A BLUE BOOK ISSUED.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 11254, 26 October 1898, Page 2

A BLUE BOOK ISSUED.

REPLY TO FRENCH STATEMENTS.

LONDON, October 25. (Received Oct. 26, at 1 a.m.)

Great Britain is placing in commission 18 30-knot torpedo destroyers. The British North American squadron is mobilising afc Halifax. A Blue Book has been issued utterly refuting the French Yellow Book.

Lord Salisbury states that after unsolicited overtures, he had a two hours' interview with Baron De Courcel, French Ambassador, on October 6, the greater part of which wa. occupied by Baron De Courcel's self-introduced remarks about Fashoda.

Lord Salisbury insisted that the question was whether Egypt or the Mahdists were entitled to possession of the Nile, which had been settled on the battlefield. A third party, he said, had no claim to the region. Marchand had conducted a secret expedition despite repeated warnings.

Baron De Courcel wished both France and Britain to announce that delimitation negotiations were progressing, and that Marchand was retiring. Lord Salisbury, in reply, would not countenance the cession of portion of the left bank of the Nile.

Baron De Courcel on October 12 promised that Marchand would retreat westward if provided with food and munitions of war, and Lord Salisbury promised both. Baron De Courcel therefore did not pursue the theme, and asked for an outlet to the Nile.

Baron De Courcel then became excited, and Lord Salisbury refused to discuss the matter unless his proposals were placed in writing.

The Egyptian Government approved of the Sirdar's action with regard to Marchand, and urged Lord Salisbury to prevent the Nile provinces east of Deozben falling into other hands.

WASHINGTON, October 24.

(Received Oct.' 25 at 8.30 a.m.) The American newspapers strongly sympathise with Great Britain over the Fashoda incident, and warn France that it is impossible that her conduct can be successful in the event of a naval war.

The now famous declaration of Sir Edward Grey that French interference on the Upper Nile would be regarded as an unfriendly act, v/as -nade in the course of a discussion in the British House of Commons on March 28, 1895.

Sir E. Ashmead-Bartlett asked the Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs whether ho could give any information respecting the French expedition which left the Upper Übanghi for tho Nile waterway some nine months ago. Sir E, Grey, in reply, said her Majesty's Government did not know that any French expedition had left for the Nile waterway. Later on in Committee of Supply, Mr J. "W. Lowther considered that as long as we were in Egypt it wa3 necessary for us to have political cottrol pn the upper waters of the Nile. If we wore to fail to implement the agreements and conventions into which we had entered in regard to that particular quarter, wo should find ourselves in a considerable difficulty in dealing with any foreign Power which might chose to establish itself on the banks of that river. As far as our paper rights were concerned, they were well established, and the reason why France was not asked to accept the agreements was that at ihe time she was nowhere near the localities affected. He came now to tho question whether Franco would be entitled to send to a territory claimed by her friend and ally an armed expedition in the face of those agree ments, which, though not submitted to her must have been known to her through the orcu' nary channels of information. He confessed ho was very sceptical as to whether the alleged expedition was marching towards the Nile. In fact he could hardly believe that a friendly Power like France would send an armed expedition into a territory claimed by Britain. Such an action would not .only bo most unfriendly, but would deserve much stronger language than any which he found at his command.

Sir E. Grey referred to the position which this country occupied and was to occupy in the future in the Valley of the Nile and that portion of the British sphere of influence. He had no wish to dispute the importance of' this question. Agreements were made in 1890 with Uennauy and Italy defining the British sphere of influence and obtaining its recoo-nition by those two great Powers. The agreements had now been before the world for five years and although they had not been formally recognised, except by those Powers and the Congo Free State, yet they were well known to all the other Powers, and were not disputed. Besid _ this there ivas in regard to the Nile Valley the question of the claims of Egypt. Towards Egypt this country stood in an exceptiom-1 position with respect to the maintenance of her interests, and tlie claims of Egypt were not only admitted by us,, but were also admitted and even emphasised lately by tho Government of France. In consequence of tho aorcements and in consequence of the claims of E«vi.t in the Nile Valley, the British and 3&lpti«n spheres of influence covered the wholo of the Nile waterway With regard to the question whether it was the case that a French expedition had the intention of entering the Nile .Valley, he would ask the committee to be careful in giving credence to statements concerning 'the movements of expeditions in -little-known parts of Africa. As he said that afternoon in answer to a question, the Foreign Office had no reason to suppose that any French expect-

tion had instructions or the intention to enter the Nile Valley. Indeed he could not -unlit possible that this'rumour deserved credence, because* the advance of a French expedition into a territory over which our claims had been so long known would not be merely an incoi.sistent and an unexpected act, but it must be perfectly well known to the French Government that it -would be' an unfriendly act, and would be so regarded by Britain. Mr Chamberlain believed that the statement just made by the , Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs would give the greatest satisfaction to the country. It was probably the fullest and clearest statement of the policy of the Government with regard-to the subject under discussion that they had yet received from any responsible. Minister. In fact, the Minister had made a statement which could not be misunderstood as to the claims of this country in regard to the regions referred to. Mr Labouchere considered that the speech of the Under-secretary for Foreign Affairs was a menace to France. We went to Egypt under a solemn pledge that our occupation should be mciely temporary, and yet we had done our best to render it permanent. Sir R. Temple held that we were bound to take care that no Power but ourselves obtained possession of the Upper Valley of the Nile. As long as the Government maintained that policy they might confidently rely upon the patriotic support of the Opposition. Mr Curzon referred in terms of approval to the Under-secretary's speech.

The motion for the reduction of the vote was then withdrawn.