Commons Sitting of 8 February 1877

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
A Message from Her Majesty, by the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod—
"MR. SPEAKER,
"The QUEEN commands this Honourable House to attend Her Majesty immediately, in the House of Peers."
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, with the House, went up to attend Her Majesty:—And having returned;—

NEW WRITS DURING THE RECESS.
Mr. SPEAKERacquainted the House—that he had issued Warrants for Now Writs, for Buckingham County, v. Right honble. Benjamin Disraeli, now Earl of Beaconsfield; for Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen, v. Right honble. Edward Strathearn Gordon, Lord of Appeal in Ordinary; for Salop County (Southern Division), v. Right honble. Sir Percy Egerton Herbert, K.C.B., deceased; for Frome, v. Henry Charles Lopes, esquire, a Judge of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice; for Liskeard, v. Right honble. Edward Hors-man, deceased; for Waterford County, v. Sir John Esmonde, baronet, deceased; for, Sligo County, v. Sir Robert Gore Booth, baronet, deceased.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
Honble. Thomas Francis Fremantle, for Buckingham County; Henry Bernhard Samuelson, esquire, for Frome; Leonard Henry Courtney, esquire, for Liskeard; William Wilson, esquire, for Donegal County; John Barran, esquire,

59
for Leeds; Right honble. Gerard James Noel, for Rutland County; William Watson, esquire, for Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen.

NEW WRIT ISSUED.
For Dublin University, v. Edward Gibson, esquire, Attorney General for Ireland.
Ordered, That a Committee of Privileges be appointed.
OUTLAWRIES BILL.
Bill "for the more effectual preventing Clandestine Outlawries," read the first time; to be read a second time.

THE QUEEN'S SPEECH FROM THE THRONE.
MR. SPEAKER reported, That this House has, this day, attended Her Majesty in the House of Peers, when Her Majesty was pleased to make, by Her Chanceller, a most gracious Speech from the Throne to both Houses of Parliament; of which, Mr. Speaker said, he had, for greater accuracy, obtained a Copy:—
And Mr. SPEAKER read it to the House.

ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
VISCOUNT GALWAY, in rising to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, in answer to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech from the Throne, said, that, difficult as was the position of previous speakers who had to perform this duty, the interest which attached to it that day very much increased that difficulty, and he therefore asked the House for that indulgence which it so generously extended to its Members. It was a matter of great congratulation to all that Her Majesty had been able again to open Parliament. Her Most Gracious Majesty's Speech, which had just been read, commenced by referring to a subject not only of great importance to this country, but to the whole of Europe. With the permission of the House he should like to read a short extract from the Speech at the prorogation lastyear, because he believed
60
this would materially aid them in considering the events which had occurred since then. After referring to the differences then existing between the Porte and its Christian subjects in the Herzegovina Her Majesty said—
"Should a favourable opportunity present itself, I shall be ready, in concert with My Allies, to offer My good offices for the purpose of mediation between the contending parties; bearing in mind alike the duties imposed upon Me by Treaty obligations and those which arise from considerations of humanity and policy."
That, he believed, was the spirit which influenced Her Majesty's Government during the whole of the past six months, and that policy they had endeavoured faithfully to carry out. He should like now to refer as briefly as possible to one or two of the events which had occurred since that time. At the end of August Servia applied for the mediation of England, and in accordance with that wish the British Government proposed to the Porte an armistice. After some delay hostilities were suspended, and the British Government proposed some basis of pacification. The Porte, as matters were still unsettled, proposed a further suspension of hostilities; but Servia—whether from foreign advice or from an erroneous view as to the feelings of this country, it would not become him to discuss—refused that offer. Soon after there was a proposition for the occupation by a foreign Power of Bulgaria, but it was not found to be acceptable either, he believed, to this or other countries. Various negotiations followed, and at length, at the beginning of November, an armistice of six weeks was agreed upon and a Conference arranged to be held. That Conference was not in contravention or contradiction of any of the provisions of the Treaty of Paris. There was a precedent in the case of the Lebanon. The Conference had, he believed, been productive of very great good, notwithstanding the manner in which it had terminated. It was, in fact, no small gain that the leading Powers of Europe should have met and discussed matters of so much importance to themselves. The result must, undoubtedly, be a better understanding between them; and the Conference might be said also to have cleared up some erroneous and, perhaps, extravagant views as to the possibility of an immediate and instantaneous pacification of

61
those Provinces. It had shown the folly of talking of driving a whole nation out of Europe. That was an achievement not very easy of accomplishment, even if it were desirable. It had also shown that the working out of autonomy for different Provinces would be attended with very great difficulty. Even if the small States in question had in themselves sufficient powers of self-government, it was questionable whether they would offer, as some thought it desirable they should, a sufficiently strong barrier against any ambitious Power. And, lastly, the Conference might be said to have considerably modified the views held as to the manner in which the much-needed reforms in those Provinces should be carried out. He had heard that there were some who advised that those reforms should be forced upon Turkey, and this policy had been urged by those who in former years had advocated "peace at any price." Force meant war, either by this country or by some other Power, and it seemed a curious remedy to propose to increase the prosperity and happiness of the subject races by making their country the theatre of a desolating war. It was the boast of our civilization—and the last Franco-German War, happily, furnished a proof of it — that the horrors of war were almost wholly confined to the actual combatants; but if the passions of Eastern nations were let loose, who could say that they would not result in atrocities as terrible as those which had recently been so justly denounced? What he wished to protest against was the notion that any one political Party had a monopoly of the principles of humanity. Another reform which they must all anxiously hope for was that of the system of farming the revenue of the country. He was informed that a great many of those who were guilty of the abuses connected with that system were Christians, and that brought him to express his deep regret that there should be any attempt to import a religious element into this intricate, delicate, and important question. That element, if once excited, could but bring forth feelings of passion and fanaticism, and when those feelings were roused, it was impossible to say what horrors they might not lead to. A great responsibility undoubtedly rested on those to whom the government of
62
this country was intrusted; but he thought they all must acknowledge that those right hon. Gentlemen were not shrinking from their responsibilities. He contended, however, that the responsibility extended over the last 20 years, since the Treaty of Paris was made. It must be a matter for deep regret if during that time the Government of this country had neglected to see that the promises of reform had been carried out, or if our influence in the East had been in any way allowed to decline. It must also be' a subject for regret if the Consular establishment of this country had been so much diminished in those parts as to have become unable to discharge adequately the duties which fell to it. Still more must it be a matter for regret if, when those Treaties which were made at the end of the Crimean War were revised and re-enacted, some few years ago, some further steps were not taken to arrest the progress of misgovernment, and to make sure that the reforms promised were duly carried out. What was their position at the present moment? It was admitted that all the other European Powers had great interests at stake in this question, and that they had a right to watch those interests. Had England not the same right to protect her interests? They had been told, in a despatch from Lord Augustus Loftus, that the Emperor of Russia had assured him he had no wish to possess Constantinople. They knew that no other European Power wished for such an acquisition, and they must therefore earnestly desire that the Turkish nation should continue to hold it, having carried out the necessary reforms. This country would never sanction a policy of coercion, nor would it aid those who, under the guise of humanitarian feelings, desired to advance their own interests; and certainly we could never consent to carry war into inoffensive provinces. So far as we know England is not bound by any fresh pledges but is free to act as seems most advisable for her own interests, and those interests are in every possible way to avert war. When the history of these last 15 months came to be written, it would be shown that the great principle of endeavouring to secure the peace of Europe had pervaded the whole policy of this country. There was room to hope that before the armistice expired,

63
Servia and Montenegro would be able to come to an arrangement with Turkey on fair terms and without foreign interference. There was no doubt the greatest watchfulness must still be exercised by Her Majesty's Government, and so long as they endeavoured faithfully to carry out the policy which had hitherto guided them, there was good reason to look forward to a satisfactory settlement of the question. We rejoice to hear that Her Majesty's assumption of the title of Empress of India had been hailed in that country with such general approbation. The ceremony at Delhi, which took place on New Year's Day, was a fitting sequel of an Act of last Session by which Parliament asserted that the Queen of this country was the paramount power in India, and that she was the head of a great confederation of Princes and peoples. The Durbar at Delhi was the ready recognition and admission of these principles, and the expressions of loyalty at Delhi might be taken as an augury of the increasing stability of our rule in India. One of those frightful visitations to which Eastern countries were liable, owing to the peculiarities of their climate, had unfortunately befallen a great part of India; but there was reason to hope that the experience which had been gained during former calamities would be found of great use on this occasion, and that by means of relief works and without indiscriminate almsgiving, the sufferings of the people might be greatly mitigated. In Bengal, also, there had been an almost unparalleled disaster, a storm wave having devastated a large part of the country, and swept away nearly 250,000 human beings. There were great doubts whether any really effective means could be taken to prevent a repetition of such calamities; but there was some consolation in thinking that on such occasions we were able to show the interest we took in India, and the value we set upon the lives of our fellow subjects in that part of the Empire. It must have been gratifying to hear that the colonies generally continued to progress. With regard to Cape Colony they must all congratulate Her Majesty's Government on the choice of Sir Bartle Frere as Governor. No doubt the experience Sir Bartle Frere had gained in Zanzibar and on the East Coast of Africa would
64
be of great service to him in his new position. Perhaps he (Viscount Galway) was trespassing too much on the time of the House; but it would be scarcely bcoming to sit down without alluding to one or two of the measures that were to be introduced in the present Session. The press of Business last Session, it was to be regretted, did not allow of the House proceeding with the reforms in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. Those measures were to be re-introduced, and would, he was sure, go far to advance the cause of education and the prosperity of the Universities. Another measure of great importance, postponed last year, related to the inequalities of local taxation, and on this subject the numerous discussions that had arisen at the Boards of Guardians all over the country would, no doubt, prove of great service. He had no doubt it would be a source of gratification to the Representatives of Scotch constituencies that Her Majesty's gracious Speech contained an assurance that Scotch business would not this Session be neglected. He earnestly hoped that whatever measures were passed during the Session would conduce to the welfare of the United Kingdom and the happiness of their fellow-subjects. He was grateful to the House for the patient hearing it had given him. The recollection of one, who for nearly 30 years enjoyed the privilege of a seat in that House, during four years of which period he was proud to think he was similarly honoured, and one whose memory he must always cherish, had made his duty less easy, and he could assure the House that it was no mere stereotyped phrase when he thanked them most sincerely for the kindness and consideration they had shown him. The noble Lord concluded by moving—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, to thank Her Majesty for the Most Gracious Speech which Her Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament:
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that the hostilities which, before the close of last Session, had broken out between Turkey on the one hand, and Servia and Montenegro on the other, engaged Her Majesty's most serious attention, and that Her Majesty anxiously waited for an opportunity when Her good offices,

65
together with those of Her Allies, might be usefully interposed:
"To thank Her Majesty for informing us that this opportunity presented itself by the solicitation of Servia for Her Majesty's mediation, the offer of which was ultimately entertained by the Porte:
"To thank 'Her Majesty for informing us that in the course of the negotiations Her Majesty deemed it expedient to lay down, and in concert with the other Powers to submit to the Porte, certain bases upon which Her Majesty held that not only Peace might be brought about with the Principalities, but the permanent pacification of the disturbed provinces, including Bulgaria, and the amelioration of their condition, might be effected:
"To thank Her Majesty for informing us that these bases agreed to by the Powers required to be expanded and worked out by negotiation or by Conference, accompanied by an Armistice, and that the Porte, though not accepting them, and proposing other terms, was willing to submit them to the equitable consideration of the Powers:
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us, that, while proceeding to act in this mediation, Her Majesty thought it right, after inquiry into the facts, to denounce to the Porte the excesses ascertained to have been committed in Bulgaria, and to express Her reprobation of their perpetrators:
"To thank Her Majesty for informing us that, an Armistice being arranged, a Conference met at Constantinople for the consideration of extended terms in accordance with the original bases, in which Conference Her Majesty was represented by a Special Envoy, as well as by 11cr Majesty's Ambassador:
"To thank Her Majesty for informing us that in taking these steps Her Majesty's object has throughout been to maintain the Peace of Europe, and to bring about the better government of the disturbed Provinces, without infringing upon the Independence and Integrity of the Ottoman Empire:
"To assure Her Majesty that we share Her Majesty's regret that the proposals recommended by Her Majesty and Her Allies have not been accepted by the Porte; but that we trust that the general agreement among the European Powers, as shown by the Conference, will not fail to have a material effect upon the Condition and Government of Turkey:
"To thank Her Majesty for informing us that, in the meantime, the Armistice between
66
Turkey and the Principalities has been prolonged, and is still unexpired; and to assure Her Majesty that we join with Her in hoping that it will yet lead to the conclusion of an honourable Peace:
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that in these affairs Her Majesty has acted in cordial co-operation with Her Allies, with whom, as with 'other Foreign Powers, Her Majesty's relations continue to be of a friendly character:
"To assure Her Majesty that we rejoice that Her Majesty's assumption of the Imperial Title at Delhi wigs welcomed by the Chiefs and People of India with professions of affection and loyalty most grateful to Her Majesty's feelings:
"To join with Her Majesty in Her deep regret that a calamity, in the shape of a Famine not less serious than that of 1873, has overspread. a large portion of the Presidencies of Madras and. Bombay, but to express our confidence that every resource will be employed not merely in arrest of this present Famine, but in obtaining fresh experience for the prevention or mitigation of such visitations in future:
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that the prosperity and progress of Her Majesty's Colonial Empire remain unchecked, and that measures have been taken with a view to the safety of Her Majesty's subjects in South Africa:
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for directing the Estimates of the year to be prepared and presented without delay:
"Humbly to assure Her Majesty that our careful consideration shall be given to the measures which may be submitted to us, and that we earnestly trust that the blessing of the Almighty will attend our labours and direct our efforts."
MR. TORR: Mr. Speaker—Sir, I have the honour to second the Address which has been so ably moved by the noble Lord who has just sat down (Viscount Galway); and I do so, with full confidence in the courteous forbearance of this House.
I heartily concur in the remarks of the noble Lord, expressive of the great satisfaction that it has given to this House, and will give to the nation, that the state of Her Majesty's health has enabled Her Majesty to open Parliament in person at this important juncture.
On entering this Chamber we miss with regret from the front Ministerial Bench a distinguished statesman, who

