material, and to keep them in the dark these matters quietly, there had no doubt with regard to important matters essen- been some communications with the tial to the understanding of our position. Government. Information was thus With respect to Egypt, he would make needed not only with regard to the this remark. Lord Salisbury alluded in health of Cyprus-which, he feared, from his despatch to the Correspondence be- the reports of to-day, was a serious questween the English, French, and Austrian tion, for a diminution of the troops quarGovernments with respect to the Tripar- tered there had been found necessarytite Treaty; but M. Waddington went but also with regard to the grave quesfurther in his reply to Lord Salisbury, tion of jurisdiction and future sovereignty. and spoke about the clandestine Con- Parliament, unless otherwise informed, vention between ourselves and Turkey, must treat as idle rumours stories as to and mentioned that France and Austria a new secret Convention handing over refused to act under the provisions of Cyprus entirely to us; but it was importhe Tripartite Treaty. That meant that tant that in any new arrangement bethey had been asked to act together with tween England and Turkey Parliament England in maintaining the integrity of should not leave these matters in the the Ottoman Empire, and had refused. unsatisfactory position in which they He wanted to know when that proposal now stood. was made to France and Austria? This was of great importance, because they had been told very early in the Eastern troubles by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that the Tripartite Treaty must be looked upon as virtually dead, and it seemed to him that after that statement was made France and Austria were invited to intervene by force to maintain the integrity of the Ottoman Empire. He also wanted to know what was the present situation with regard to Merv? The Government had attached very great importance indeed to the possession of Merv by Russia; and he should like to know whether there was any information to disprove the very serious rumours which were afloat on this question? More information was also needed with regard to Cyprus, previous questions in reference to that subject having been answered in an uncandid way in that House. The very question as to jurisdiction and sovereignty, which had been pooh-poohed last Session by the Solicitor General as highly speculative, had arisen in regard to the trial of an American before a Court presided over by a Turkish cadi, and at which the assessor was an Englishman. A conviction for digging up antiquities was obtained under a Turkish statute, and the antiquities were confiscated. The point was raised whether the Court was a Turkish or an English one; the defendant maintaining that if it was an English Court he should be tried by English law, and that if it was a Turkish Court he ought to be tried by the Consul. The Consul had been appealed to, and, as the American Government did not pass over MR. BOURKE: I only rise to trespass on the attention of the House for two or three minutes in consequence of what has just fallen from the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea. I am very far from complaining of any remarks of his. On my part, and on the part of the Government, I may state that we are always ready to give every Paper to the Members of this House which they ask for, provided it can be given with due regard to the public interests. It is very difficult to know what are the Papers which shall be presented to Parliament. After the Government have done all their duty in a matter, certain parts of a question, or certain other questions, may occur to hon. Members of this House, and therefore all the Papers required are not always produced at first. can only say that all the Papers he may want with respect to the Foreign Office, if he would only give me Notice of them, I will do my best to produce to the House, and it will not be on any small or narrow ground that they will be refused. With regard to one or two remarks which were hardly worthy of the position the hon. Baronet holds in this House, and with regard to “extracts" which he thought were occasionally garbled and not produced by the Government with a very good intention I SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I did not allude to the present Government; I was referring to something that occurred some years ago. MR. BOURKE: Then I have nothing more to say upon that point. I am very glad, indeed, to have elicited that expression from the hon. Baronet. | regard to one expression used by the hon. There is another question upon which Baronet the Member for Chelsea, "that the hon. Baronet did say something, the Papers had been kept back," I and upon which I am anxious to say a must say the Papers were not kept back few words myself. I certainly did at the for one moment; but, on the contrary, end of last Session use the words which we have done our best to get them forhe has attributed to me, and have never ward; so, as to having any intention to denied them for one moment, either in keep them back, such an intention has public or in private conversation, and not existed for one moment. The hon. those words were that the Central Asian Baronet has already made a statement Papers would be produced "in a few with regard to the Berlin Treaty; but I days." The fact of the matter is this- may say that we have no reason to supwhen I answered that Question I consulted pose that any Power in Europe has any those whom it was my duty to consult; intention of not carrying out that Treaty; and having satisfied myself that the and I am sure the hon. Baronet will Papers should be, and could be, pro-attach importance to what has been said duced within that period, I used the by M. Waddington on the subject. M. words "a few days" advisedly. The Waddington, at a dinner which was Vacation then began, and the prepara- given a few weeks ago in his honour, tion of those Papers did not cease, be- said, with regard to the Berlin Treaty cause the preparation of them was con- and the work which has been accomfided to one of the ablest and most in-plished by the French Plenipotendustrious public servants we have, and tiaries— he went on with the task. But events soon occurred which made it perfectly clear that the Papers which we intended to present, and which we thought would be sufficient at that time, would be inadequate, with regard