CENTRAL ASIA-ENGLAND AND RUSSIA THE RUSSO-AFGHAN FRON TIER. MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If the new agreement between the British and Russian Governments is still in force; whether any advance of the Russian troops has taken place since the date of that agreement; whether this agreement in any way recognises that Penjdeh, Ak-Rabat, and Zulfagar, are on debatable territory; and, whether he can now, consistently with the public interest, state that Her Majesty's Ministers intend to protect the absolute integrity of all Afghan territory, including these important positions, from Russian occupation and influence, in accordance with their own pledges and those of the Czar's Government? LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE : I believe that there has been no forward movement of Russian troops since the Russian Government agreed that no advance should take place. The agreement does not touch on the question of the ultimate possession of the places mentioned. As I informed the hon. Member yesterday, it would not be in the public interest to make any declaration of the nature suggested by him. MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT asked the Prime Minister whether he could answer the last part of the Question ? MR. GLADSTONE: No. MR. GIBSON asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Has the Government yet received any, and, if so, what reply to the telegram of Lord Granville, sent on Saturday to the Russian Government, asking for a confirmation of the Prime Minister's statement on Friday last? stance, and I will answer both at once. Under the circumstances stated yesterday to the House, after having consulted Lord Granville on the subject, a telegram was sent to St. Petersburg; and, although it is an exceptional thing to do, I will read the telegram in replywhich arrived late last night-in the exact form in which it will appear in the Papers. It is to this effect "The Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs states that the Russian troops will not advance from the positions now occupied by them, provided the Afghan forces do not advance or attack, or unless in case of some extraordinary reason such, for instance, as disturbances at Penjdeh. He also states that the strictest orders have been sent to the Russian commander to avoid by every possible means a conflict, or any incitement to a conflict, and that the orders will be repeated." We accept this communication as made in good faith, and, of course, as applicable both sides, to both parties; and acting upon our responsibility in the conduct of what I described as a National and Imperial policy, I and my Colleagues deprecate any pressure for further explanations at this juncture. MR. GIBSON: Are we to understand from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman that Her Majesty's Government reserve to themselves on behalf of the Afghans the same right which the Russian Government retain for themselves of advancing "for some extraordinary reason?" I also wish to ask if the Prime Minister feels himself in a position to say whether this provisional arrangement would at all interfere with the business of the Boundary Commission, and when the Commission may be expected to have completed its work? MR. GLADSTONE: With respect to the first part of the Question, I thought SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF asked I had disposed of it by saying that we the First Lord of the Treasury, Whe- accept the arrangement as applicable on ther an answer has been received from both sides. As regards the second the Government of Russia on the sub-point, I think I drew the other day a ject of the agreement or arrangement, shadowed forth in the Despatch of the 5th of March, from Her Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg, for the governance of the Russian and Afghan forces on the frontiers of Afghanistan; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government will lay upon the Table the precise terms of the agreement or arrangement? MR. GLADSTONE: The two Questions are very nearly identical in sub distinction between the case of a military advance which, however serious in itself, has no bearing whatever on the matter of right-I drew a distinction between that question and the question of right at issue between the two countries, and which, therefore, has been treated by us entirely apart. I accept the arrangement that has been made as fair, and I do not conceive that it can have any effect but that of facilitating the course of the inquiries. With regard to the precise position of those inquiries, I am correct, I think, in saying that General Lumsden has made very considerable progress in what hitherto was quite unknown in that country-namely, the actual tracing of the frontier; but I would rather not give any information on that point. MR. M'COAN asked whether Her Majesty's Government accepted this conditional agreement in satisfaction of their former demand that the Russians should withdraw from the positions they occupied ? LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The Prime Minister has stated that the Russian Government have sent orders to their officer commanding on the frontier. Can he inform us, without prejudice to the public interest, whether the Russian Government are in communication with their officers on the frontier, or how soon the orders sent will reach them? MR. GLADSTONE: I cannot state the precise time which it takes for a message from St. Petersburg to reach the Russian Commander; but the communication made to us is perfectly unequivocal and frank-first, upon the point that the strictest orders have been given; and, secondly, upon the point that they will be repeated. I have not the slightest doubt that they will be repeated. BARON HENRY DE WORMS: Is it not a fact that it is over 200 miles from the nearest telegraph station to where the Russian troops now are? MR. GLADSTONE: I do not know the precise distance. MR. ONSLOW: May I ask whether the substance of the agreement or arrangement arrived at with Russia is to the effect that the Russians have determined not to advance into what they consider the proper boundary of Afghanistan; or that they will not advance from the positions they now occupy? MR. GLADSTONE: That is disposed of by the words of the telegram I have read. I will repeat them again "The Russian troops will not advance from the positions now occupied by them." SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: May I ask whether this agreement is to rest merely on the verbal assurance of the Russian Minister to Her Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg, or whether it is to be consigned in any formal way into a diplomatic document ? VOL. CCXCV. [THIRD SERIES.] MR. E. STANHOPE asked the First Lord of the Treasury, With reference to the