67
for 40 years has been a prominent Member of this House, for a considerable portion of those 40 years the acknowledged head of the great Conservative Party, and for the last three Sessions the distinguished Leader of this House. The time-honoured name of Mr. Disraeli is no longer upon our rôle; we shall miss his brilliancy and terseness in debate, and his mature wisdom at a moment like the present. But all will rejoice at the high honour conferred upon Lord Beaconsfield by his gracious Sovereign, and heartily wish that the noble Earl may long live to enjoy his well-earned reward.
Mr. Speaker,seldom has Parliament re-opened at a moment of deeper import, or more thrilling interest than the present. We have had a Recess which might more properly be called a Parliament-out-of-Session—a Recess of ceaseless anxiety, intense excitement, and of threatened danger. The "Affairs of the East," which at the close of last Session were beginning to excite the anxious attention of this House, suddenly became intensified by more reliable reports of the terrible Bulgarian atrocities. These cruel outrages raised a spirit of just indignation and horror throughout the length and breadth of the land. Men of the highest position seemed to forget their responsibilities and their calmer judgment, and to listen only to the cry for vengeance upon the perpetrators. No language was too extravagant or inconsiderate. The whole nation of the hated Turks was, by one speaker, to "be driven into the Black Sea;" by another, "the governing classes were to be expelled bag and baggage;" whilst a third, in high-flown language, is reported to have said—"Perish the interests of England, perish her dominion in India, rather than that she should strike one blow on behalf of Turkey!" Amongst these patriotic speakers there was one wise man, who sits on the opposite side of this House, who is reported to have said—
"He was convinced that if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich and the Liberal Party had been in power they would have done precisely what Lord Beaconsfield and the Tories had done."
On one point, and one point only, were the orators at these daily recurring meetings agreed, which was to condemn the action of the Government without judge or jury.
68
"There was nothing right they said, And nothing right they did."
But, Sir, I would calmly ask, what real instruction to guide us in this difficult matter have we got from all the hundred excited speeches delivered during the Recess? No distinct policy has been enunciated by the opponents of the Government beyond the old irresponsible dictation—"You should do this, and you should not do that." The "bag-and-baggage" policy coming from the lips of a wise and experienced statesman may satisfy hon. Gentlemen opposite, but will not pass muster in this House. Happily, Mr. Speaker, this wild excitement, these erratic speeches have abated. The storm has become a calm. Much that has been written, as well as spoken from feeling rather than from facts, will be regretted, and we meet to-day, I trust, in a wiser and a calmer mood, putting aside animosity and Party strife, to discuss with the dignity and impartial judgment which becomes the House of Commons the momentous question of the day.
Never was the opening paragraph of Her Majesty's Speech more thoroughly concurred in by both Houses of Parliament—by the nation at large, and by none more than by Her Majesty's Ministers—who, after six months of ceaseless responsibility, and without the sympathy which they might fairly have expected, will now meet Parliament in free debate and be able to lay before the country a full report of all the facts and circumstances that have transpired during the difficult negotiations carried on with the Porte and the great European Powers. Having nothing to conceal, nothing for which to apologize, they will appeal with confidence to the justice of Parliament and of the nation for a dispassionate verdict. The objects looked for by the nation in this troublesome complication were three-fold—(1.) The observance of our Treaty engagements; (2.) Protection for the Christian population of Turkey; (3.) That England should not be involved in war. Two of these great objects have been achieved. England has kept her Treaty engagements; and never for an instant, I feel perfectly sure, have Her Majesty's Ministers contemplated under any circumstances, a repetition of the Crimean blunder, in going to war to uphold Turkey. Not only so, but England has taken an honourable part in main-

69
taining the peace of Europe. Invited by Servia to offer her good offices with the Porte to secure an armistice, she did not hesitate to comply with the request; but feeling the power and value of the united action of the great Powers of Europe in this important matter, she undertook the responsibility of seeking to bring the six Powers to a Conference; and she succeeded. Through the means of that Conference an armistice was arranged, whereby war, then imminent, was prevented, and the peace of Europe maintained. The further good offices of the Conference were then directed to the object of devising such measures of interference between the Sultan and his disaffected, "maltreated" subjects, as might restore internal peace to Turkey, and prevent the peace of Europe being disturbed. Everyone must regret that Turkey was so ill advised as to reject the minimum form to which the conditions to be imposed were reduced. Yet it cannot be said that the Conference has altogether failed. By the 8th clause of the Treaty of Paris, the Contracting Powers have a right to "mediate." But by the 9th clause the Powers have not—
"the right to interfere, either collectively or separately, in the relation of His Majesty the Sultan with his subjects, nor in the internal administration of his Empire."
By rejecting the terms proposed Turkey has placed herself in antagonism with the united voice of Europe, and must take upon herself the responsibility of her own act. Matters have thus come to a dead-lock. Turkey says distinctly I won't concur. Let me ask how many hon. Members there are in this House who would go to war to "compel" her? And yet we are taunted with the remark that the Conference has been a failure, and that Turkey has triumphed. Was it a "failure" in our noble and distinguished Envoy visiting the different Courts of Europe to ascertain personally the sentiments of each, that he might bring an intelligent judgment to bear upon the difficult mission he had taken in hand? Was it a "failure" in his bringing down the high pretensions and warlike threats of Russia to a parity with the views of the other Powers? Was it a "failure" in Lord Salisbury bringing the six conflicting Powers into perfect harmony in their discussions, and
70
in their final judgment as to the conditions to be offered to Turkey? Or was our noble Envoy to blame for the blind folly which induced Turkey to refuse conditions which, mainly through his instrumentality, had been reduced to a minimum? This country—I might say, Europe—is deeply indebted to the noble Marquess for the high diplomatic talent which he has displayed throughout the whole of these difficult negotiations—for the firmness and judgment with which he carried out the decisions of the Home Cabinet at the Conferences, and with the Sultan—and for his just interpretation of the mind of England. The pressure put upon Turkey by the united voice of Europe and the plain truths spoken to the Sultan will yet bear their fruit. And if that concert of the Powers can be prolonged in harmonious action, instead of being a "failure," it will be the surest and, I believe, the only means of bringing about a regenerated Turkey.
Sir, it is no small satisfaction to be assured by Her gracious Majesty, after the warlike threatenings of the past six months "that her relations with our allies, and with other foreign Powers, continue to be of a friendly character." England in her civilization has happily got past the barbaric age of war, and her mission throughout the world is one of peace.
Every loyal subject of Her Majesty the Queen will rejoice with Her Majesty in the complete success which attended the Proclamation of Her gracious Majesty at Delhi as Empress of India. Nothing could be more noble, more loyal, more enthusiastic, than the language made use of by the great Chiefs, and the hearty, I might say, affectionate, congratulations which they returned to their Sovereign the Empress. India will now enjoy an Imperial Rule, under which we trust her different nationalities will be brought into a lasting bond of unity, and enjoy the triumphs of peace. It is with feelings of deep sorrow that we have read of the double calamity with which India has been visited. The Famine alluded to in Her Majesty's Speech, and the fearful cyclone wave by which upwards of a quarter of million souls were swept away.
A very large proportion of Her Majesty's Speech is naturally absorbed by

71
the Eastern Question; but one is glad to see that other subjects are not omitted. Our Colonies can never be passed over in silence. They are the true outlet for our surplus population which every year becomes larger—our second selves, in fact, and if treated as parts of the Empire and not as mere dependencies they will become more and more the basis of England's great future—a future which the ken of the wisest cannot even guess at.
We now come to the clause in Her Majesty's Speech which brings back our attention to the things of every-day life—The estimates of our national expenditure as compared with our annual income; and we cannot congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the state of his finances or upon the flourishing condition of the trade of the country. His lot has unhappily fallen in "the winter of our discontent." Everyone is grumbling at his own losses, and no one can see clearly when "the good times will come again." But that they will come, ere long, is just as certain as that the light of day follows the darkness of night. Prosperity and adversity move in cycles; and the one is simply the reflex of the other, and has nothing to do with politics. What may be termed the "balance of trade" is when the supply and demand are fairly equal to each other. But by varying seasons and a number of other causes, this balance is constantly being disturbed, and hence the ups and downs to which the industries of nations are exposed. Prosperity begets over-trading and high prices; high prices check consumption, and depression follows. But there is always this point in favour of increased trade—the number of consumers is daily on the increase, and the area of consumption is constantly extending. Therefore let not the right hon. Gentleman despair. He has the best wishes of the entire nation that he may get through his Budget without adding to our miseries by asking for another penny income tax.
Amongst the list of Bills to be introduced during the coming Session are the Prisons Bill of last Session, and one for the amendment of the Law of Bankruptcy. I shall be glad to find some modification affecting the appointment of the officers of prisons. In other respects the Bill of the last Session was
72
a good one, aiming at uniformity of discipline, better classification of prisoners, and reduction of local rates by reducing the number of prisons, all of which are very desirable objects. I imagine the proposed Bankruptcy Bill will be something akin to the one introduced into the House of Lords last Session by the Lord Chancellor, and should such be the case, it will be deserving of support. I have myself known several fundamental changes in the Law of Bankruptcy completely diverse in their action. First, placing the control in the hands of the creditors, then in the power and management of a Court with paid officials, and in 1869 again in the hands of creditors. The Bill of 1869 is still in force, but by it there is no compulsory audit of accounts, the management of the bankrupt estate usually falls into the hands of one or two interested creditors, not always too scrupulous in administering the assets. By the statistical Returns quoted by the Lord Chancellor, there appears to be some 20,000 estates at present unclosed and during a period of seven years, a sum of £42,000,000 has been collected and disposed of without an audit, a state of matters which calls for reform.
Not knowing the nature of the proposed Judicature, Ireland, Bill, I can offer no opinion upon its merits, but imagine it is to complete the law reforms in Ireland, which have been going on there as well as in England for some time past. Anyhow I will pledge myself that justice to Ireland will not be overlooked.
Sir, I have now, in a very imperfect manner, completed the task so generously entrusted to me, and I thank the House for the courtesy with which it has listened to my address.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, &c." [See p. 65.]
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, I shall make no excuse to the House for passing over without observation—or with very few observations indeed—the larger number of the numerous subjects to which our attention is called in the gracious speech of Her Majesty. On rare occasions it may happen that interesting and unexpected announcements are made in the Speech; on other occasions it may sometimes occur

73
that the turn of a certain phrase or the manner in which a certain announcement is made is eagerly and anxiously canvassed by the House; but in general it has been the practice to avoid in the Speech from the Throne anything in the nature of startling expressions, and to avoid anything in the nature of expressions likely to lead to excited discussion. On this occasion, although I admit that many subjects to which reference is made are of the highest importance, they are not, with one exception, subjects likely to lead to animated discussion in this House; and as to the projects of the Government on subjects of legislation, it must, at all events, be admitted that they are not of an ambitious character. I think I may say that in the Speech from the Throne, to which we have just listened, Her Majesty's Government have attained successfully to a level—I will not say of dulness, because that would not be respectful, but of repose and reserve to which I do not think any of their predecessors have attained. If this be an accurate view of the case, all the more difficult was the task that had to be discharged by the Mover and Seconder of the Address; and although I must admit that the noble Lord who moved and the hon. Gentleman who seconded it went somewhat beyond, in one part of their addresses, what was usual on these occasions, by making observations of a somewhat Party character, yet that does not prevent me acknowledging, as I am perfectly willing to do, the ability with which they have treated the Speech as a whole, and the interest with which they have succeeded in investing some of its details.
There are one or two expressions in the Speech to which I wish, in a very few words, to call the attention of the House. The Speech at the conclusion of last Session referred to one important subject that had, to a certain extent, engaged the attention of the House. One paragraph in the Speech was as follows:—
"A difference has arisen between My Government and that of the United States, as to the proper construction of that Article of the Treaty of 9th August 1842, which relates to the mutual surrender of persons accused of certain offences. The inconveniences to both countries which would follow on a cessation of the practice of extradition are great and obvious, and I entertain the hope that a new arrangement may
74
soon be arrived at, by which this matter may be placed on a satisfactory footing."
To that important question no reference is made in the Speech which we are now considering. We have been told, certainly, that a satisfactory arrangement has been come to; but, if I am not misinformed, that satisfactory arrangement has been come to upon bases which were held by Her Majesty's Government in the course of last Session to be totally inadmissible, and I think that, although the subject does not find a place in the Speech, the House will, perhaps, expect some explanation in reference to it from the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
There is another subject which, perhaps, could not properly find a place in the Queen's Speech at the opening of the Session, but which was mentioned in the Speech at the opening of last Session, and attracted a great deal of attention. Attention was then called to the state of the law and practice with reference to the surrender of fugitive slaves, and a Royal Commission was promised to inquire into the question. That Commission was appointed, and it reported before the close of the Session; but neither in the Speech which closed the labours of last Session, nor in the Speech to which we have just listened, do I find any reference to that subject, which occupied so important a part of the Speech at the opening of last Session. In the course of the Session—I believe on the last day of the Session—a new Slave Circular was issued, and it is some satisfaction to us who sit on this side of the House to remember that a Motion was brought forward and supported largely on this side of the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread.) The Circular was issued on the 10th of August, and it distinctly and completely repealed and rescinded the two Circulars that had preceded it, and that Circular, which appeared on the 10th of August, and which was finally adopted by Her Majesty's Government, approached, in its terms, at least as closely, if not more closely, to the terms of the Motion of my hon. Friend as to the Report of the Royal Commission appointed by Her Majesty's Government.
There is one other omission from the Speech which I can hardly help thinking is accidental, but which appears to me remarkable. The House will remember

