HC Deb 15 June 1880 vol 253 cc80-112
MR. RICHARD,

in rising to move— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to instruct Her Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to enter into communication with other Powers, with a view to bring about a mutual and simultaneous reduction of European Armaments; said: I must cast myself on the kind indulgence of the House while I attempt to bring under its attention a subject which all will admit to be one of great importance, and which—as no one feels more deeply than I do—is also one of great difficulty. But while I am oppressed with a sense of the onerous nature of the task I have undertaken, there is some satisfaction in the thought that I am free at least from one kind of embarrassment which sometimes attends discussions in this House, because the question with which I have to deal is one that stands quite apart from all considerations of Party. It is not a question of Party; it is a question of humanity; and certainly nothing shall fall from my lips that will be calculated to provoke the spirit of Party. I recall with pleasure at this moment, that when I brought forward a Motion on International Arbitration in this House, in 1873, a considerable number of Gentlemen on the Conservative side did me the honour to vote in favour of my proposal, and there is no Party reason whatever why they should not support the Resolution which I am now about to submit to the House. There is one other preliminary remark which I wish to make. I am very anxious that this Motion should be judged on its own merits, apart from any reference to the supposed opinions of the Proposer, or of any class of persons who are thought to take a special interest in it. I believe I lie under the suspicion of belonging to what is called "the Peace-at-any-price Party." "What that means, I confess I do not know, except that it is one of those vague terms of reproach with which it is found convenient to smite a political adversary when nothing more precise and pertinent is available for the purpose. Whatever may be my views on certain abstract (questions, I hope I have the courage of my convictions, and that I shall be prepared to avow and defend them with such ability as I possess on all fitting occasions. But, on the present occasion, extreme views of that kind are not brought in question at all. I promise the House that I shall not proclaim any dangerously pacific views, and that I shall not ask the House to assent to anything which the most devout believer in the right of war may not consistently support. There is one point I presume on which we are all agreed—namely, that the present armed condition of Europe, the rampant militaryism which pervades and overshadows the nations has grown to such enormous dimensions that it is scarcely possible to use exaggerated language with respect to it. We all feel that this state of things is an affront to reason, a scandal to civilization, a scourge upon humanity, and. above all, that it is a reproach to that holy religion which the nations of Christendom profess to accept and reverence. It seems to me most humiliating when we consider the fact that all the nations of Europe, with one exception, have been for more than 1,000 years professedly subject to the influences of Christian civilization, to the power of that religion which is pre-eminently the religion of peace, and yet at this moment by far the larger proportion of the resources of all these nations is devoted to the construction of weapons of destruction, and to the training and disciplining of millions of men to the adroit use of those weapons for the purpose of mutual slaughter and devastation. There is a celebrated catechism, which, I believe, is still much in use in Scotland; the first question in it is—"What is the chief end of man? I have sometimes thought that if any celestial visitor were to come to our world, and were to cast his eye on the state of things which now actually exists in Europe, his answer to that question would be, that the chief end of man must be to fight and to prepare for fighting. It is not easy to say when this insane system of rivalry in armaments during peace came into vogue in Europe. Montesquieu spoke of it 130 years ago as "a new disease" which was spreading through Europe— For as soon, "ho says," as one State augments its troops, the others forthwith augment theirs, so that they gain nothing by it but a common ruin. Things were not always so. Vattel tells us that, in the 17th century, when a war was concluded— They seldom failed to stipulate in Treaties of Peace that both parties should disband their troops; and why, "he asked," is not this salutary custom continued? So far is that from being the case now, that every fresh peace, as it is called— though it may be more fitly termed an armed truce—instead of affording relief to the nations by the diminution of their burdens, becomes a starting-point for new and enormous augmentations of their military forces. Béranger, the celebrated French lyrist, in describing the cost of war, says— L'ogre a diné payez la carte; and Bastiat, the distinguished writer on Political Economy, thereupon remarks that the ogre now costs as much for his digestion as for his meals. One thing is certain—that the Russian War, among the many other evils which we owe to it, gave an immense impulse to this process. The right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Northcote), in a very able work which he published about 17 years ago, entitled Twenty Years of Financial Policy, remarks pointedly on this effect of the Russian War. He said he was not going to inquire whether that war was worth what it cost to mankind at large, or to England in particular— But," he adds, "there can be no doubt that among its results have been those two—that it stirred up in Europe a spirit of restlessness, and set all the world to seek for the means of improving the instruments of attack and defence; and to add enormously and without stint or measure to the most unprofitable and unsatisfactory of all possible forms of expenditure. After every succeeding; war the same race of mutual folly and ruin has been renewed with increasing celerity, so that the armed forces of Europe have been growing with so much rapidity as to be almost incredible. An article in the last volume