to Central Asia. It was therefore determined that a very much larger series of Papers should be presented, and therefore an examination of the Central Asian documents for the last 13 years had to be undertaken. The Register for the last six years contains 15,000 documents; therefore, the examination of the Papers for 13 years was no light task. I, during the Recess, reminded the Office on several occasions of the promise I had given, and I also heard on several occasions of the subject from the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett). I have throughout done my best to have the Papers produced; but they were delayed, in the first instance, owing to the press of business, and, in the next place, owing to the great mass which had to be examined. All I need add is, that we were as anxious as any hon. Member could be that they should be presented, and that the statement that they would be produced in a few days" was made by me in perfectly good faith. I hope this explanation will be sufficient for the House and for the hon. Baronet; and, at the same time, I think I may say that no great difficulty or inconvenience has been caused by the Papers not being produced. With constantly supported the great principles on That was the sentiment by which Her at this moment. The negotiations are going on, and I can say they are favourable to the sentiments of Her Majesty's Government. As to the document to which the hon. Baronet has alluded on the subject of the Tripartite Treaty, I am not sure whether it is of any great importance now whether it is shown or whether it is not that Her Majesty's Government have asked the other Powers to join in communications on the subject. It is extremely unlikely, because unnecessary; and I do not think for one moment that the idea was entertained by Her Majesty's Government of asking the other Powers. With regard to the Central Asian Papers connected with the execution of the Berlin Treaty, if the hon. Baronet will kindly give me a list of the particular Papers which he wishes to have produced, and repeat his Question on Monday, I will then be prepared to give him an answer. ment were not in any way committing the country without giving information, so that the House might form a judgment as to the ground on which they did So. His hon. Friend had anticipated him in two or three questions he was going to ask with regard to Papers that had been given to the House upon this country's position in Afghanistan. In the first place, he alluded to the Proclamation of War. He supposed that would be given. [Mr. E. STANHOPE: Yes, it is given to-night.] His hon. Friend had alluded to the terms of that Proclamation. He understood it went back for some time past, and supposed it referred to those acts which were alluded to in that part of Lord Lytton's despatch which appeared in page 170; but he did not think his hon. Friend quite described the full weight of the ground upon which the House might fairly ask for a little more information. At page 170 an MR. W. E. FORSTER took this op- account was given by Lord Lytton of portunity to ask for a little more infor- the Peshawur Conference. In paragraph mation, especially on the point which 33 of that despatch Sir Lewis Pelly is was more particularly before them-the reported to have demanded from the war with Afghanistan. Before that, he Envoy an explanation of the reported must state that although his hon. Friend hostility of the Ameer's conduct. The the Member for Chelsea asked for a Envoy is stated to have replied that the great many Papers on a great many reports which had reached us of the subjects, he yet gave good reasons for Ameer's utterances were much exaggerevery question. He had been met very ated, and he feared His Highness had fairly by the Under Secretary of State fallen under influences which he must for Foreign Affairs; but there was one condemn. In the enclosures there were Paper which his hon. Friend would find most detailed memoranda of all the init extremely difficult to include in the terviews between Sir Lewis Pelly and list which he had been invited to give the Minister of the Ameer, and yet in, because it was not actually a de- there was no mention of this demand, spatch, but a statement of M. Wadding- or of the answer thereto. The queston. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) had only tion he (Mr. W. E. Forster) wished to one more remark to make with regard ask was whether there was not some to the general question, and that was as such allusion; and, if there was not, to the state of the negotiations, or the upon what Lord Lytton founded his conditions to which this country and the statement in the 33rd and 34th paraGovernment stood committed with re- graphs, that there was a demand for gard to Bulgaria and Eastern Rou- explanation, and that the Envoy gave it? melia. There appeared to be a feel- He could not find in the detailed account ing abroad that the English power either the demand or the explanation. might be used to prevent the people One other Paper he should like to ask of Bulgaria being a united Common- for, which was not of great importance; wealth. Now, he would not enter into but he thought they should have the the question of the expediency of dividing letter from Captain Grey, alluded to in Bulgaria; but he knew there was nothing the Memorandum by Dr. Bellew, in that a large part of the population would page 195. This letter he wanted prolook upon with more distaste than the duced; because, though he could not use of the English power to put down put his hand on the statement, he such a union as that of the two Bul- knew it was in the despatches, that garias. He entirely supported his hon. one reason why the Indian GovernFriend in saying he trusted the Government believed the Ameer was hostile 139 Address in {COMMONS} On was that he thought this Minister was | Northbrook informed the Ameer that the prejudiced against him. With respect discussion as to his reception of a Resito the letters referred to in the despatch dent had better be postponed to a more which Lord Cranbrook called the eva- convenient season, and that the result sive letter, perhaps they were not in was that no assurances were given to the England. [Mr. E. STANHOPE: Yes, Ameer. He was confident that it was they are.] Then, again, the Nawab the impression of the country that the Gholam Hussein Khan was sent to Ameer wanted assurances against Russound the Ameer as to whether