statement of the Government in December last, that a communication had been addressed to the Government of Russia pressing for the withdrawal of the Russian troops from the position they then occupied beyond Sarakhs, whether any answer has been received to that communication; and, if not, whether it has been withdrawn? MR. GLADSTONE: My hon. Friend is substantially quite correct in the reference he makes to what passed on a former occasion, when my noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs stated, I think in November, that we had pressed the Russian Government to withdraw from the position which they then occupied beyond Sarakhs. Then he asks "whether any answer has been received to that communication; and, if not, whether it has been withdrawn?" Upon that communication a correspondence ensued, and the Russians declined to withdraw their troops. They gave certain explanations about them, but declined to withdraw them; and they founded their answer upon the belief they entertained that the territory is theirs, and that they claim it as a matter of right. We, of course, had addressed a requisition to them in the belief that it was Afghan territory; but that being the state of the case, as the Russians made a serious claim to be the rightful possessors of the territory, we could do nothing in the matter consistently, I think, either with prudence or with any honourable regard to the interests of peace, except to prosecute measures for bringing about a proper investigation and decision of the claim that had been preferred. It was a presumptive claim, it was repeated by the Russian answer, and then it put us upon another course of procedure; and that being so, undoubtedly there has been-I will not say actually a withdrawal of the requisition-but substantially it comes to the same thing. The application that was made has lapsed from the circumstances of the case, and on account of the contentions that 3 A are raised on the two sides respec- | the agreement between Russia and Her tively. MR. E. STANHOPE: I understand this communication, addressed to the Russian Government, was to the effect that before Her Majesty's Government would resume negotiations, they should withdraw their troops from the positions they then occupied beyond the boundary. The Russian troops, we are told now, have not been withdrawn, the Russion Government refusing to withdraw them; but Her Majesty's Government have resumed negotiations. MR. GLADSTONE: That is a matter I will not trust my memory to answer without a further reference, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give No tice of the Question. SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Substantially, as I understand, we made a demand. Have we withdrawn that demand; and are we satisfied with the reasons given why the Russians would not withdraw? MR. GLADSTONE: We made a de mand unquestionably, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman, in the belief that the territory was Afghan territory. We found that that was the matter in con test-that it was part of the very matter that had to be decided in a regular, pacific, and, I hope, friendly inquiry That being so, there certainly was no formal act of withdrawal; but substantially the demand was withdrawn. MR. ONSLOW asked the First Lord of the Treasury, What steps have been taken to inform the Ameer of Afghanistan of the "new agreement" arrived at between England and Russia? MR. GLADSTONE: We have no particular information on that subject. All we know is that Sir Peter Lumsden is in constant communication with the Ameer, and we have not the slightest doubt that he has communicated with him in reference to this matter. MR. ONSLOW asked if Sir Peter Lumsden had been communicated with on the subject? MR. GLADSTONE: I am not aware of that. It would be much more convenient if the hon. Gentleman would kindly address the Departmental Ministers on the subject. MR. ONSLOW gave Notice that on Thursday he should ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government had communicated Mr. Gladstone Majesty's Government to Sir Peter Lumsden with instructions that he should inform the Ameer that such an agreement had been come to ? EGYPT THE MAHDI. SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government have arrived at any definite conclusion on the terms to be exacted from the Mahdi and his adherents as conditions of peace; and, if so, whether, in order to avoid further expense and bloodshed, Her Majesty's Government will instruct Lord Wolseley to take steps to make such terms known to the Mahdi and Osman Digna before resuming offensive operations? MR. GLADSTONE: I think it would not be expedient on the part of the Government to enter into any statement as to the terms on which it would be possible for us to make any agreement with the Mahdi. If the hon. Gentleman will kindly refer to a statement previously ARMY-THE ROYAL INFIRMARY, MR. EATON asked the Secretary of State for War, How many deaths occurred in the Royal Infirmary, Dublin, during the first week of March 1885; if it is true that there are no Military surgeons or orderlies of the Medical Staff Corps doing duty at the Royal Infirmary, and the patients are attended by untrained soldiers from the various regiments in the garrison; if it is true that, under the former regimental system, trained regimental hospital orderlies would have been available to attend patients belonging to their own regi ments; and, if he will take steps to provide trained female nurses to attend to the more serious cases in the Royal Infirmary and other large Military hos pitals? THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: | finances of that country. The matter is During the first week of March two now substantially closed, and a Declaradeaths occurred in the Royal Infirmary, tion relating to the Agreement has been Dublin. According to the latest Re- signed to-day at the Foreign Office by turns, there were on duty in this hospi- all the Ambassadors who assembled tal one surgeon-major in charge, four there, and the Convention itself is to be civilian surgeons, one sergeant of the signed to-morrow. With regard to the Medical Staff Corps, with orderlies from nature of the Convention, it would not, Line regiments. It is quite true that I think, be convenient that I should under the former system the hospital attempt to enter upon it now, nor could orderlies would have been drawn from I, perhaps, give a perfectly accurate the regiments, and that they would have account of it on all points. Papers are had a certain amount of hospital train- in progress of preparation with all posing, though far less than is now given to sible speed, and will be laid upon the men of the Medical Staff Corps. Under Table at the earliest possible moment. that system, during war the regimental In the course of to-morrow or the next hospitals at home would have had their day my noble Friend, I daresay, will be own orderlies; but in the field the able to state the precise date when those trained orderlies would have had to be Papers will be presented. I can assure largely supplemented by untrained men, the House that we are most anxious on whom the base hospitals would pro- not to lose a moment; and when they bably have entirely depended. At pre- are laid upon the Table we shall be sent, when an army is in the field, the equally anxious not to lose a moment in hospitals at home afford for it an ample bringing the matter under the notice of supply of trained orderies, though their the House. employment necessarily, to some extent, denudes for the time the hospitals at home. An augmentation in the female nursing staff at home is proposed in the Estimates for the ensuing year. EGYPT (FINANCE, &c.)