yet published of the new edition of 'The Encyclopoeia Britannica, under the word "Europe," contains certain statements, founded on elaborate statistical calculations, which go to show that between the years 1859 and 1874—that is, in the course of 15 years—there have been added to the armed forces of Europe nearly 2,000,000 men. It is not easy to give with accuracy the statistics of European armaments, because they are continually changing, and always changing, I may add, in the direction of increase. Lord Derby stated not long ago his belief that there were 10,000,000 men trained to arms in all ways in Europe, and The Times newspaper, at the same time, or shortly afterwards, spoke of 12,000,000 men. Of course, under this estimate all the Reserves are taken into account—the Militia, the Volunteers, the Landwehr. the Landsturm, the territorial army of France, and so on. But I believe it will be no exaggeration to say that at any one moment you may find 4,000,000 men under arms in Europe. This, of course, must entail an enormous cost on the various countries. I have seen many calculations of the amount, and one, by a French gentleman of great reputation, which makes the total estimated cost as much as £500,000,000 a-year. Now, there are three items into which that sum may be divided; first, the money actually extracted from the pockets of the people by the Naval and Military Budgets, which may be put down at £160,000,000 a-year; but that is the smallest part of the matter, and a far more important item is the loss to society by the withdrawal of so many millions of able-bodied men from industrial pursuits. We must remember, of course, that, though it is not his own fault, a soldier merely consumes, and is in no way a producer. I have mentioned two items of the monstrous amount, and now have to add to them the interest of the prodigious sums laid out on instruments and munitions of war of all sorts, ships of war, fortifications, arms, ammunition, accoutrements, and so on; and which, it must be borne in mind, are absolutely unproductive. I ask the House to consider what might be done if only half of this great sum could be economized, if only part of the broad stream of wealth that is yearly carried down the bottomless abyss of military expenditure could be directed to irrigate and fructify the waste places of humanity; how much might be done to relieve the misery, to elevate the character of the people, to provide better dwellings for the poor, to furnish them with productive occupation, to spread the blessings of education among the ignorant and degraded, and generally to improve the material and moral condition of the great masses, whom God, I contend, has given in charge to the civilized and Christian Governments of Europe. Unhappily, also, the expenditure on these armaments is growing with appalling rapidity. In The Times newspaper, about the beginning of the year, there was a remarkable article, founded on a calculation by a German statistician, which showed that the annual public expenditure of Europe has risen in 14 years, between 1865 and 1879,from£398,000,000to£585,000,000. For Russia and Germany, expenditure has more than doubled itself in that period. But, large as these amounts are, they do not satisfy the demands of the Governments, and, in addition, the future is mortgaged to supply the needs of the present. National Debts have grown, in the same period, from £2,626,000,000 to £4,324,000,000, the cause being war and warlike armaments. In the year 1865, Germany spent £10,000,000 on her Army and Navy; now she spends £21,000,000. At the former date Russia spent £22,000,000, and now spends £36,000,000; and a similar increase is noticeable in the case of the other European Powers. Remarking on these astounding figures, The Economist says— The total increase of expenditure caused by wars and the apprehension of wars has, if we take the average interest at 4 per cent, been £131,000,000 a-year, or considerably more than the taxation of either of the two richest countries in Europe, England and France. The amount at 4 per cent represents a capital of £3,200,000,000, which, as long as that expenditure continues, and much of it is perpetual, is lost to the industrial work of Europe, and, consequently, to the progress of civilization and to the material well-being of the people. This expenditure is still going on, and, on the principle which seems to be ac- cepted by European statesmen—that civilized nations can exist, side by side, in no other attitude than that of armed and mutual menace, it seems likely that it must continue. If it be true that all European nations are only organized gangs of robbers, constantly watching for opportunities to attack and plunder each other, it is evident that when one of them adds to its means of offence, the others must follow its example, and there can be no limit to the process, so far as I can see, until all the men and all the means of all the nations are absorbed in their military preparations. And we really seem as though we were approximating this consummation. Already in most countries by far the largest portion of their revenues are swallowed up in warlike expenditure, in paying for the interest of debts contracted by past wars, and in making preparations for future wars. And in some of the largest States of Europe— in France, in Germany, and, I believe, now in Russia—all able-bodied men, with inconsiderable exceptions, are liable to military service. There are only two classes of the population exempt from it —namely, the women and the clergy. And who can tell whether, in the mad rivalry still going on, the time may not come when the Governments will lay their hands on the daughters and pastors of the people? So that, instead of the "sweet girl-graduates," of which the Poet Laureate speaks, we may have fierce girl-captains and colonels. In Italy, and, I believe, in Germany, already some classes of the clergy are subject to military service. This is, no doubt, deplorable enough, so long at least as ministers of religion act consistently as servants of the Prince of Peace. But when the clergy, of whatever church or sect, are prompt to "beat the drum ecclesiastic," and to use the pulpit as an instrument to inflame warlike passion, it is difficult to see why they should be exempt from sharing the hardships