he would sia; that Lord Northbrook was prepared receive Sir Neville Chamberlain, and the to give these assurances; and that it was practice was in Indian matters for a owing to the action of the Home Gogentleman sent on a mission to make a vernment that they were not given. Report. If he did make a Report, and Now, the facts were these that Lord if it was in England, would it be pro- Northbrook proceeded to give certain duced? If it was not, would the Go- assurances containing the word "provernment telegraph for it? He could bable," and that it was in consequence of not help thinking that the Report would a telegram he received from the Home throw a great deal of light upon the Government that he missed out the word "probable," and gave to his assurances Ameer's conduct. The only other request for additional information which a stronger character. The question of he would make referred to a different the assurances was not postponed. matter. The policy with regard to the the contrary, in the Blue Book there admission of British Residents in Af- are positive statements made by Lord ghanistan had been admitted on all Salisbury and Lord Lytton, that assursides to have been changed by Lord ances were given against aggression. He Salisbury, who wrote on the 22nd of Jan- thought they had some right to complain uary to Lord Northbrook, and again on of the right hon. Gentleman dwelling the 19th of November, in a tone which upon the refusal of Lord Northbrook to undoubtedly denoted a great change of insert in his communication to the policy. The question he was going to Ameer a distinct reference to a possible ask was, whether there were any opi- aggression on the part of Russia; because nions given by any Members of the In- they had every reason to believe that dian Council in England on the matter, for two years, at least, thereafter the and whether they would be produced? right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues He could not think that there was any- would have taken up precisely the same thing in any of these Papers which the ground. Lord Northbrook was given Government would refuse to give to the to understand by the Government that House. He had only one other remark the policy of their Predecessors was to make, and it was with reference to approved. the question as between the present Government and the Government he had had the honour of being connected with. It might be thought unseemly that there should be bickerings between two front Benches, between the present Ministers and the late Ministers, with regard to their past conduct when the country was in a difficult position, and when they were engaged in so very important a matter; yet the Opposition could not, with a due regard to their own honour, allow charges to be made against them without making some reply. He only wished, very briefly, just to state what the country, generally speaking, understood by Lord Cranbrook's despatch. They understood, first, that Lord North brook and the Government did not agree LORD ROBERT MONTAGU*: Sir, a reference has been made by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. W. E. Forster) to some "acts of hostility" supposed to have been comNo such mitted by the Ameer of Afghanistan against the English nation. acts could have been committed prior to the conclusion of the Peshawur Conferences in the month of May of last year; for Lord Lytton and the Indian Council wrote, in their despatch of May 10 "We see no reason to anticipate any act of aggression on the part of the present Ameer, or on our own part any cause of interference with His Highness. Our relations with him are still such as we commonly maintain with of neighbouring and friendly countries."-[Afghanistan, No. 1, p. 172.] the Chiefs Sir Lewis Pelly, moreover, on March 15, 1877, summed up the conclusions of the Conference in a Paper for the Ameer's | the Ameer. That policy was successful. "The British Government harbours no hostile designs against Afghanistan. . . . The Afghan people may rest fully assured that so long as they are not excited by their Ruler, or others, to acts of aggression upon the territories or friends of the British Government, no British soldier will ever be permitted to enter Afghanistan unin vited.. The Ameer.. need be under no apprehension whatever of any hostile action on The supposed casus belli is simply and "If we have formed a correct judgment of the sentiments of the Ameer towards the British Government, the main objects of the policy which was advocated by Lord Canning... are secured."-[Ibid. p. 134.] Lord Salisbury, however, comes to the India Office in 1874, and he soon determines to change the policy which had been maintained by so many successive Governments, and advocated by all who were acquainted with India, and which had been successful; he determined to change it, and adopt an opposite policy. He wrote a high-handed despatch, commanding a change of policy. The Indian Council replied by a dignified, but strong protest, warning him of the dangers which he was incurring. Lord Salisbury's despatch was written on January 22, 1875. The Indian protest was written on June 7th. On November 19th, Lord Salisbury sent a still more peremptory order, directing the appointment of a British Envoy. Again, Lord Northbrook and his Council remonstrated, protesting in strong and unmistakable terms "We deprecate, as involving serious danger to the peace of Afghanistan and to the interests of the British Empire in India, the execution, under present circumstances, of the instructions conveyed in your Lordship's Despatch."-[1bid. p. 155.] This was met by Lord Salisbury, and overriden, by a most peremptory order to carry out the opposite policy without a moment's delay. There is then a hiatus in the Blue Book. But we know that Lord Northbrook came home before his time, and that Lord Lytton was appointed. Lord Lytton had conferences with Lord Salisbury and the Russian Ambassador, Count Schouvaloff, and went to India to carry out the new policy. There was a new Council and a new Viceroy; and they wrote home in May, 1877, that the information concerning these conferences with the Russian Ambassador "influenced their considerations," and then they proceeded to affirm many things which they had a short time before most stoutly denied, in order to vindicate or at least exculpate the change of policy. Thus was the settled and time-honoured policy of 30 years reversed, and no |