75
that the subject of the amendment of the laws relating to Merchant Shipping was only partially dealt with last Session. Equal importance was attached by Her Majesty's Government to the Merchant Shipping Bill and to the Maritime Contracts Bill. The Merchant Shipping Bill passed, but the Maritime Contracts Bill was postponed until this Session, and it is rather surprising that neither in the Speech from the Throne nor in the speeches of the noble Mover and Seconder of the Address is there any reference to the latter measure, or, any expression that would lead us to suppose that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to legislate further upon the subject. We are told that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to re-introduce the Prisons Bill. I am not concerned to deny that that Bill, if carried, would, as has been stated by the hon. Member who seconded the Address, effect a considerable and beneficial improvement in our prison system; but, then, we are also told that it will greatly relieve the local burdens. Now, I think that if we knew all, we should be of opinion that Her Majesty's Government do not altogether regret the circumstances which made it impossible for them to pass that measure last year. If I recollect rightly, it was so framed that the relief of the local burdens, which would have entailed a corresponding increase of the Imperial burdens, would not have been effected until the present year; and if the anticipation of the hon. Member who seconded the Address should be fulfilled, I do not think that it will be an inconvenient circumstance to Her Majesty's Government that this additional burden will not fall upon the Imperial Exchequer during the present year, although they were not able to carry into effect their benevolent intentions of relieving the local taxation last year. I cannot help thinking that it is rather a dangerous and rather an inconvenient practice to hold out in a Queen's Speech a prospect of relief of local burdens, but which is nothing more or less than a transfer of taxation from one source of income to another. I cannot help thinking it is somewhat dangerous and inconvenient that these should not be made to fall on the finances of the year in which they are passed, but that they should be postponed to a future and indefinite period. By the absence of any mention
76
in Her Majesty's Speech of the relief of other local burdens, I presume that we may now finally give up all hope of Her Majesty's Government introducing any comprehensive scheme upon the subject of local taxation. They have dealt with the subject of local taxation in every Session since they have been in office. I will not deny that some relief of local burden, as it has been called, has been given; but, as I have said, that relief has been entirely given by means of the transference of the local burdens from local funds to the Consolidated Fund. No attempt whatever has been made by them to deal, as a whole, with what has been over and over again admitted to be the pressing question of the simplification and reform of the complicated system of our local government. If they have made any attempt to deal with portions of the subject, it certainly has been in the direction, not of reform, but of centralization, by taking away from the local authorities power which they previously possessed, and throwing additional duties upon the already overworked Government Department, instead of giving additional powers to the local bodies, and so making them more capable of fulfilling their proper functions. Therefore it is that I feel myself justified in saying that no attempt has yet been made by Her Majesty's Government to grapple with this subject.
I will now, with the permission of the House, come to that part of Her Majesty's Speech which naturally and properly occupied the most prominent and larger portion of it. I should be justified, if I thought it would be expedient, in entering into considerable detail in the discussion of the negotiations and events which have taken place in the East since Parliament rose last Autumn; but such an examination would probably lead to considerable discussion, which, in the absence of the Papers which have been promised us, could not be conducted under very favourable circumstances in a debate upon the Address. Such a discussion would probably bring to light very considerable and very strongly-marked differences of opinion, and might raise a distinct issue which ought to be placed, and which may yet be placed, before the House at the proper time, but for the raising of which this is not the most convenient opportunity. But the anxiety and excitement which has pre-

77
vailed in the public mind during the last few months, which is even still felt, with regard to the intentions and the position of Her Majesty's Government, leads me to suppose that the Government will not be unwilling to take this, the earliest opportunity in their power, to offer certain explanations upon several points relating to their policy. I think, therefore, that I shall not be misrepresenting the feeling of the House if, avoiding as far as I am able any detailed discussion of the events to which I am referring, I indicate some of the points on which I think explanation is most urgently desired by this House and most ardently wished for by the country. It may, perhaps, not be amiss if I try to state in a very few words what is my view of the position in which we stood, in which the country stood, and in which Her Majesty's Government stood in relation to the country and its affairs at the close of last Session. At that time the country had for some months perceived as clearly, if not more clearly, than Her Majesty's Government, that what is called "The Eastern Question" had been re-opened in its full extent. It had perceived that one of those convulsions had again occurred in Turkey which had before menaced the existence and the permanence of the Ottoman Empire. It perceived that the question was not confined to the disturbances which were actually occurring in some of the provinces of Turkey; but that it extended over a much larger and wider area—that the sympathies of one Power, at all events, and the divided sympathies of another Power, made it quite impossible that those Powers could remain passive spectators of what was going on. It perceived, also, that the changes which were taking place in Europe since the settlement of 1856 had exercised, and must exercise, great influence over the question, and that the combination of those Powers which had brought about the settlement of 1856 could no longer be relied upon, and that other forces had sprung up in Europe, which forces must be taken into account and consideration. What, in these circumstances, was the guidance given to the country by Her Majesty's Government, and what was their policy at the close of last Session, which the country on the whole was prepared to accept? I say on the whole prepared to accept with some
78
amount of doubt and some hesitation. Up to the close of last Session the policy of Her Majesty's Government was that of non-intervention; and if it be not a paradox, I would remark that, as explained to us by the Government themselves, it was a policy not of mere passive, but of active non-intervention. The Prime Minister, in the course of debate in this House, stated that, whereas England had at one time stood in a position of isolation in her policy, that no longer was the case, because at that moment she stood in accord with the rest of Europe in the policy of nonintervention. Lord Derby, in his despatch which was sent on the outbreak of the Servian war, stated that it was undoubtedly the intention of Her Majesty's Government to observe a policy of nonintervention; that they expected that the other Powers would do the same; but that he could not undertake that, in the event of other countries departing from that policy of non-intervention, that policy could be maintained by England. At the close of last Session the policy of Her Majesty's Government was to "keep the ring" and to watch the course of events; not to interfere themselves, and to prevent, as far as they could, anyone else from interfering. It is true that is a somewhat different account of the policy of Her Maiesty's Government from what they themselves give of it, much to the surprise of statesmen and of the country. In September last the Prime Minister, speaking at Aylesbury, gave an account of the policy of the Government, which is not altogether consistent with the description which I have just given of it as a nonintervention policy. Lord Beaconsfield said—
"My noble Friend Lord Derby, on whom the strain of the management of this great affair naturally chiefly falls, and who is described gory day in the newspapers as a Minister who does nothing and suggests nothing, lost no time in laying down the principles upon which he thought laying tranquillity of the East of Europe might be secured—that is to say, he laid down the principles upon which he thought that the relations between the Porte and its Christian subjects ought to be established. I must tell you this—that I think in the late spring of this year peace, and peace on principles which would have been approved by every wise and good man, might have been accomplished. What happened? That happened which was not expected. Servia declared war upon Turkey—that is to say, the secret societies of Europe declared war upon Turkey. These communications

79
were occurring constantly, I may say, between Her Majesty's Government and the five other Powers.… From the moment that we declined, and gave our reason why we declined, entering into the Berlin Memorandum, there were, on the whole, I should say on the part of every one of the Great Powers cordial attempts to act with us in every way which would bring about a satisfactory termination, but by no Power have we been met so cordially as by Russia."
That is a description of a different kind of policy from that which we understood had been the policy of Her Majesty's Government, but to this day no explanation had been offered, and no proof had been offered of this statement by the Prime Minister. In fact, the more the Blue Book is searched the less we find that Lord Derby had any proposals to make to the other Powers. He said on every occasion that he did not think the time had arrived for making any further suggestions in the matter. What did the Prime Minister himself say in the House of Commons? That the most desirable thing to do was to maintain the status quo in Turkey, in order to allow Turkey and her subjects in the course of time to find the condition of things which suited them best. There was no hint of efforts being made, or principles being laid down upon which the tranquillity of the East of Europe might be secured. No mention is made of the principles upon which the relations of the Christian subjects with the Porte were to be established, except that the idea of the Prime Minister was that there should be no external interference, but by rebellion and the repression of rebellion they should discover the condition which suited them best. What did Lord Derby say, speaking in the same sense, on June 22nd? He told the Austrian Ambassador that Her Majesty's Government were ready to play their part in the work of pacification when it saw the chance of doing so with effect. But where are the principles which Lord Derby from day to day was laying down? What circumstances led them to alter that opinion? On June the 28th Lord Derby said that he thought it premature to say more than that Her Majesty's Government would gladly concur in any pacific plan for the amelioration of the local government of the Turkish Provinces, but it did not appear that he had arrived at any opinion of his own on which that could be effected.
80
Well, if this can be described as a policy of active non-intervention, it was perfectly well known that the Government had means of carrying into effect that active policy. There was the Fleet at Besika Bay, and although that motive had been partially denied by Lord Derby, it had been partially admitted by the Prime Minister. It cannot be doubted that they had the means of keeping the ring or taking measures to prevent the intervention of any other country. It cannot be supposed that the idea of availing themselves of this force was ever absent from their minds, and I hope I have now given an accurate state of the case as it existed, and the guidance which the country were with a certain amount of doubt and hesitation prepared to accept. But Parliament had no sooner separated than grave cause of alarm arose. The principle of non-intervention which the Prime Minister had fondly hoped had been embraced by the whole of Europe had not been so embraced. It was very soon known that Russia was giving indirect assistance in the Servian war — assistance of which, undoubtedly the Porte, if it had come with clean hands to Europe, had a perfect right to complain; and it was seen that the condition upon which English non-intervention rested no longer existed, and the question was raised whether that condition no longer existing—English non-intervention was also about to come to an end—and whether we were going to intervene, and if so, upon what side. But at that time there also arrived authentic accounts of the manner of the suppression of the insurrection which had taken place in Bulgaria, and the eyes of the people were opened to the character of the Government to which our Government had certainly shown itself not unfriendly, and to the character of the Government for which they proposed to keep the ring in the contest between Turkey and its rebellious subjects. Well, Sir, it was said now that there never was any danger of our going to war to support the Government of Turkey; but it had not been said then; and there would have been nothing inconsistent in the declarations of the Government that had been made if the Government had then given active assistance to Turkey. The interests of England had been ostentatiously announced on all occasions as the guiding

81
principle of our policy. The interests of England were presumably not affected by the character and manner of the suppression of the insurrection in the rebellious provinces of Turkey, and therefore there was no reason to suppose that the Government, in their defence of the interests of England, would be in any degree influenced by what bad taken place, and what had deeply moved the public mind, in Bulgaria. Well, it was to prevent the possibility of England going to war, or giving material assistance in defence of the Turkish Empire, that the agitation of the autumn arose. If there were any exaggeration in that agitation; if there were unnecessary imputations made upon the Government; if there were any undue disposition to exaggerate unnecessarily the generosity of the Russian Government; if there were any unnecessary disposition to assume to ourselves the whole responsibility of putting everything right—for any such exaggeration the Government were mainly, if not altogether, responsible. The Government lead declared that the accounts which had been received of the Bulgarian atrocities were untrue. The Government had unnecessarily made themselves the champions and defenders of the Turkish Government, and even in the height of the agitation the Prime Minister inflamed it to a far higher pitch. For in that speech at Aylesbury to which I have referred he denounced the leaders of the agitation; he denounced Servia; he denounced the secret societies; he denounced everybody and everything except the Turkish Government. The injustice and the futility of that denunciation of the Servian Government and the Servian people with reference to the Servian war were made strikingly manifest a short time afterwards. A very few months elapsed, and all Europe perceived that the Servian cause was net merely the cause of an ambitious petty State, that it was not merely the cause of secret societies in Europe, but that the cause of which the Servians had made themselves champions was the cause of the oppressed nationalities of Turkey, and that there could be no settlement of this question and no permanent peace until the grievances under which those oppressed nationalities laboured were removed. In fact, the cause of the Servian people had
82
been taken up by Europe and made their own. I do not think that it is necessary that I should say more with reference to the great and remarkable agitation which undoubtedly sprang up in this country last autumn. If I wanted to say more—if there are those who still think that agitation a mischievous one—I will only remind them that those who are of that opinion are not the Gentlemen who sit upon that bench. The quotation I am about to make to you was made by a Member of the Government. I presume that there is no difference of opinion between them, and that hon. Gentleman opposite will not disown the language used at Derby in October by Lord Carnarvon. He said—
"He certainly had no wish to complain of the public feeling which the tale of horror had elicited. He did not disagree, if he rightly understood it, with the public feeling and opinion because it had been somewhat loudly expressed, and that hero and there might have been exaggeration in the language used. He rejoiced, on the contrary, to believe that the heart of his countrymen beat so soundly as it did when such a tale of horror was unfolded. lie rejoiced that there was neither delay nor hesitation in the expression of that feeling; and so far from weakening the hands of the Government, he believed that, if rightly understood at home and abroad, nothing could more strengthen the hands of his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary than the burst of indignation which had gone through the length and breadth of the land. There lead been horrors, no doubt, historically, which had been as great as these; but these recent horrors come home to us, having been enacted, so to speak, in the very glare and blaze of European civilization, in the very midst and in the very heart of Europe. They were horrors which turned men's blood to flame."
I have said that I think I should be justified if I entered into some detail on the history of the late negotiations; but I will avoid doing more than placing before the House, as shortly as I can, one or two of the more important and most salient points in those proceedings, not so much for the purpose of discussing the conduct of the Government as of eliciting from them an expression of their opinion. In September Her Majesty Government departed finally from the policy of non-intervention and committed itself to acts of distinct intervention. On the 21st of September Lord Derby wrote a despatch to the Turkish Government which was practically the answer of Her Majesty's Government to the demand which had been addressed

