§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEI wish, Sir, to put a Question to you, with your leave, with regard to the Business of tomorrow. A large number of hon. Members have Notices on the Paper as Amendments to the Motion of Supply on the Question, that you, Sir, leave the Chair. Some, I understand, are willing to waive their right of speaking on their own Amendments, in order to allow the debate on Eastern Affairs to be resumed, while others are not; and I wish, therefore, to ask, whether, in the event of an hon. Member rising, you will call upon that Member; and whether you will kindly state to the House what is the position of the House with regard to the resumption of the debate which took place on the Order for going into Committee of Supply last Friday, and which was adjourned till to-morrow.
§ MR. SPEAKERI will endeavour to explain to the House the position of the question for consideration to-morrow. On Friday last, on the Question that I do now leave the Chair to go into Committee of Supply, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, pursuant to Notice, asked certain Questions on Eastern affairs. No Amendment was proposed, but a debate ensued, which was ultimately adjourned; and there seemed to be a general understanding that the discussion should be renewed to-morrow. Had an Amendment been moved, the debate on that Question would necessarily be resumed to the exclusion of all other Amendments on going into Committee of Supply. But as the adjourned debate is simply on the 835 Question that "I now leave the Chair," and as several Members have given Notice of Amendments for to-morrow upon that Question, some difficulty may arise as to the continuance of the adjourned debate. If no Member rises to move an Amendment, the adjourned debate will naturally proceed; but, otherwise, I shall be bound to put any Amendment which may be moved, and the discussion will then be confined to that Amendment. Should it be the general desire of the House to continue the adjourned debate, hon. Gentlemen who have Notices on the Paper may be probably willing to defer to the general wish of the House and not move their Amendments; but if these Amendments are moved, I shall be bound to put them in order to the House, and the general rules of debate will be followed.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYI wish to make a few observations. ["Order."] If it is necessary I will conclude with a Motion. We are generally guided in these matters by the Government, or by the Leader of the Opposition, and I think it is a fair question to ask the Leaders on both sides whether the debate shall be continued to-morrow. If that is not settled, Members may come down here and find there is to be no debate on foreign affairs. It would be a very unfortunate circumstance if, as seems to be the determination, there is to be no debate on Eastern Affairs unless it be of a Party character. Of course, the Government are desirous that a distinct Vote of Confidence or No Confidence should be brought forward. That is perfectly evident. On the other hand there is a difference of opinion on this side of the House. Such a Motion, therefore, could not be brought forward with any chance of success. At the same time, we are, it is admitted, in a most critical position, and it is surely eminently desirable that we should not now repeat the history of the Crimean War and drift into difficulties which full and open discussion in this House would prevent. I therefore beg to ask respectfully the Leaders of the Opposition — [Cries of "Which of them!"] — the Leader, I beg pardon. I recognize however three Leaders of the Opposition; I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I would ask the noble Lord, Whether it is his intention to influence those who will be influenced by him to withdraw their Motions and 836 allow this debate to go on. And if so, I would also ask the Leader of the House if he will use his influence to permit this debate to go on. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
§ MR. TREVELYAN, in seconding the Motion, said: It is quite certain that anyone who has been a few years in this House would never hesitate to withdraw a Motion the pressing of which, at a particular moment, was against the wish of the House; but I could not withdraw my Motion for tomorrow night without making, in a few words, a protest against the conduct of the Leader of the House. If the continuance of the debate on Friday last is for the general interest of the public it should have been continued, in my opinion, in Government time, and the Government should have given a Government day. If it is not for the. interest of the public that the debate should continue, then they ought to have left it to take care of itself, and not to have brought the great weight and authority of the Leader of the House to suggest a day, a suggestion which, whatever the form in which it might be couched, was virtually taking a second day from private Members. Why that suggestion was made, and why the debate is to be continued, I own personally I do not see. That debate turned on certain questions connected with Treaties well known to the House. A few—less than a few—one or two at the most—important points were raised, and these points were solved in the very able speech of the Secretary of State for War; a speech which, at the time, I thought I understood, but which, on reading it afterwards, I found was a still more complete exposition of the view of the Government with regard to the Treaties than I thought: and if any doubt were left in the mind of any hon. Gentleman, that doubt would have been removed by the admirably clear speech of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney). That debate cannot now be resumed without our being led into a desultory discussion, with no definite issue; and in my opinion, considering the critical state of the Continent—for we are all of us patriots before we are Party men—considering that three weeks may plunge us into the middle of a war, if not the greatest, the most complicated in our time, I think the continuance 837 of this aimless debate would be undesirable. Already we are told the applications for admission to the Strangers' Gallery are more numerous than was ever known; and I think that in a debate of that kind, the gentlemen who get seats there will not so much get information about the Treaties concerning Turkey as on certain topics which will rather conduce to their amusement than tend to raise their idea of the dignity of the House. But if the House is not of this opinion—if the House, as a body, thinks this debate should be continued—I have received too much indulgence at the hands of the House to stand between it and its wishes.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Mitchell Henry.)