-THE INTER NATIONAL AGREEMENT. SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Agreement between the Powers with regard to the administration of Egypt has been signed; and, if so, whether he is able to communicate to the House the character of that arrangement? MR. GLADSTONE: I was rising from my seat at the moment when the right hon. Baronet rose to make some observations on this very matter. I take this opportunity of thanking the right hon. Gentleman and those who sit round him for the great considerateness which they have shown in refraining from putting Questions on this particular subject. The delay has been a very long delay, and certainly much longer than I expected it would be when Questions were at first put to me. But at last I am happy to say that these deliberations have come to a close. I would observe, with reference to the words used by the right hon. Baronet, that it is an Agreement, not for the administration of Egypt, but for the regulation of the SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: As the printing of the Papers must take some time, it would be greatly for the public convenience if we could be furnished, without delay, with information as to the general character of the Agreement that has been made. MR. GLADSTONE: The remark of the right hon. Baronet is quite just. It is desirable that the House should have as much time as possible for examining the matter; and I will consider what, upon the whole, would be the most convenient course to adopt. SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I will put a Question on the subject tomorrow. MR. GORST: Could not this particular Paper be printed separately? I MR. GLADSTONE: That is just what am going to consider. FRIENDLY SOCIETIES-REPORT OF THE CHIEF REGISTRAR, 1883. MR. ACLAND asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been drawn to the concluding paragraphs of Part VII. of the Report of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, 1883, page 20, with reference to the sale by sheets of the Abstract therein referred to; and, whether he is willing to take any, and, if so, what, steps to carry out the suggestion made in the concluding paragraph? MR. HIBBERT: The paragraphs referred to relate to matters upon which the Treasury has for some time been in communication with the Chief Registrar, and we shall be glad if arrangements can be made to carry out his views. MR. ACLAND asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been drawn to Part XI. of the Report referred to in the preceding Question, which deals with the Independent Mutual Brethren Society; and, whether the Returns of that Society establishes its ability, as now re-organised, to discharge its present liabilities to its members? rangement in the matter which was ultimately come to between the Government and the Leaders of the Opposition, and I have not changed my opinion that that arrangement was a desirable one to come to, and that it was good for all parties concerned. But I am bound to say that the extremely hard-and-fast manner in which the Government seem determined to draw the lines of the agreement is calculated to militate strongly against any future proposal for entering into such an arrangement. We certainly did expect that there would have been some amount of elasticity in regard to questions of detail. But in whatever way these hard-and-fast lines may have been applicable to other matters which have come before the Com MR. HIBBERT: I have read the paragraphs of Mr. Ludlow's Report which refer to this Society, and have nothing to add to them. The Govern-mittee on previous clauses of the Bill, I ment is not responsible for the solvency of Friendly Societies; and my hon. Friend will hardly expect me to express an opinion on the subject. Bill considered in Committee. Clause 8 (Division of Parliamentary boroughs). MR. RITCHIE: Several attempts have been made on more than one occasion to ascertain from the Government what they consider to be the vital points of the Bill; but these attempts have always failed, or have been met evasively. It is evident to the Committee, however, that the Government are clearly determined to maintain the Bill, as it has been presented to the House, not only on questions of principle, but also on questions of even what some of us consider matters of merely minor detail. am one of those who have always advocated, as strongly as I could, the ar I venture to say that the Government will find great difficulty in taking up that position in reference to the Amendment I have placed upon the Paper. Certainly nothing that may be said either by the Government or by the Members of the Front Bench below me upon the Amendment I am about to move can show that it is objectionable because it involves a departure from the principles contained in the Bill. So far from that being so, I believe it will be admitted both by the Government and the Front Opposition Bench that the Amendment I am about to move is one which carries out in its entirety one of the main principles, if not the main principle, of the Bill. That being the case, the Amendment which I have to move is one which not only ought not to be objected to by either Party to the agreement, but which ought to be welcomed by both Parties. I do not think I am wrong in stating that the principle of singleMember constituencies is one of the main principles, if not the main principle, of the measure. It was so described by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister in introducing the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the division of constituencies into single-Member constituencies was one of the main principles of the Bill. The question then for consideration has reference solely to that principle. I may say that I do not wish to pause here to discuss whether it is a good principle or a bad principle-for my own part, I think it a good principle, and a principle the House ought to accept; but I |