83
to them in hundreds of meetings held throughout the country on the subject of the atrocities in Bulgaria. What was that answer? It was not an indignant denunciation of the Bulgarian revolutionary party—it was not an indignant denunciation of the secret societies by which the insurrection had been instigated—it was not a repetition of the doubts and hesitations and palliations of which we had heard so much here; but it was a despatch that has been described by one of Her Majesty's Ministers as such a despatch as was probably never before addressed by the Minister of one Power to the Minister of another friendly Power. It spoke in the strongest terms and in the plainest language of the crimes said to be committed by the servants of that Government; it denounced the perpetrators of those crimes by name; it required in the name of Her Majesty the punishment of those persons, and that reparation should be made to the unhappy sufferers. It is true that, as far as we know, the demands made in that despatch have never been complied with, and it is one of the subjects on which I think Her Majesty's Government will be the first to desire to give us information. What steps have been taken in compliance with the demands made in that despatch, or, if no result has followed from that despatch, what steps have Her Majesty's Government taken to enforce those demands? The Home Secretary, speaking at Manchester on October 26, put this point as clearly as I could wish. He said—"As to the question of humanity, no such despatch that I have ever heard of was addressed to a friendly Power as Lord Derby's. It was not a mere empty despatch for insertion in a Blue Book, but one which must be followed out." Well, we agree that it was a despatch "which must be followed out;" and what we want to know is, what steps have been taken by the Turkish Government or by Her Majesty's Government to "follow out" the demands it contained. On the same day Her Majesty's Government made their second departure from the principle of nonintervention. On the same day they made their offer of mediation, and that offer did not apply merely to the questions that were pending between Turkey and Servia and Montenegro, but their despatch included proposals relating to
84
improved government and to reforms in the disturbed Provinces. In fact, as far as I am able to make out, Her Majesty's Government made, on the 21st of September, the identical proposal to the Porto which had been made by the Russian Ambassador to Lord Derby in June. On the 28th of June there is an account of a conversation between Lord Derby and Count Schouvaloff. It says they then passed to the third subject of discussion—namely, the granting of administrative autonomy or local self-government, in some form. Much discussion followed on this topic. That was on the 28th of Juno. The proposal had been made by Prince Gortchakoff considerably before, but on June 28 it was fully discussed personally between Lord Derby and Count Schouvaloff, and on the 30th Count Schouvaloff informed Lord Derby that he had heard from Prince Gortchakoff, explaining his meaning on it. Ire considered that autonomy did not mean sovereignty, but that the sovereignty of the Provinces should remain to the Sultan. Count Schouvaloff explained that Prince Gortchakoff desired simply administrative autonomy, and that if the Sultan yielded this point, the struggle would cease. I have not here with me the exact words of the proposal that was made on the 21st of September by Lord Derby; but I believe that substantially there was not the slightest difference between the proposal embodied in that despatch of September 21 and the proposal which had been made to Lord Derby by Count Schouvaloff in June. It will be for Her Majesty's Government to explain why that which was utterly inadmissible in June was proposed by them in September, and it will be for them to explain whether some part of the responsibility for the blood that was shed in the Servian war—which, in the opinion of Prince Gortchakoff, might have been averted by the agreement of our Government in those proposals—does not rest on the shoulders of Her Majesty's Ministers. I pass over the somewhat intricate negotiations which preceded the conclusion of the armistice. I pass over the adoption by Her Majesty's Government of the proposal of the Turkish Government for a six months' armistice, though that is a matter which it seems to me will on a future occasion require very considerable elucidation. But at

85
this time a very important event occurred, which I refer to now, because I think it has some bearing on the present situation. At one stage, after Her Majesty's Government had adopted the Turkish proposal and the Russian Government had rejected the six months' armistice, our Government retired altogether from the negotiations. They said that they had no other proposal to make; that although they would not urge the Porte to reject the Russian counter proposal, they would not urge it to accept it. In fact, they left Turkey standing face to face with Russia; and I must say they were praised, and praised very loudly, by some of their supporters in the country and in the Press for the position, as it was called, of "magnificent isolation" which they had assumed, for it appeared to be thought that a triumph had been obtained when Turkey and Russia were left face to face. At that moment it depended only on the moderation of Russia or on the conciliatory spirit or the fears of Turkey that a war did not instantly break out between them. I refer to this, not for the purpose of criticizing their conduct of the negotiations, but because it may throw some light on their present position. Well, Sir, war was averted, but not by Her Majesty's Government, and the way was left clear for the assembling of the Conference. We have little information as to the negotiations preliminary to the Conference; but I think we may assume that some preparations were made by the Government for the meeting of the Conference. I do not think it can be supposed that Her Majesty's Government invited the Powers of Europe in so solemn a manner to assemble at Constantinople to discuss such momentous questions as were to come before them without making some provision as to those conditions on which alone the successful issue of that Conference could be expected. What, then, wore those conditions? It seems to me that they were, either that Her Majesty's Government had ascertained that Turkey was willing to agree to certain concessions, certain reforms, and to give certain guarantees, which, although they might not be all that might be asked by the other Powers, were yet such as the other Powers might in Conference accept; or, on the other hand, if there were no reason to believe that Turkey
86
was prepared to make such concessions or to give such guarantees, they had arrived at some understanding with the other Powers assembled at the Conference as to the ulterior measures to be taken. Well, we know nothing of the efforts which Her Majesty's Government may have made with these or with similar objects. We do know that Lord Salisbury visited Paris, Berlin, Vienna, and Rome before he went to Constantinople, and it may be that the object of those visits was to secure some such understanding among the Powers as I have just indicated. If it was, and if he failed in that attempt, then I admit that the Government will be more entitled to our sympathy than to our censure. But I think that the question arises whether it would not have been better, before assembling the Conference and inviting all the Powers of Europe to take part in that Conference, to arrive at some certain or definite understanding by which they could alone hope to bring its deliberations to a successful issue. There is one preparation for the Conference on the part of Her Majesty's Government to which I cannot refer without regret. Just previously to the assembling of the Conference the Prime Minister made a speech under circumstances in which, perhaps with the exception of speaking from his place in Parliament, an English Minister speaks under as heavy a responsibility as on any occasion. Lord Beaconsfield, addressing the citizens of the capital of England, assembled under the presidency of their chief magistrate, with representatives of much of the commerce, industry, and wealth of this country present, referred to the Treaties of 1856, I regret to say not referring to the obligations they enforced upon Turkey, but dealing solely with the obligations towards Turkey contracted by other Powers. In that speech he indulged in what I cannot help considering taunts towards Russia. I willingly admit that there were interspersed hero and there expressions of great civility towards Russia and her Government; but I remembered that something was said about an ultimatum being an ugly word, when an ultimatum had just been presented by Russia to the Porte, and something also about an ultimatum being a proceeding like bringing an action when the debt had been paid into Court. But that was not all. From

87
taunts Lord Beaconsfield proceeded to menaces. He informed the citizens of London that he trusted all those difficulties might be arranged without war; but he added that if there was to be war, England was not a Power which would have to consider whether that war would last no more than one campaign. Do hon. Gentlemen imagine that that was a prudent observation to make at the very moment that the Conference was about to open, the object of which was to avoid war? ["Hear, hear!"] If hon. Gentlemen think that to draw a contrast between this country which was able to support a number of campaigns and other countries which presumably were not able to support so many was a judicious proceeding, I despair of convincing them of the contrary by anything I can say. But at that very moment, injudicious as that speech was generally supposed to be, the country was not aware of the full amount of the imprudence it involved. Why, at that moment Lord Beaconsfield had received the strongest assurances from the Russian Emperor of his pacific intentions. I do not say that the Prime Minister is bound to place implicit reliance upon the assurances of any Sovereign or upon his power to carry into effect those assurances; but, at all events, one thing was proved, and that was, that the Emperor did desire to go into the Conference without hostile feelings and without jealousy of England, and that he did desire to the best of his ability to obviate hostility and jealousy on the part of England. Surely under these circumstances it was not necessary that the Prime Minister should, as a preparation for the Conference, make declarations that could only tend to revive the jealousy and re-embitter the relations between Russia and England. I shall not detain the House with the discussions which took place at the Conference. Although that Conference has, to a certain extent, been a failure, I think that Lord Salisbury deserves, and will receive, the thanks of the country. Although he has failed in his main object, Lord Salisbury has done much. He has restored, to a great extent, the good understanding between England and Russia. Lord Salisbury has evidently done everything which he was empowered to do to bring the Conference to a successful issue; and we on this side of the House, and I believe the
88
country generally, are grateful to him for the light he has thrown on our relations with Turkey under the Treaties of 1856. I do not wish to disparage those Treaties. I believe they have been, and may yet be, productive of great good. But there were those amongst us who were disposed not to regard those Treaties as instruments by which good might be effected or evil averted, but rather as a chain binding us and taking from us all power of our own—as instruments binding us by every honourable obligation, perpetually and for ever, to be the defenders and champions of a decaying Empire; and Lord Salisbury at the Conference, if he has been correctly reported, has told Turkey in plain language, and the world, in the name of his Government, and in the name, I believe, of the whole country, what is his view of our relations under the Treaties of 1856, and if it were for nothing more than this, I should say we had reason to be grateful to Lord Salisbury. I entirely concur in the paragraph of Her Majesty's Speech in which it is stated that the result of the Conference has been to show the existence of a general agreement among the European Powers. But the anticipation which follows, that that agreement cannot fail to have a material effect upon the condition and Government of Turkey, depends for its realization, to a very great extent, upon the present proceedings and the present posture of Her Majesty's Government. The expressions in the Speech announcing the failure of the Conference are the least strong terms in which that could be announced; and I should like to ask whether it is true, as has been generally supposed, that Her Majesty's Ambassador, together with the Ambassadors of the other Powers, has been ordered to leave Constantinople as a mark of the displeasure of the Government at the conduct of the Porte, for if that important diplomatic step has been taken, it seems to me somewhat remarkable that the Queen's Speech, entering as it does into so many details, has made no mention of it? In dealing with these one or two points, I have spoken, not with the view of examining the title of Her Majesty's Government to our confidence, interesting as no doubt that is, but because their conduct in negotiations in the past give us the only indications which are at