§ SIR WILLIAM FRASERUntil a few minutes ago I had no idea that this Question was to be asked. I shall be quite ready to go on with my Amendment to-morrow evening, or to abstain from doing so. If the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), or the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington), or any prominent Member of the Opposition, wishes to move a substantive Resolution to-morrow in the form of an Amendment to the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair, I am willing to withdraw. But I will not withdraw unless the Resolution is a formal and distinct one, and on the issue that this House expresses a distinct opinion on the policy of Her Majesty's Government as regards the Eastern Question.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONSir, the inconvenient position in which the House finds itself appears to me to be altogether due to the unfortunate occurrence which took place towards the end of the debate last Friday evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) rose at a somewhat late hour on that occasion, and avowing at the outset of his remarks that he did not intend to address a single word to the discussion of the question which had been raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), proceeded to make some observations upon my right hon. Friend's conduct, which I think in the unanimous 838 opinion of the House entitled, if it did not compel, my right hon. Friend to rise immediately to reply. That circumstance prevented some of my Friends who sit near me from making some observations which they wished to make upon the speech which had been delivered earlier in the evening by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War—a speech which, in their opinion, left in a somewhat unsatisfactory position, in the absence of further explanation, the question which had been raised as to the situation of the country and of the Government with regard to our Treaty engagements and our Treaty obligations. But for the interruption to which I have referred the debate might well have been concluded last Friday night, and the inconvenient questions which have now come before the House for decision would never have arisen at all. The question for the consideration of the House now is, whether the discussion raised by my right hon. Friend is to be continued, and, if so, upon what day and under what conditions. Sir, I have no more desire than my hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), or my hon. Friend the Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan), that the debate should develop itself into a general and wide discussion upon the question of the East. I do, however, hold an opinion, as I have just stated, that it is not altogether satisfactory that the question as to our Treaty engagements should be left, after the partial discussion which has occurred, without further explanation from the Government; and, therefore, I do hope that either to-morrow, by the forbearance of private Members, or on a future day by the assistance of the Government, the discussion will be resumed. I am perfectly in accord with hon. Gentlemen who have spoken on this side of the House in the view they have expressed that it is not desirable to take the present opportunity of bringing on a full and exhaustive discussion of the Eastern Question. In saying this I am perfectly aware that if the discussion is resumed it is impossible to prevent, and it is perhaps unavoidable that the discussion will be of a somewhat wide character. The speech of the Secretary of State for War, to which I have referred, travelled to a 839 very considerable extent—perhaps not an unjustifiable extent—beyond the limits which had been opened by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich, I am not unmindful of the statement which was made at the conclusion of the debate by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who informed us that we were at that time in a crisis as grave as any that had occurred during the long progress of these negotiations. I am not unmindful of the declarations which have been made by Members of Her Majesty's Government in "another place," declarations which we have heard with the greatest satisfaction — that the negotiations were not brought to an end by the termination of the Conference, and that Her Majesty's Government have not abandoned the hope of continuing the accord which was established with the other Powers, and of bringing about in some way the object for which the Conference met. Sir, I say that I am not unmindful of those declarations, and that we have heard them with the greatest satisfaction. and I am prepared to say that if, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, a resumption of the discussion—which may, and probably will, become a discursive discussion, will in any way embarrass the position of the Government, we on this side of the House have not in the smallest degree a wish to add to the difficulties of the situation. Sir, my hon. Friend the Member for Galway and the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir William Fraser) referred to a subject upon which, without entering into any argument, I should like to say a few words in order to remove some misconception which seems to exist as to the raising of a definite issue. It appears that it will be impossible to resume the debate to-morrow, because the hon. Member for Kidderminster has informed the House that he will not waive his privilege unless it is the intention of someone on this Bench to bring before the House what he calls a definite issue. I will state for the information of the hon. Member that, so far as I am aware, it is not the intention of any Member sitting on this Bench to bring forward to-morrow such a Resolution as he described. But, Sir, what is meant by