Aye" or "No" to the Question whether they had made a secret Treaty with France, or had agreed in any way to a fixed period for the withdrawal of the troops from Egypt? He protested in the strongest way possible against the Government concluding- such matters without consulting Parliament. When they met after the Recess, they might find that the matter had been settled beyond a chance of revocation. He, therefore, begged to give Notice that if, as he anticipated, no answer were given, he should repeat a similar Question on the 17th June, when their Lordships reassembled.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, Her Majesty's Government are accustomed to carry on their Business in the other House of Parliament by the 1445 practice of imposing absolute silence on their own supporters. That is a very convenient way of shortening the proceedings, and of avoiding the necessity of answering disagreeable Questions. It has been so successful in the other House that the example is contagious, and they propose now to dispose of all disagreeable Questions in this House at a moment of grave crisis, when engagements of a most serious character are about to be concluded, by maintaining an absolute silence in the face of speeches like that of my noble Friend behind me. I cannot force them to speak; I have no means of putting them upon the rack; but, at all events, I cannot pass by such an occasion, which may be critical and historical in the destinies of this country, without entering my earnest protest against the course which Her Majesty's Government are pursuing. I do not wish to offer any limitation to the power of the Grown to deal with foreign affairs; but I think there is one practical limit to it which is imposed alike by common sense, and by a feeling for the patriotic instincts of the people. Any engagement which tends to diminish the power of this country, which tends to impose upon it the necessity of humiliating surrender, which forces us to retreat from territories we now occupy, and to sacrifice grave British interests, for which we have made no common efforts—any such engagement ought not to be finally concluded until this and the other House of Parliament have had some opportunity of expressing their opinion. My Lords, I repeat that from the silence of Her Majesty's Government we must conclude that the rumours which have been rife during the last two or three days have only too much foundation in fact, and that the Government are contemplating an escape from all the difficulties which surround them by yielding up Egypt to the anarchy and confusion of a Multiple Control, and that they do intend to neutralize all the efforts and all the sacrifices we have made by determining a fixed period for the withdrawal of our troops from that country, and that by the same step they are making it impossible that any of those who have yet a remaining belief in our power, or a lingering desire to cultivate our good will, should give effect to those sympathies; and that they are making it an absolute necessity for every weak Power, for all 1446 the tribes throughout Egypt and the Soudan, for all those who have linked with the name of England and the hope of English interference any prospect of advancement or civilization in that country, to provide for the coming evil, to make peace with the coming man, and to abandon the hope of British interference and sympathy. This is a very grave decision of Her Majesty's Government. It is a decision which will leave a stain on the character and the position of England for many a long year to come. It is a decision that will be felt at every turn of our policy and in every representation we have to make, and in every engagement that we have to undertake it will smite us with weakness equal to a great defeat. It will be a withdrawal of strength equal to many armed battalions. And yet this resolution, so deadly in its effect, is apparently to be taken without giving either to this House or to the Representatives of the people in the other House any opportunity of expressing an opinion on a course of action so vital to the destinies of England. We on our side have nothing left to us but to protest; but I, at all events, hope that this long period of Recess will not be agreed to, and that we shall meet at an early day in order that we may, if time and opportunity shall be allowed to us, and if matters should assume the aspect to which our worst apprehensions point, at least resort to the last power of the Constitution, and present an Address to the Queen, praying Her Majesty that she will not consent to such an arrangement.
§ EARL GRANVILLEMy Lords, with regard to the minor question, your Lordships would imagine, from the speech of the noble Marquess opposite, that I have surreptitiously proposed a long holiday without consultation with him, whereas it was with his entire approval that I made the Motion to which he now objects.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThat is quite true.
§ EARL GRANVILLEIf, however, the noble Lord wishes that the Holidays shall be shortened, I am perfectly prepared to fix an earlier day for our reassembling in accordance with his desire.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI should prefer that the House should reassemble on Monday week.
§ EARL GRANVILLEWell, let it be I on Monday week. I have listened with I some astonishment at the courage of the; noble Marquess in defining the amount of openness necessary on the part of the Government in giving information to Parliament before entering into important negotiations with foreign countries. Your Lordships all know something of what the noble Marquess did in that matter, and it is just possible that I may know still more. The noble and learned Earl and the noble Marquess have accused us of wishing to shirk Parliamentary discussion; but the very object that we have had in promising to lay before the House what has passed between the Powers before going into the Conference is to give Parliament the fullest opportunity of discussing the whole question.