89
present available of what is their position at present, and what are their intentions in the future. England has made, through her Representative, certain strong representations as to the existence of the Ottoman Empire depending on the acceptance of certain proposals to which Her Majesty's Government have made us a party. Well, those proposals have been rejected. What is to follow? Is anything to follow? If we look to the fate of the despatch of September 21, and, for many months at least, the calm acquiescence of the Government in the neglect with which their demands have been treated, there is, I think, reason to apprehend that Her Majesty's Government are inclined to lend a willing ear to the counsels of those who tell them that with the failure of the Conference, with the refusal of the Turkish Government to accept our terms, with the consciousness of having offered good advice, and with the protest which we have made, our responsibilities are at an end. A few days ago we might have been told that the Conference, after all, had not been barren of results, and that the promulgation of the Turkish Constitution afforded us some guarantee, although not of the kind we desired, for good government in the future. But the news which has arrived within the last day or two must have been enough to shake the faith of the strongest believer in Turkey. I cannot think it a very good augury for the success and stability of the Constitution that within a very few weeks of its promulgation its author should find himself an exile. Well, Sir, if it be the case that some are ready to advise Her Majesty's Government that their responsibilities are discharged by what they recommended and what they failed to obtain at the Conference, I would ask what becomes of the declarations of policy that have been made by Her Majesty's Ministers? The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for the Home Department have undertaken before the country not to ask merely for guarantees from Turkey, but to obtain those guarantees. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking at Edinburgh on the 18th of September, said—
"We have long known it was our duty; we accept the duty; we accept it as freely as any of those who challenged us could wish, to fulfil
90
the moral obligation into which this country entered by the Treaty of 1856, at the close of the Crimean War, to use its efforts to protect the Christians of the Turkish Provinces from misgovernment. We know now from the terrible emphasis with which these words have been spoken from Bulgaria what the misgovernment of Turkey means, and be assured that the revelations which have been made have in no degree weakened the sense of duty with which we have been impressed. We know it is a question which must be dealt with firmly and vigorously."
And the Secretary of State for the Home Department, speaking, I think, still more strongly, said—
"The Great Powers have a right to examine for themselves what provision would be sufficient to secure the good administration of those Provinces, and to see that adequate provision is made that all these measures shall be carried into effect. With all due respect to Turkey, I would say that of course the time has come when all what I may call the waste paper currency' of the Turkish promises shall be paid in sterling coin."
Well, I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that when they made these declarations they were merely speaking of proposals to be made and to be carried out or not as Turkey thought fit. I think that when the right hon. Gentlemen made use of these expressions they undertook not merely to ask for reforms, but to obtain reforms and guarantees. Sir, if it be that the responsibility of the Government is discharged by that which has taken place, what, I ask, becomes of the policy of the Government? We have been told that to secure the interests of England is the main object of the policy of this country. We have been told over and over again that the main interest of England is the maintenance of peace, and no doubt we shall be told that peace has been preserved. But, I ask, what sort of peace is it? In the last extract with which I shall trouble the House the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give the answer. Speaking at Bristol on November 13, he said—
"I believe it to be impossible really to secure the peace of Europe unless we take steps also for the improved administration of the Provinces of Turkey. As long as you leave that sore open, as long as you do nothing to heal what is at the bottom of the cause of these disturbances, any peace you may promote for the moment will be but a hollow peace, and be but as a patchwork—a piece of sticking-plaister put over a wound when there is festering matter still left below."
If, then, the responsibility of the Go-

91
vernment is discharged by the failure of the Conference, where, I ask, is the peace which they have pledged themselves to attain? Where is the peace which the supporters of the Government seem to think they have succeeded in obtaining? If we look back to that phase of the question when England retired from the Berlin negotiations and left Turkey and Russia face to face, it may not be unreasonable to suppose that the Government regard with calmness, if not with satisfaction, the prospect of reverting now to a similar position. Sir, can anything be more contrary to the interests of England than that Turkey and Russia should be left face to face? Can anything be more contrary to the interests of England than that Russia should be permitted, if not compelled, to take upon herself the duty which ought to rest on the whole of the Powers that took part in the Conference? The position of Russia has been immensely strengthened by what took place at the Conference, It would be difficult, I think, for any Power which was represented at that Conference to say whether Russia was not within her right when she proposed, in the event of the absence of co-operation from the other Powers, to act independently. I do not suppose anybody is deluded by the rumours that are circulated—whether with design or not—as to the weakness of Russia. I do not suppose anyone is deluded by the moderation shown by Russia at the Conference — a moderation for which there were very sufficient diplomatic reasons. I do not suppose anyone believes that that moderation was the result of military weakness. Perhaps we are trusting to the attitude of Germany and Austria. Perhaps we suppose that Russia, knowing she has no material advantage to gain by war, will shrink from war. But, Sir, Germany and Austria have no interest in Asia or the Asiatic Provinces of Turkey. England, on the other hand, has a great interest in those Provinces, through which, perhaps, some day will be the most direct route to India. Yet there are some among us—I trust that the Government do not belong to the number—who look with calmness, if not with satisfaction, on the prospect of leaving Turkey and Russia face to face, and on the possibility of war springing up between those two countries. Sir, I ask whether the danger of
92
that position, as regards English interests, has diminished; whether it has not rather increased, since the time when Mr. Canning, rather than encounter the perils of such a situation—rather than allow Russia to take upon herself singly the task of enforcing the proposals which had been agreed upon between England and Russia as to the affairs of Greece—was willing even to go the length of proposing to co-operate with Russia for the purpose of attaining the end in view. I am unwilling to believe that the resources of diplomacy are exhausted by the failure of the Conference, and that the efforts of Europe for the maintenance of peace and the obtaining of securities from Turkey are exhausted by the refusal of Turkey. Of this, at all events, I am sure—that the Government will take upon themselves a heavy responsibility if they do not strive to do everything in their power, not to dissolve, but rather to strengthen and prolong the concert among the Powers, for the accomplishment of those beneficent ends which the Conference laboured, but, unfortunately, laboured in vain, to attain.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I mean to follow the example of the noble Lord who has just sat down (the Marquess of Hartington) by speaking very briefly indeed upon any other subject but that on which he has last addressed the House. But before I advert to his observations on that matter I must, in the first place, acknowledge the services of my noble Friend the Mover (Viscount Galway) and my bon. Friend the Seconder of the Address (Mr. Torr), and I will take the opportunity, if my noble Friend will allow me, of assuring him that there must have been many in this House who sympathized entirely with the graceful expressions with which his speech closed, and that we rejoice to see that a name so long honourably known in this House is borne by one who seems worthy of it. The noble Lord opposite (the Marquess of Hartington) began by complimenting us on having advised Her Majesty to address to Parliament a speech of an unambitious character, and by congratulating the House on the repose which seemed to await it. I trust this prognostication may be agreeably fulfilled in the course of the Session, but I am not so sure that we shall have such entire repose as we may desire. My own im-

93
pression is that we shall have a lively Session on more points than one, and that we shall meet with more opponents than we at first anticipated. The noble Lord has taunted us with the omission from Her Majesty's Speech of certain subjects which he mentioned. I do not think it is necessary for me to discuss those questions of omission. With regard to the question of the Fugitive Slave Circular, to which the noble Lord also referred, that is a matter as to which it did not seem to me that the House would expect that it should be brought under their notice in the Queen's Speech. It is, however, a subject on which many questions may be asked, and as to which questions I may say that those who ask them shall receive sufficient answers. Then, again, with respect to the Extradition question, to which reference was also made, at the present moment the matter is in a phase of a temporary character; a temporary arrangement has been made, and negotiations are going on which we hope may lead to a satisfactory result. The noble Lord also referred to the Maritime Contracts Bill. Well, it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to drop that measure. It stood upon the Paper for a considerable time last Session, and towards the close of the Session I gave Notice of a Motion to refer it to a Select Committee; but as it was found impossible, from circumstances that occurred, to get the Bill through the second reading stage we were obliged to let it stand over till this year. It is, however, our intention to re-introduce it, and I hope, after it has been read a second time, to ask the House to send it to a Select Committee. I will not refer now to the question of Local Taxation, as to which the noble Lord asked one or two questions; but I think I may ask the House to wait until Monday evening next, when I hope my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board will introduce one of the measures of which he has given Notice, and make a statement which will show how far we have advanced and what progress we have made in that matter. These were, I think, the only topics to which the noble Lord adverted, with the exception of the great question of our Foreign policy, and I think, Sir, I shall be entirely conforming to the desire of the House if I now say a few words on that
94
subject. But I am bound to say that the line which the noble Lord has taken—although I have no right to complain of him for doing so—places me in a somewhat embarrassing position, inasmuch as I can neither enter fully into the question, nor decline to reply to his observations upon it. The noble Lord began by intimating—and I think with very considerable justice—that the present was not the occasion on which it was desirable that we should enter into a controversy as to the policy Her Majesty's Government have pursued in regard to the negotiations that have taken place, the Papers not being yet in the hands of hon. Members. I can assure the House that every exertion has been made to get those Papers in a state in which they could be laid before the House, and I believe that to-morrow morning hon. Members will receive the whole of the Papers down to the close of the Conference and the return of my noble Friend the Marquess of Salisbury and Sir Henry Elliot from Constantinople. When those Papers, which are rather voluminous, are in the hands of the House, the noble Lord and his Friends will have an opportunity of quietly considering those matters on which he feels, and has expressed himself as being in some difficulty. He will be able, and other hon. Members will be able, to see and judge for themselves what our course of proceedings during the autumn and winter have been, and we shall then have an opportunity—and, if they desire it, the opportunity will certainly be given—of discussing with the Papers in our hands, all points as to which discussion is considered desirable. But I thought that when the noble Lord had laid down the principle that it was not desirable to go into controversial matters now, he would have acted and spoken in accordance with the spirit of that observation. The noble Lord has, however, in more than one part of his speech, indulged in severe criticisms and comments, which it is almost equally difficult for me to answer or to pass by. If I answer them I necessarily enter into a controversy as to very difficult matters of an inconvenient character; for if I enter into it with the Papers in my own hands, I am able to refer to matters some parts of which the House is necessarily ignorant of. If I enter into the controversy, and defend the action of the Government

95
on certain points on which the noble Lord has thought it right—and I admit he has the right—to challenge our conduct, it may be necessary for me to enter into somewhat lengthened and controversial discussions as to the conduct of other Powers, whose action in these matters is not to be entirely taken for granted, and whose action is by no means unimportant with reference to some of the questions raised. Before I came down to the House I had laid down for myself, as a guide in the observations I would address to the House, a principle similar to that announced by the noble Lord—that I would abstain as far as I possibly could from touching on anything irritating or controversial. If, however, we are challenged or brought to a controversy, we shall be able to meet the noble Lord, or anybody else who ventures to challenge us; and if the attacks which are likely to be made upon us are such as have been foreshadowed by the observations of the noble Lord, I entertain very little doubt indeed as to the result. It seems to me that throughout the whole of his remarks the noble Lord has himself been misled, and consequently has been constantly misrepresenting our conduct in the various stages of these transactions, not of course intentionally, but from a want of understanding it. He is the last man I would accuse of wilfully doing such a thing; but over and over again in the course of his observations the noble Lord made charges which, if he had had the Papers in his hands and had given them the study which I am sure with his candid mind he would have given them, he would not have made; and I do think it is a disadvantage, not only in reference to the interest of one Party or another, but to that of the country, that, in a matter of this importance, we should have a merely partial, one-sided, and imperfect discussion. The noble Lord does not overrate, nobody can, the importance of the present position of affairs, and the very great importance of weighing every word we use at the present time, and of considering well every step we take; and I do think that it is hard that we should have been subjected, as we have been for a considerable time, to representations which have gone abroad, and have been accepted abroad by persons who naturally take the authority on which they
96
were made as high authority, and yet which have been such as to give an entirely false and erroneous view of the policy we have adopted—the policy not only of the Government, but of the country. We think that an actual knowledge of the facts detailed in these Papers will prove the wisdom and rectitude of our conduct, and entirely remove that erroneous impression. The noble Lord has been very profuse in his quotations from speeches which were made during the Recess by Members of Her Majesty's Government. I can assure the noble Lord that we feel the compliment which has been paid to us, and for my own part I am greatly obliged to him for having read sentences pronounced by myself on one or two occasions which I should have thought would not have attracted so much attention, but every one of which I am prepared to say I entirely and wholly adhere to. Among others, the noble Lord read an extract from a speech—and a very excellent one it was—made by my noble Friend the Earl of Carnarvon, in which my noble Friend said, in reference to speeches made at those indignation meetings to which the noble Lord referred, "he believed that, if rightly understood at home and abroad, nothing could more strengthen the hands of his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary." Well, but in the words "if rightly understood at home and abroad" lies the importance of a great many of the speeches made and of the acts done during the Recess; and what I complain of on the part of the Government is, that on more than one occasion misunderstanding has been caused by speeches and writings which have not been rightly understood. The noble Lord has referred to certain speeches made by my noble Friend the Prime Minister, and said that those speeches have done a great deal of harm. If harm was done by those speeches, it was not by the speeches themselves, but by the construction which was put upon them, and, as I maintain, very erroneously put upon them, by those who misunderstood them. There has been an industrious attempt made for a considerable time past—for what reason I cannot undertake to say—to represent the Government of this country as having a desire to carry the country into a war on behalf of Turkey, and as being desirous of encouraging