these challenges that are constantly thrown out as to a definite issue? Do they mean that the Opposition is to pro- 840 pose a policy for the acceptance of the House and for the guidance of the Government? Sir, that, in my opinion, is not the duty of the Opposition. The policy which ought to be pursued at the present moment must depend to a very great extent—to an enormous extent—upon the intentions and views of foreign Governments. And though we have some information, and are able to form some conjecture as to what these views may be, still we do not pretend to be, and we are not in possession of full information on that subject. It is only from information in possession of Her Majesty's Government that we could propound a policy for the acceptance of Parliament. We are told, however, that if it is not incumbent upon us to propound a policy for the acceptance of Parliament, it is, at all events, our duty either to express disapproval of the policy of Her Majesty's Government or adherence to it. That proposition, also, I venture to deny. When you speak of the policy of Her Majesty's Government, if you refer to the past policy, our allegation is that the policy of Her Majesty's Government has been to a great extent modified, and has been beneficially modified, by the expression of public opinion out-of-doors. And we reserve to ourselves the right, and whatever may be said on the other side we shall continue to reserve to ourselves the right, of selecting our own time—we reserve to ourselves the right of deciding whether the time has arrived, or when the time may have arrived, for inviting an expression of the opinion of the House on the subject. If by the policy of Her Majesty's Government is meant the present policy as distinct from the past policy of Her Majesty's Government, why, then, I say that we do not very clearly know what that present policy is. We have been told very frequently what the policy of Her Majesty's Government is not. We have been told it is not a policy of coercion. But a policy cannot be constructed on any number of negatives, and to tell us that the policy of Her Majesty's Government is not coercion does not necessarily convey to our minds a complete idea of what that policy is. We do not complain of this. The Government have, no doubt, excellent reasons for not entering into full details of the position of the negotiations which are being carried on at the present moment. We are rejoiced 841 to hear that negotiations are in progress—negotiations with a view to the continuance of the European concert; but it is idle to ask us in this state of things to approve or to condemn the policy of a Government as to which we are not altogether actually informed, when we could only base opposition on a negative or a series of negatives. For these reasons we do not consider that we are bound to raise at this moment what is called a definite issue for the decision of Parliament. We do not accept for one moment the proposition that in doing so we abandon any of the legitimate functions of the Opposition, because we believe that there are several functions of opposition which we are entitled, and are bound to exercise. We believe that it is our right and duty to point out generally the policy which, in our opinion, ought to be avoided, and the general direction of that which we think ought to be adopted. We are also of opinion that we have a right, and that it is our duty to do what we can to examine the policy of the Government, and not only to examine it, but to enable the country to examine it and to understand it. We believe that by the exercise of these functions during the Recess much public advantage has been already gained, and that in the continuance of the exercise of those functions much public advantage is still to be gained. A Government enjoying the confidence of a majority of this House has great rights and powers. They have at their disposal all the resources of the country, and a majority to enforce their will, but the minority have also rights. I deny, however, that the majority ever had or can have, as seems to be presumed by some hon. Gentlemen opposite, the right to invent a policy for or dictate one to the Opposition, or to insist on the time or manner in which that policy is to be proclaimed.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI wish, in the first place, to correct what I think was an entire delusion on the part of my hon. Friend the Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan). He imputed to me, and with some warmth, conduct of which he thought he had a just right to complain with reference to the continuance of the discussion which was opened on Friday last; but it seems to me that he misunderstood what I then said. The state 842 of the case was this—No Motion had been submitted to the House, but a debate, or what may rather be called a conversation, was raised which went on throughout the evening. At the close of the evening there were still, as the noble Lord has just reminded us, some Members of the House who were desirous of taking part in that conversation, which was originated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich, and which turned on the construction of certain Treaties. But for the interruption to which the noble Lord has referred we should in all probability have had more speeches on that subject, and further remarks might have been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite on the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. A Motion for the adjournment of the debate was, however, made, and it was evident from the feeling of the House that it would not have been possible again to take up the thread of the somewhat technical discussion which had been raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich. That being so, the House agreed to the adjournment