97
her in her policy. Now, I assert, without fear of contradiction, that there has been nothing in any action of the Government, or in any words written or spoken by the Government to justify such a representation. On the contrary, from a very early period of those transactions—from a period antecedent even to the question raised by the Bulgarian atrocities—the language used by my noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) in his despatches, as the organ of the Government speaking for the country, and by other Members of the Government, has always been to the effect that England would not undertake that course of proceeding. I can find, I think, a sentence of my noble Friend's, at a very early date indeed, at the very time of the rejection of the Berlin Memorandum, bearing out this view of the case. It is in the Papers presented last Session. As far back, I think, as the 19th of May last, Her Majesty's Government, explaining to Sir Henry Elliot for the information of the Porte what course had been taken with regard to the Berlin Memorandum, and the reasons why they had thought it undesirable to concur in it, go on to say that they do not desire to counsel the Porte to resist any advice or proposal which the Porte may consider advantageous, and that they cannot conceal from themselves that the gravity of the situation has arisen in a great measure from the weakness and apathy of the Porte in dealing with the insurrection in the first stage—[Mr. W. E. FORSTER: Hear, hear!]—and in the want of confidence in the Turkish powers of government shown by the state into which the finances had been allowed to fall—
"The responsibility must rest with the Sultan and his Government, and all that can be done by the Government of Her Majesty is to give such counsel as circumstances may require. They cannot control the events to which the neglect of the principles of good government may expose the Porte."
I thought I caught a laugh from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford when I read some words as to the want of proper energy on the part of the Government in dealing with the insurrection in the first instance. Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to suppose that the only meaning of the phrase I have quoted was that, in our opinion, the Porte should have used more physical force in subduing the
98
insurrection? If that is what he thinks he is entirely under an erroneous impression, because the language always used by Her Majesty's Government, even in the earliest stages of the insurrection, was to the effect that the Porte ought to take every means in its power to satisfy the wants of the insurgents; that they ought to make themselves acquainted with the real causes of the insurrection, and then, by manfully grappling with them, to remove those parts of the Government system which were objected to, and had resulted in evil. I cannot trouble the House by searching Blue Books for every expression, but I will undertake to say there is the strongest possible evidence that that was the line and the meaning of the expressions used by my noble Friend. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: Oh, oh!] My right hon. Friend says "Oh." I can only say that I will undertake at the proper time to make good all that I have said on this branch of the subject. Throughout all that has been done there is an apparent desire to throw blame upon us in a manner which I consider very unfair. The noble Lord has charged my noble Friend with having suggested that Europe should keep a ring, in which this contest between Turkey and Servia should be fought out, and he has described that as a very objectionable thing to be done. I think that if my noble Friend made use of any expression that could be construed into such a phrase, he must certainly be condemned for want of originality, he might even be said to be a plagiarist, for long before he had made use of it, it had already been used by the Representative of another Power. I notice that in a despatch of Lord Augustus Loftus, dated 20th of April, he describes an interview which he had had with Prince Gortchakoff, in the course of which the Prince expressed an opinion that the negotiations hitherto carried on between the Porte and the insurgents being exhausted, and the Porte having appealed to arms, the European Powers had only to await the decision of combat. La parole, he said, est aux canons. When such language is used by Prince Gortchakoff it passes unchallenged, but when anything like it is said on the part of England it is made a subject of the deepest reprobation. I ask why. And I ask again if it is fair that we are to be drawn into a dis-

99
cussion of this kind at a time when we do not feel ourselves thoroughly at liberty, and when it would not be convenient for the House to go into a discussion of the conduct of each and every Power in connection with each and every branch of these proceedings? I only give this instance as showing that what is condemned in us is passed over when done by others. I regret to have been forced to say so much on this branch of the subject as I have done, for I deprecate any attempt at the present time to induce the House to enter upon a discussion as to the conduct of Russia or any other of the Great Powers with whom we have been acting in reference to this question. My belief is that at the present moment we stand in a position which is full of hope as well as full of anxiety. My belief is that the result of the Conference has been by no means what is described as a failure. It is true that it has not at present led to the adoption of those particular proposals which were agreed upon by the Powers, and in so far as that goes, undoubtedly it was a failure; but in other respects it is not a failure. It has led to a good understanding among the Six Powers, to a comparison of their demands, and to an elimination from those demands of whatever seemed extravagant or dangerous, or which would not have been accepted. It has also produced a feeling of cordiality and mutual respect which I believe cannot fail to be of the utmost importance in the future conduct of European affairs if we are only allowed time and fair play, and an attempt is not made to make our every action, tone, and word suspect, by putting upon it an interpretation which its authors would disclaim, which can lead to no good, and may lead to much mischief. What I object to is the emphasizing everything that you can lay hold of—emphasizing everything that can tell against your own country. [Interruption.] Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman opposite to say—"Does your own country mean the Government?"
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong in supposing the observation which he questions to have been made by my right hon. Friend. I may say it was I who made the observation; but I do not know that the right hon. Gentleman has
100
heard me quite correctly. What I said was, "For country read Government."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. He draws a distinction between the country and the Government, a distinction which he is perfectly justified in drawing, and which I think he ought to put to the test. The noble Lord will hardly deny that in these matters this country has to maintain an important position. He will hardly deny that this country must be represented by its Government for the time being; and if the noble Lord means to imply by the correction which he has just now kindly supplied us with, that the Government does not represent the country, the sooner he takes steps to bring that to the proof the better. I regret, as I said before, that we have got into such controversial matters. I can assure the House that it was very far indeed from my intention when I came to this House to be betrayed into this kind of discussion, but I have been provoked into it, and I regret that we should on this first night of the Session have diverged from what I think is the more convenient and the better course. The noble Lord has taken this opportunity of asking certain questions of the Government; and nothing could be more convenient or legitimate than that questions should be put, and that we should endeavour to answer them as far as possible. But I must distinguish between questions which are really questions put for information as to the attitude of the Government, and questions which are put, I may say, in the nature of taunt or attack. As to the observations made on speeches of the Prime Minister and other matters of that sort, they are very legitimate indeed for a subject of attack if there is a distinct question at issue before the House, but I do not exactly see in what respect the particular questions the noble Lord has put bear upon the actual matter of interest to the country—namely, to know what the attitude of the Government is, and what the policy of the Government is and has been. I must say with regard to some points in the observations of the noble Lord, I think a more careful study of the Blue Books of last Session would have shown him that there was not quite so great a discrepancy between the speech of the Prime

101
Minister at Aylesbury and the facts of the case as he seems to believe. But I will not do more than just call attention to one of those despatches—I mean the despatch from Prince Gortchakoff to Count Schouvaloff, communicated to Lord Derby by Count Schouvaloff on the 19th June, in which His Majesty the Emperor of Russia is referred to as seeing with much satisfaction the initiative taken by Mr. Disraeli, and the confidence again shown towards Russia. "We feel ourselves," the despatch proceeds, "not undeserving of it, and we shall answer it with the most complete reciprocity." He then goes on to state what the views of the Russian Government are, and how far they correspond with the views of the Prime Minister. I mention this merely to show that communications were going on between Her Majesty's Government and the Russian Government at the time of which Lord Beaconsfield spoke in the Aylesbury speech. It is quite true that these negotiations did not assume the formal shape of ordinary despatches, but the reason of that is that they were to a great extent conversations between the Prime Minister, Lord Derby, and the Ministers of Russia and Austria in particular, in order, if possible, to arrive at some solution of the difficulties which had arisen after the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to join in the Berlin Memorandum. I do not remember the exact words which Lord Beaconsfield used at Aylesbury; but he was perfectly right in saying that we did not, after rejecting the Berlin Memorandum, withdraw ourselves into our shell and say, "we will have nothing to do with the matter;" but we did endeavour as well as we could to see what arrangement could be brought about. Aye, and fruit came of that arrangement, because the main point of difficulty with which he had to deal was as to the particular system of autonomy which it would be best to introduce into the insurgent Provinces. There was a difference in the views of the Austrian and Russian Governments as to the exact amount of autonomy that should be proposed, and Lord Derby and the Prime Minister were exerting themselves to bring about some solution that should settle the question. And we see the result, because, in point of fact, when the Conference came to be proposed, these discussions bore their fruit, and a
102
definition of autonomy was arrived at which was satisfactory to both Powers. While I mention this, I think these are questions on which it would probably be more satisfactory that we should hear what the Prime Minister himself will be able to tell the country in answer to questions which I have no doubt have been similarly put to him in "another place." What I am anxious to say is this—the House must not suppose that we have been without a policy, or that we have been shifting and changing in our policy throughout these transactions. Nothing is more easy than to represent that on such a day, the 21st September, you suddenly changed your position, and that as the days began to get shorter your policy began to be different. There is not the slightest foundation for such a charge against us. The House must recollect that there are certain times and particular crises when it maybe necessary to write a despatch of a different character from those which preceded it. There is a time for everything. Thus the despatch which was written by my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in reference to the Bulgarian atrocities, and which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Assheton Cross) said was a very strong despatch for one friendly Power to have written to another, could not have been written until we had received authentic information supplied by our Ambassador with regard to those atrocities. Therefore, it was not the case that a change suddenly came over the line of the Government policy when that despatch was written; but the fact was the despatch was written at the time we had received the information, which had not been in our possession before. With that simple fact we give an explanation that ought to put an end to those far-fetched and rather invidious suggestions which have been made as to a change having occurred in our policy at that time. Then the noble Lord goes on to say, "It was on the 21st of September when you for the first time proposed mediation." It is clearly impossible, without the Blue Books being in the hands of hon. Members, for me to ask them to follow me through all the negotiations that have occurred, but in brief they amount to this. We told Parliament and the country when we separated in the Autumn that we must

103
wait—that we could do nothing at that time when the war had broken out, but they might depend upon it that as soon as opportunity presented itself we should seize it as speedily as we could to offer our good offices to put an end to it, and the moment that such an opportunity did present itself, on the application of the Prince of Servia for our mediation, and as soon as it was possible to complete the necessary correspondence to which that application led, we availed ourselves of it. That is the natural—and, as I should have thought, the self-evident—reason why that particular time was chosen for our interference. The noble Lord referred just now to some remarks which I made during the Recess. I am anxious to repeat those remarks to the House. I still believe most fully, as much now as when I said it before, that our object should be to preserve peace, but that peace cannot be placed upon a solid footing unless it is accompanied by measures for the improvement of the government of the aggrieved Christian Provinces of Turkey. It is the belief of Her Majesty's Government that it is an object of paramount and cardinal importance to the peace of Europe, and therefore to the interests of England, that an improvement should be made in the government of those Provinces. We believe it as fully as the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone). We have never disguised our opinion about it, and the only question has been in what manner that good government is to be brought about. My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich has on more occasions than one told us that we have incurred by the events of the Crimean War and the Treaty of 1856 a special responsibility for the good government of the Christians in Turkey. I will not now enter into a discussion on the precise limits of that special responsibility; but we do acknowledge that we stand in a different position with reference to the Christian populations of Turkey from that in which we stand to the subjects of other Powers, and we recognize it as our duty by every legitimate means in our power to look after and to care for the condition of those populations. But we must remember how difficult a matter this intervention must necessarily be. Some years ago almost everybody in this House, and certainly every one on the opposite
104
side, would have sprung to his feet had it been said that the doctrine of England with regard to the internal affairs of other countries was anything but that of a policy of non-intervention. The term "non-intervention" appears to be rather less popular with hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House now than it used to be. But that doctrine is one which is based upon very sound and good reasons; although it ought not to be pushed to an extreme, and is one which must at times be departed from, and which we must not adopt in its narrowest and most exclusive sense. If you say you refuse to interfere in the affairs of a country in consequence of your wishing to save yourselves trouble, and being put to a great expense of blood and treasure, it may become a question whether you are acting right or not, but at all events it is a matter about which each country must judge for itself how far it will make up its mind to go. But beyond this you have to consider as a great reason for caution in intervention—that if you hastily intervene in the affairs of a foreign country, you will very seldom find that your intervention succeeds in its object. I do not say that if you have a particular object in view, such as to force a country to give up a war, or to yield one of its Provinces, or if you make this or that definite demand upon it, such as the giving up of a prisoner, that you may not intervene, and put on pressure, and be successful in your interference. But if you intervene for the general purpose of introducing good government into a country which for centuries has been misgoverned, you are undertaking a task which you are exceedingly likely to fail in, and it is quite probable that you may succeed not only in not doing what you would, but in making matters worse by an intervention which is not a wise one. That would especially be the case if you were endeavouring to improve the government of a country against the will of the governing power itself. If you bring it to co-operate with you, good may be done; but if you are endeavouring by force to arrange a system by which the government of the country may be improved against the will of the sovereign Power of that country, you are undertaking a task which is exceedingly difficult. Now, I venture to think

105
the course we have pursued has been the right and prudent course. We have endeavoured as far as possible, not only by advice, but by the strongest pressure short of coercion, by the strongest pressure of our authority and advice, earnestly, urgently, and repeatedly pressed upon the Porte to induce that Power to take a course which we believed, and our Allies believed, would be beneficial to its Christian population. That is the point to which the Conference brought matters when they presented their proposals to the Porte, and I deeply regret the conduct of the Porte in refusing them. I think that conduct is most ill-advised, and that it will entail responsibilities upon that country which to her boldest statesman must appear very alarming. What course we are now to take must be a matter for consideration; but I can assure the House that it is a subject that is engaging the gravest consideration of Her Majesty's Government. We have laid down one or two lines for our guidance. We have from the beginning said what we say now, that we are not prepared to have recourse to coercion. We desire to avoid separate action, we desire to have common action, we believe that in this matter it is for the interests of all parties, including the Christian populations of Turkey themselves, that we should have common action among all the Powers, because we believe that in common action lies the best chance for securing the better government of those Provinces. Separate intervention will always be suspected. Separate intervention by any Power—and I say it without the slightest notion of offence—separate intervention by such Powers as Russia and Austria is sure to be suspected, because it is impossible that these Powers should not be suspected of having private interests of their own which may affect their conduct subsequently. It is, therefore, better for all parties that the intervention, whatever it may be, should be in common, and by the Powers acting altogether. Now, we hope that by the course which has been taken during the proceedings of the year that we have brought matters to this point—that the Powers are sincerely and substantially agreed and are prepared to act together. But it is necessary in concerted action that you should use your own judgment. It
106
would not do to obtain concert by blindly surrendering your own judgment to that of every other Power. We desired concert at the time of the presentation of the Berlin Memorandum, but we could not see our way to it, and we should have acted improperly if contrary to our judgment we had accepted the proposals of that Note. And, similarly, in all the other proposals we have made we have endeavoured to act upon our own judgment, and upon that judgment we intend to act in future. I will not trouble the House with any speculations as to what is likely immediately to happen. The noble Lord opposite has referred to what he calls the recent revolution in Constantinople, but which is rather a change of Ministry than a revolution, and has made the fall of a Minister the text for some remarks upon what he supposed might be said of the value of the new Turkish Constitution. I am bound to say that giving every credit to the authors of that Constitution, and being willing to look at it in the most favourable light as a piece of paper legislation, I cannot put the smallest confidence, nor, I believe, could anybody put the smallest confidence in any Constitution of that kind affording a remedy for the evils which you have to deal with. Constitutions cannot be improvised in a few months and imposed on a country wholly unaccustomed to them; neither can it be supposed that they will have all the effects in a country like Turkey that they have in a country to which they are indigenous. Constitutions are the growth of centuries, and though it may be possible—I do not pretend to form an opinion on such a matter—that if this Constitution were allowed to work for a considerable time, and were allowed fair play and were honestly worked, it might suit the Turkish nation and might lead to beneficial results to the Christian Provinces of that country; yet it is ridiculous to suppose that the mere proclamation of a Constitution without guarantees that it will be properly administered could produce any sensible results. So far as the effect to be expected from the Constitution is concerned, I think there is comparatively little importance in the change to which the noble Lord has referred; but I think we are bound to consider that in this matter we must give credit to Turkey for the willingness she has shown to

107
reform herself. We must bear in mind that when the Powers said—You must improve your system of collecting the revenue, you must improve your judicial system, you must improve your police system, Turkey has not obstinately set herself down and said "No." She has not said, "No; you have no right to interfere, and I trust you will not meddle with -these matters," but she has expressed her willingness and anxiety to grant these reforms. I know it will be said we have to deal not so much with obstinacy against reform, as with the weakness of a country which has been so long obstinately misgoverned, in our efforts to produce a better system of government. But we were of opinion that in making the proposal we did to Turkey at the Conference we were offering her that which she most wanted; that we were offering it in a form as little offensive to her pride and dignity as possible; and that we were offering her external guarantees to enable her to do the work which she said she was willing to do. It was the intention of the Government that upon matters of detail there should be the freest discussion With those who being charged with the government of the country, and having a knowledge of its circumstances, might be supposed best able to devise those measures that were needful for Turkey. What was important for us to do was to obtain some kind of guarantee that these improvements, when decided upon, should be carried into effect. Now, we believed that among the great evils which beset Turkey there was none greater than the constant change of provincial Governors. Everybody who speaks about the condition of Turkey and the evils under which she suffers will tell you that one of the greatest of those evils is the constant change of the Governors of Provinces, and that no sooner has one Governor become acquainted with the circumstances of a Province, and acquired an interest in it, than another man goes behind his back, offers a large sum of money for his removal, and gets himself appointed Governor of the Province, which he oppresses and misgoverns. One of the objects we had in view at the Conference was that these changes should be put under some restraint, tending to give greater security of tenure to the office of provincial Governor. With regard to police
108
and judicial reforms, what we wanted to do was not to impose a new Constitution upon Turkey, but to get guarantees that Turkey would endeavour to carry into effect those reforms which were necessary. I am asked what is the policy of the Government? Well, I say the policy of the Government is expressed in a short paragraph of Her Majesty's Speech. Her Majesty says that—
"In taking these steps, My object has throughout been to maintain the Peace of Europe, and to bring about the better Government of the disturbed Provinces, without infringing upon the independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire."
We are taunted with speaking of the independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire, and with referring to the Treaties of 1856 and 1871, as if they were Treaties by which we were slavishly bound to Turkey, while we neglected to regard them as giving us opportunities of doing good to her subjects. I entirely deny that. We are neither slavishly bound to the Treaties, nor did we neglect the opportunities afforded of doing good under those Treaties. And whether you say this or that step was directly required by the Treaty or not, we have proceeded in the sense of the Treaty of 1856, which was confirmed and ratified by the Treaty of 1871; and we have been endeavouring to make use of the influence and discharge ourselves of the responsibility acquired by that Treaty for the benefit of the populations of Turkey. It is impossible that we can have any other Object. When you talk of British interests, of course there are special British interests in connection with this subject, just as there are also Russian and Austrian and other special interests. But we have interests in some respects of a more peculiar character than those of the other European Powers, and when we speak of British interests we speak of them in the broadest and highest sense. The great interest of England is that we should maintain an honourable peace throughout the world; and that is not only the interest of England, but the interest of the whole world. Can anybody look around over the map of Europe, and point to any country which has not more risk of loss than prospect of gain by any disturbance or a state of hostility? In any case, I venture to say that

109
in every instance the interest of England coincides with the interests of the rest of the world for peace. Well, if that is the case with the Great Powers it is also the case of small Powers like Roumania, Servia, and Montenegro, which are growing communities, but which are disturbed in the progress of their growth by the quarrels which are fastened upon them. I think you will find in these Papers a most touching remonstrance from the Government of Roumania, showing bow her progress has been checked, and what misery has been caused by the state of disturbance in which she has been kept. Therefore I assume, and I venture to say you will do harm by keeping up a state of agitation. I say that the interests even of the populations in the disturbed Provinces in Turkey themselves are best to be served by the maintenance of peace; and I believe it is far more probable that a satisfactory arrangement will be made by the maintenance of peace in those Provinces than by disturbance and war. That is the policy which Her Majesty's Government have endeavoured to pursue, and which as long as we are honoured with the confidence of the country we shall continue to pursue. We desire to bring about and maintain a common concert in these matters; but let me say, if we are to maintain a common concert with other countries, it is absolutely essential that we should wish to be respecters of Treaties. There is a great desire now to throw dirt, if I may use so familiar an expression, upon the Treaty obligations by which we arc bound. There is even an attempt to say that the Treaty of 1856 has been broken; and therefore is in no way binding, because Turkey has not observed it herself. [Mr. MUNDELLA: Lord Salisbury said so.] I shall be rather surprised to find that that language has been used by Lord Salisbury. What I say is, the Treaty of 1856 was renewed by the late Government only six years ago—in tin year 1871. Now, how is it that Turkey has broken the Treaty of 1856? What Article has she broken of it? You will say she has broken the spirit of the Treaty, because she has not govern as she ought to govern. Did she gown as she ought to have done down to the year 1871? No advantage was taken by the British Government of the opportunity then afforded to make a repre-
110
sentation to Turkey that She had broken that Treaty. At the time when the Treaty was brought under review, the Government of Russia did point to certain breaches which she said had been made in the Treaty. These breaches were, I think, of a remarkable character, having reference to the grant of greater freedom to Roumania, for instance, and other things; but the point was never urged, was never realized that Turkey was in any way guilty of a breach of that Treaty in respect of the misgovernment of the Christians. But, surely, if misgovernment puts an end to a Treaty of this important character, the charge should have been pointed out and advantage taken of it by those who are responsible for the renewing of the Treaty. I do not for a moment bring this forward in order to cast reproach upon the late Government, but rather to show that they must have known and seen, as we know and see, the great practical difficulties of dealing with this question. It was not that their attention had not been directed to this question, for it had frequently been brought on in connection with Cretan affairs, but still the question was not raised, and the despatches published in 1860 or 1861 show that full and ample notice had been taken of the misgovernment of Turkey. What the Government of that day was endeavouring to do was no doubt the right thing to do—to bring their influence to bear for the improvement of Turkey, and the fact that they brought their influence to bear is a proof that the exertions we have made to bring about a better state of things will compare not unfavourably with those of our Predecessors. I must apologize to the noble Lord if I have omitted to notice any other matters which I ought to have noticed; but there was one point on which the noble Lord spoke with regard to our having retired for a certain period from the armistice negotiations. I think the noble Lord had better wait till he has the whole of the Papers in his hands, and he can follow the whole transaction. I think he will see, and the House will see, that it is fair to wait until we can follow the whole of the negotiations. The noble Lord has certainly not given the version which I think he would give if he had taken the whole negotiations together; but beyond saying that I would rather not enter into a discussion

111
of the subject just now. I have only one word more to say, and that is this—that when the noble Lord, and those who agree with him on this subject, receive the Papers they will see a full official account of all the proceedings connected with the Conference, they will see the Instructions given to Lord Salisbury, and they will see in how faithful a manner those Instructions were carried out. The people of England have every reason in this matter to be proud of their Representative; and if, unfortunately, the result has not been in all respects such as it was our desire that it should be, we shall, I am sure, all be ready to admit that it was not owing to a failure on the part of my noble and distinguished Friend. But I wish it to be understood that in what was done my noble Friend was not acting, as some persons would have us believe, on his own judgment alone, and that he was not striking out a new line, and one that was not authorized or prescribed to him by his Instructions. On the contrary, my noble Friend was strictly in accord with his Instructions in all those proceedings. I saw, and saw, I may say, with some amusement, the other day in a newspaper which takes a great interest in the subject, a quotation from some of the closing words—or nearly the closing words—which Lord Salisbury used in one of the last meetings of the Conference; and the remark was made that if such language as that had been used by Her Majesty's Government, it would have given a very different colour to their proceedings in this matter. But these identical words, I think, were taken by Lord Salisbury from the Instructions with which he was furnished; and I will venture to read to the House a few words from those Instructions.
MR. GLADSTONEsuggested that the right hon. Gentleman was out of Order in reading from an unpublished document.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think, Sir, I may take the opportunity of reading a few words from the Instructions given to Lord Salisbury, which will be found in these Papers. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Order, order!] I imagine I am strictly in Order in reading an extract from a Paper which has been formally laid on the Table of the House. Even if it had not been formally laid on the Table, I
112
think my right hon. Friend will admit, if he looks to the precedents, that I should be justified in reading from a Paper which I propose to lay on the Table. I should not be justified in reading from a Paper which I said I could not lay on the Table; but when I am proposing to read a few very short extracts from the Instructions given to Lord Salisbury, in order to show what the spirit was in which he was sent to Constantinople, I think the House will bear with me. I would simply say, in the first place, that in the early part of the Instructions laid down for Lord Salisbury's guidance —. ["Order, order!"] If any hon. Member says I am out of Order I am willing to sit down and argue the point, but I am not disposed to be stopped in doing that which I believe to be strictly in Order. Lord Salisbury having been informed of the general views of Her Majesty's Government, first of all of the English basis on which the Conference was founded, and then of the scheme of administration which Her Majesty's Government were to propose, the Instructions went on to say—
"Her Majesty's Government have not endeavoured to offer more than the outline of a system of local self-government, in which they have aimed at the establishment of provincial administration under Governors whose ability and integrity would be vouched for by the guarantee of a diplomatic veto, acting with provincial elective assemblies having control over the local taxation, with permanent judges and other higher officials appointed under a similar guarantee, and with a reformed system of local militia and police, the removal of any remaining Christian disabilities, the improvement of the land laws, and the amelioration of the condition of the whole agricultural population.
"Her Majesty's Government believe that if some such system of local self-government could be established, it would form the best guarantee for the well-being of these provinces, and open the way to the general adoption of reformed and constitutional Government throughout the Turkish Empire.
"Having thus stated the nature of the guarantees which Her Majesty's Government consider may fairly be demanded of the Porte, it remains for me to state explicitly that Her Majesty's Government cannot countenance the introduction into the Conference of proposals, however plausible or well-intentioned, which would bring foreign armies into Turkish territory in violation of the engagements by which the Guaranteeing Powers are solemnly bound.
"In authorizing your Excellency to declare this determination on the part of Her Majesty's Government at the Conference, should occasion require it, they desire at the same time that it should be understood by the Porte that Great Britain is resolved not to sanction misgovernment and

113
oppression, and that if the Porte by obstinacy or apathy opposes the efforts which are now making to place the Ottoman Empire on a more secure basis, the responsibility of the consequences which may ensue will rest solely with the Sultan and his advisers."—[Turkey, No. 2, p.p. 9, 10.]
Sir, the Sultan and his Advisers have taken upon themselves that responsibility, and it now rests with the other Powers of Europe to consider what course they shall take in consequence. Her Majesty's Government will enter into consultation with our Allies on this subject; and I feel confident that, whatever may be the result of those consultations, our course will be one worthy of the honour and consistent with the interests of England.
MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, although my right hon. Friend has addressed the House at great length, with excellent temper, and great ability, yet his speech has served more than any other to impress this conviction on my mind—namely, that it is totally impossible for us at present to arrive at a satisfactory discussion of the question. And if I do regret his having read from the Instructions to Lord Salisbury, I do not join issue with him on the point of Order. My learning does not carry me far enough for that; but I join issue with him on the point of usage and on the point of utility. If there be a rule of this House against quoting from official Papers which are not before the House, the meaning of it is that the quotations so made cannot be checked and followed by those who hear them and my right hon. Friend in making that quotation made one which we have no power to follow or to check. That was the reason of the objection which ventured to take. I did not intend or propose to press it beyond that point; and my right hon. Friend, I may venture to remind him, went directly in the teeth of the admonition he himself again and again gave us—to wait for the Papers and not attempt to discuss the matter without them. For my own part, recognizing the justice of that admonition so strongly, and especially after the able speech of my noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington), I should not have said a word to-night but for the fact that there have been several allusions made to what is called the agitation of the Autumn and to the exaggerations connected with it. In the de-
114
bates which it is evident will arise on this subject, I shall be prepared to stand by every word that I have written or spoken upon it. And if the charge of exaggeration be made against me, I altogether repel and repudiate that charge. My quotations against Her Majesty's Government have consisted almost exclusively of quotations from their own speeches and writings. I grant that the accusations conveyed by those quotations have been severe, but that is not my fault; and they have not derived a colour or an addition from anything that has been said by me. But I must adhere to opinions which you may, if you please, call exaggeration. If a plan is proposed of which you disapprove, because you think it goes too far, you may apply that term to it if you choose; but though you may think a plan which you believe goes beyond the necessity of the case is unwise, that is not what is commonly meant by the word exaggeration. My right hon. Friend—and I regret it—seems to be still involved in the old labyrinth of persuasions to Turkey to set about the work of self-reform. He said that Turkey did not repel the idea of self-reform; she did not get upon the high horse, as other Powers might have done, and say she would not do it, but she was willing to entertain this, to entertain that, and to entertain the other; and my right hon. Friend thinks that that is a matter of great satisfaction. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: No, no! I do not.] Then he does not think it is a matter of great satisfaction. I have misunderstood his speech, and I am glad to have been able to have removed that misapprehension, which may have entered other minds as well as my own. He quotes the words of Lord Carnarvon, and dwells on what he thinks is an important qualification when Lord Carnarvon, in a passage which did him great honour, said that what is called "the autumn agitation" would do great good, and would immensely strengthen the hands of the Government, provided the speeches and the writings were rightly understood. I accept that statement. I do not suppose any man would be responsible for the misunderstanding of his speeches and his writings, and I myself entirely decline to be held responsible for the versions given at Conservative dinners and clubs of my speeches at any of the public meetings