of the debate, and the question was then raised as to the day on which the discussion should be resumed. There was only a choice between a Government night or a private Members' night for the purpose, and what I said was that, under the circumstances, there having been no Motion submitted to the House and no distinct issue raised, I was not disposed to give up the Government business either on Monday or to-night for the purpose of renewing the conversation. If a Motion had been before the House—I do not mean even one involving censure, but raising a definite issue—if, for instance, my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich had moved that a certain construction ought to be placed on the Treaties to which he referred, or anything of that sort, or there was any prospect of our arriving at a vote or decision on the part of the House, I should have felt differently. But it appeared to me that there was, under the circumstances, no adequate cause for giving a Government night to resume such a conversation as that in which we were engaged. Then what was to be done? I regret that by naming Friday, the next day on which Supply was to be taken, as a day on which the discussion might be continued, I should seem to have 843 given any encouragement to those by whom it was originated to interfere with hon. Members who had Notices on the Paper. I certainly had no intention of doing anything of the kind. I could not but remember that the discussion on Friday last was arrived at by hon. Members surrendering their Motions for that day, and that it would be very inconvenient to other hon. Members who have Motions down for Friday next to give way. It seemed to me that it was a case in which the Government stood in a delicate position, for if we had used our influence to induce those hon. Members to insist on going on with their Motions, we might possibly be accused of flinching from a discussion which we certainly did not flinch from. That was the only reason why I mentioned Friday as a day on which the debate might be resumed. I was, perhaps, technically in the wrong in having done so much as that, for there being no Question before the House it would have been perfectly in Order for those who had Motions on the Paper to persevere with them. The practical question how, however, is what are we to do under the circumstances. I own it appears to me that there was great force in what has been said by several hon. Gentlemen, that unless there is some real definite object to be arrived at it is not particularly convenient to renew at the present moment an irregular discussion. I do not at all desire to dispute the doctrine which the noble Lord has just laid down as to the duties of the Opposition. Far be it from us to prescribe, or to attempt to prescribe, to the Opposition or to any Member of the House the course which they should follow in regard to matters of this importance. If they think it right to challenge our conduct or to submit to the House anything either in the nature of a Vote of Censure or an alternative vote to the effect that such or such a line of policy ought to be pursued, we should feel that the importance of such a Motion was great enough to render it necessary for us, unless there was the strongest reason against it, to name a convenient day for such a discussion. If, on the contrary, the Opposition think it more prudent or expedient to put Questions, and in that way to endeavour to elicit information on the subject, we do not complain of the adoption of that course. We do not complain, 844 for instance, of what has been done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich, who desired to elicit information with regard to those particular Treaties, and if the Opposition deem it desirable to do so by all means let steps be taken to put such Questions; but I do think that it is not desirable that we should be called upon to make sacrifices and give up Government time in order that hon. Members should make inquiries that are not pointed to anything definite, and which might lead to a general discussion of an inconvenient character. It is not desirable that we should give any facilities for such a purpose; and I would even go further and venture to say, taking up what has been suggested by the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington), that unless there is some real and very clear advantage in renewing this discussion, I do not think the present a very convenient time for its renewal. The noble Lord stated very fairly what the general attitude of the Government is at this moment. It is not a position in which the door is closed, and you have nothing to do but to look back on matters which have come to an end, for at this moment negotiations of considerable importance are in progress; and although I do not go so far as to say that it would lead to great public inconvenience necessarily that we should speak at all upon Eastern affairs, yet I think this is not a moment which it is desirable to choose for the purpose. I hope things may still turn out better than some suppose; but I do not mean now to enter into matters of that kind. I would merely venture to suggest, looking at the attitude of all parties and Governments concerned, that it would be better to postpone this debate for the present. I refrain from saying more, lest it should be supposed that we desire to prevent discussion.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, that after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman he had no wish to press on the discussion. At the same time, he did not think that the policy of "not speaking to the man at the wheel" had in former times conduced to peace; and he was certain that the country would not much longer tolerate the mysteries of Eastern diplomacy.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.