115
of my countrymen, freely called together. The fair question is, what is the true construction to be put upon those speeches and the writings. I have, however, no information that would load me to believe that such speeches and writings have been misunderstood. On the contrary, I think they have convinced the nations of Europe that the feelings of the British nation had been grossly misapprehended up to the close of the Session of Parliament. It was the language held by the Government which had brought about that misapprehension, and it was what is called "the autumn agitation"—it was the popular expression—most irregular, if you like, most undesirable I admit, and not to be resorted to except under the strongest necessity—it was that agitation which has given the Continent of Europe to understand what the real feelings of the British people are. My right hon. Friend complains of the misunderstanding of the words of Lord Derby. My right hon. Friend—I must do him the honour and justice to say—was the first Member of Her Majesty's Government, or nearly the first, who as late as the month of September acknowledged that we had a great responsibility for the condition of the subject races in European Turkey. That avowal did him honour; but during the last Session of Parliament, when the whole subject appeared to me to be exclusively in the hands of the Prime Minister and of the Foreign Secretary, never once were we able to obtain a single declaration which owned that responsibility. My right hon. Friend says we misunderstand the words of Lord Derby. I do not wish to misunderstand them or, in emphasizing them, attribute to Lord Derby what is odious or invidious. I wish to know the true natural and grammatical meaning of language. Lord Derby had said, in speaking on the subject, that the gravity of the situation arose from the weakness and apathy of the Porte in dealing with the insurrection in its earlier stages; and my right hon. Friend says that "dealing with the insurrection" means that the Porte was apathetic in removing the causes of discontent which led to the insurrection. Talk of the hair-splitting of theologians. I must say that of all the schools I have ever known I do not think there was ever any more successful than my right hon. Friend in the
116
interpretation of words. At any rate I venture to state what was my construction, and I say that "dealing with the insurrection" can only mean the military measures taken against the insurrection. If Lord Derby had said, "dealing with the causes of the insurrection," or "with the discontent which led to the insurrection," there would have been some cover for the interpretation of my right hon. Friend. But "dealing with the insurrection" is a phrase which I think, can only reasonably bear the meaning I have ventured to put upon it. At any rate, readers of the debates to-morrow will form their own judgment upon the matter, and will form it in deference neither to my judgment, nor to that of my right hon. Friend. I hope it will not be said there is any attempt, on my part at least, to twist language, and I do not accuse my right hon. Friend of any such thing by 'voluntary action; but I contend that it is a palpable paradox to apply to the words "dealing with the insurrection" the sense which my right hon. Friend has endeavoured to put upon them. Well, then, my right hon. Friend insists that there has been no change of policy on the part of Her Majesty's Government. For my own part, I must say, though I have my own opinion upon the policy and proceedings of the Government, that is not the portion of the question which interests me or which has interested me at any conjuncture of these proceedings. My desire is that what is right should be done, and in my opinion, this is without exception the most solemn question we have ever had to discuss. I will not enter into the Treaty of 1871, but this I will say—my right hon. Friend thinks that, in common with others, all Members of this House and Members of every Government are at all times perfectly aware of the exact mode in which the Provinces of the Turkish Empire are governed. I am very glad that the comprehensive mind of my right hon. Friend has been enabled to keep him stocked from year to year with the information. Such has not been the ease with me. It has only been long and painful investigation that has brought me to the conclusion at which I now stand. I adhere to that which my right hon. Friend perhaps calls an exaggeration, and I affirm that no schemes of reform will be other than a delusion—a mischievous, unpardonable

117
delusion—after so many have been experienced and detected, which recognizes and establishes what is called the independence of Turkey in the government of the revolted Provinces. It is perfectly idle to talk of the independence of Turkey in the government of those revolted Provinces, if you mean to do anything which is worthy of doing. I am bound to say—though I am not responsible in any way for the plans of the Conference; they were not my plans. They were of a different character, very complex, and full of danger, and open to much objection—but at the same time the Conference did go pretty nearly to the root of the matter. They did introduce the element of foreign authority into the government of those Provinces, thereby effectually crippling the exercise of arbitrary Turkish authority within these limits, and thereby also putting an end, so far as those Provinces are concerned, to the doctrine of the independence of Turkey. But, Sir, in these remarks, my object is not to widen the field of this controversy. I have I believe confined myself strictly to the few points which have fallen from my right hon. Friend and others, and to these I will adhere also in the few words I have yet to say. My right hon. Friend says there has been no change of policy. If it be a comfort and satisfaction to the mind of my right hon. Friend to believe this, God forbid I should grudge him one iota of that comfort. I hope, however, on the other hand, he will not grudge me the satisfaction of saying that in the present policy of Her Majesty's Government, I now recognize not all I could desire, not all that I could hope to see in the future, but certain great facts for which we formerly looked in vain. There is, in the first place, an acknowledgment of responsibility. We no longer hear that if ever there was a case for absolute non-interference, it is the case of the Sultan and his subjects, as was said by Lord Beaconsfield. We do not now hear that we have no more to do with the quarrel between the Sultan and his subjects than we have to do with any other quarrel between a Sovereign and his people, as was said by Lord Derby. All this is a gain. "There has been no change of policy!" Never mind! These things are gone, and we shall, at all events, hear from responsible Ministers no more opinions like those—thanks
118
in no small degree to the much-despised "autumn agitation." Then my right hon. Friend said, I think, that there had been an industrious attempt to fasten upon the Government the charge of a desire to lead the country into a war for Turkey. Now, I have heard a good deal of the most mischievous matter, which has been almost treasonably ventilated against the present Government, but I have never heard of that. What I have heard is this—that, from whatever motives, and probably from motives quite distinct from such a desire, the Government placed us in a position in which there was great danger of being led to that result. The demonstration in Besika Bay, the conversion of the squadron there into a fleet, the acceptance of the compliments paid to the Government on the assumption that this demonstration was part of a vigorous foreign policy, the knowledge that it was not to go to war with Turkey that the fleet was sent there—the construction placed upon these things as well as upon the Guildhall speech, was, not the Government had a desire to go to war with Turkey—I wish that the right hon. Gentleman opposite and other Members of the Cabinet had more fully entered into the question during the Recess than they did—not that they desired to go to war for Turkey, but that their policy had tended to place us in that position. That is a totally different charge, and one which I think my right hon. Friend will find not quite so easy to get rid of. I want to call the attention of the House, in conclusion, to one question put by the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington) to my right hon. Friend. He asked what was to follow the rejection by Turkey of the proposals of the Conference. My right hon. Friend answers—"That is a matter which is receiving the grave consideration of the Government." The answer is a perfectly fair one. We have, therefore, in it some elements of satisfaction. Last year we felt that no value was set upon the concert of Europe, which, as I think, was most wantonly set at nought and repudiated. That is not so now, for it is impossible to hear any man state with more clearness, force, and, I need not say, more obvious sincerity, than does my right hon. Friend, the importance he attaches to the concert of Europe. I think my right hon. Friend's answer that it was a matter of serious

119
consideration to the Government, an answer which I am bound absolutely to accept, and at the present moment I will not attempt to press him or Her Majesty's Government in the slightest degree upon the matter. But my right hon. Friend said there were two other things—that separate intervention would be suspect—and I cannot deny that it would be a serious evil; and also that the Government were not prepared to resort to coercion. My right hon. Friend's answer on the last point was not quite clear. He did not say that the Government were not prepared to join Europe in either the use, or the application of force. I will not enter into this question now. I only want to point out that when he said he was not prepared to resort to coercion, it remained a little ambiguous whether it was on the part of England alone, or whether my right hon. Friend meant the phrase to apply to common as well as separate coercion. We shall, however, approach this subject to greater advantage at a future date. My right hon. Friend said, and I have to thank him for it, that he could not put the smallest faith in the Turkish Constitution. That is one of the statements which I recall with real gratitude, and I must own that there is no portion of his speech with which I am less disposed to quarrel than the cordial eulogy he passed upon the conduct of Lord Salisbury. I think that Lord Salisbury has acted as an able, honourable English Gentleman, with a manly mind, and has done at the Conference the utmost that was possible under the circumstances. If I may distinguish between the words of Lord Salisbury those which seem to me entitled to special honour, I choose that passage in which he stated that if the Porte should refuse the proposals of the Powers, the position of the Turks would have undergone a complete change in the face of Europe. That is a most important declaration, and at the proper time I shall be prepared to argue that Turkey has placed herself entirely outside the Treaty of 1856 by her total, hopeless, and absolute disregard of the solemn stipulation which she entered into. I think this is the meaning, and the only meaning, of Lord Salisbury's words, for otherwise I do not see how the position of Turkey could have undergone a complete change in the face of Europe. My right hon. Friend also
120
said that my noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington) had drawn a distinction between the country and the Government, and that if he did draw such a distinction, it was his duty to take the earliest possible measure for putting that matter to the test. I am not entitled to speak for my noble Friend, but I should like to know in what way it is in the power of my noble Friend to do so. Would it be by a Vote of Want of Confidence in the House of Commons? I suppose it may be said that the House of Commons represents the country; but still it is not the country, and, as people have lately drawn a distinction between the country and the Government, so there might be circumstances in which they might draw a distinction between the country and the House of Commons. My right hon. Friend was so kind, and at the same time so urgent in pressing the noble Lord to test the question of the distinction between the country and the Government, that perhaps he will be inclined to give him some practical assistance in the matter. If he is in that disposition, I will venture to say he has the power, together with those with whom he sits, of raising the question and bringing it to a final issue by giving certain advice to Her Majesty which she could follow. I am merely acting as a mediator. It appears to me that that is the only way in which the matter can be tested. I am sure my right hon. Friend opposite is sincere in wishing it to be tested, and I venture, therefore, to point out to him that it is in his power to do it. There is another question which I do not think my right hon. Friend answered very distinctly; but perhaps the answer will be contained in the Papers. The question is, as to the steps which had been or were to be taken in order to give effect to Lord Derby's despatch of September 21. A third question which I think my right hon. Friend also forgot to notice is whether with reference to the departure of the Ambassadors, the withdrawal took place to mark the displeasure of the Governments at the refusal of the proposals of the Conference, and I should add this—whether, if it was so understood, the language held by Sir Henry Elliot was consistent with the interpretation which is thus proposed to be assigned to it.
MR. GATHORNE HARDY: I so entirely concur with the right hon. Gentleman in his original statement that

121
this is not a good opportunity for discussing the question in its details, that I shall certainly not follow him through those points into which he has gone on the present occasion. At the same time I wish most distinctly to state that the Government are not at all disposed to concede any of the points as to their want of consistency, or as to the misinterpretation of their motives, or as to the interpretation which the right hon. Gentleman himself may put on his own writings and speeches, and which may be very different from the interpretation put upon them by others. I will answer the two questions which the right hon. Gentleman has put last. He will find in the Papers which are to be laid upon the Table this evening, a very full account of what was done by Lord Derby with respect to the despatch of September 21, and how it was pressed on the attention of the Porte. As to what was meant by the withdrawal of our Ambassador, I would much rather have it judged, not by a short answer of mine, but by the proceedings which were taken and by the voluminous despatches which will be found there. The right hon. Gentleman good-humouredly advises us to take an example from him, and I have no doubt he hopes with the same result. We are, however, entirely satisfied that this Parliament may be taken, as well as the Government, to represent the country in the negotiations which have recently taken place.
Motion agreed to.
Committee appointed, to draw up an Address to be presented to Her Majesty upon the said Resolution:—Viscount GALWAY, Mr. TORR, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Mr. Secretary CROSS, Mr. Secretary HARDY, Mr. HUNT, Sir CHARLES ADDERLEY, Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Mr. BOURKE, Mr. EDWARD STANHOPE, Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE, and Mr. WINN, or any Three of them:—To withdraw immediately:—Queen's Speech referred.
House adjourned at half after Nine o'clock.