and sufferings into which they help by their exhortations to plunge others. Now, what is the practical result? Do nations after all enjoy rest and quiet and a sense of security? That is the pretext constantly alleged in defence of these armaments. There is a musty old Latin proverb which is quoted usque ad nauseam. It is this—Si vis pacem., para bellum. This is flung at us in a tone so peremptory and off-hand, as though it afforded "confirmation strong as proof of Holy Writ" in justification of large armies. Indeed, I am not sure whether there are not some people who think that it is a verse from the Bible. But a more absurd axiom, one more at variance with common sense, and the common experience of mankind, has never been propounded. They fill all Europe with warlike materials; they train millions of men to the use of arms; they inspire them with warlike passions by appeals to patriotism and love of military glory; they nourish in their hearts—as they are bound to do as a justification of their own existence— feelings of jealousy and suspicion towards their neighbours, until they "stand like greyhounds in the slips straining upon the start," and then they tell us that all this is done as a security for peace. Let them bring their axiom to the test of experience and historical fact. Never since the world began have there been such enormous preparations for war as there have been in Europe during the last 25 years. But have these preparations for war preserved peace? So far otherwise, that during that period there have been six desolating and sanguinary wars in Europe, in the course of which it is estimated that 2,000,000 of human lives have been sacrificed, and £3,000,000,000. I contend, on the contrary, that these great armaments, so far from being preservatives of peace, are provocatives of war. The existence of such hugh masses of armed men ready to be launched forth at any moment at the pleasure of some ambitious Monarch or unscrupulous Minister —for the people have no voice in the making of wars—are a perpetual peril to the peace of nations. I think, therefore, one of our own poets has given wise and sound counsel, when he said— Nations would do well To extort their truncheons from the puny hands Of heroes, whose infirm and baby minds Are gratified with mischief, and who spoil, Because men suffer it, their toy, the world. What is the true effect of this state of things? One result is that the finances of many, I might say of most, the great States of Europe are in a chronic condition of embarrassment or deficit. Look at Austria. Mr. Martin, in his Statesman's Manual, states that in eight years—between 1870 and 1877— her accumulated deficit amounted to £33,000,000. In France the same thing was going on even before the tremendous catastrophe of the war with Germany. From 1848 to 1869 her accumulated deficits amounted to £100,000,000. It is difficult to know what is the financial condition of Russia, as no authentic statements are published. But we may be very certain that her finances are in, at least, quite as unsatisfactory a condition as that of any European nation, and we know that her Debt has increased from £208,000,000 in 1865 to £600,000,000 in 1879. And even Germany, in spite of the enormous indemnity she received from France, and with no Debt to speak of, has found her expenditure constantly on the increase, while her revenue has been as steadily diminishing. In 1873 her expenditure, as stated in the Imperial Budget, was 340,000,000 of marks, and in 1878 it was 540,000,000 of marks; or, an increase in the course of five years, of 200,000,000 of marks, or £16,000,000. In consequence, Prince Bismarck has been compelled to impose heavy protective duties, which have very seriously interfered with and damaged the commerce of his own and other countries. Lord Salisbury, speaking at the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, called attention to the heavy protective duties imposed on British goods by some of the Continental Governments, and said— The real cause of this increase of protective duties is the establishment of those gigantic military forces which are increasing every year in every one of the larger countries of this hemisphere, which constitute a permanent drain on the forces of industry, a permanent danger to the interests of commerce, and which impose upon the Governments which feel themselves bound—and if one Government does it all Governments have to do it—in order to maintain these forces, the necessity of finding money in some way that shall not too heavily gall the interests and susceptibilities of their people. Indirect taxation, it is well known, is more readily paid than direct taxation, because its amount is not so easily recognized; and it is the necessity of finding the sustenance of those vast armaments that forces Governments to have recourse to indirect taxation, and they naturally avail themselves of the political support which is to be obtained from those trades that wish for protection in order to carry their policy into effect. Look, again, at Italy, that young nationality to which the sympathy of all is drawn so strongly. That country is staggering under the weight of a crushing taxation in order to maintain vast and useless armaments. The annual deficits of Italy since 1860 have been so large, varying from £1,743,000 to £24,680,000, that the public debt, which in 1860 stood at £97,480,000, had increased to £400,000,000 in 1876. Well, what is the effect upon the condition of the people? The effect is, that in all the countries of Europe there are multitudes of people—thousands, tens of thousands, and hundreds of thousands—sunk in poverty, misery, and ignorance. In the language of one of our own poets— The racked inhabitants repine, complain, Taxed till the brow of labour sweats in vain; War lays a burden on the reeling State, And peace does nothing to relievo the weight. Successive loads successive toils impose, And sighing millions prophesy the close. During last winter, I collected a series of extracts from our own and other journals describing the bitter and widespread distress that existed in various parts of Europe. We were told that in Upper Silesia out of a population of 298,000 no fewer than 150,000 "were next door to starvation." In Hungary, destructive floods had swept away whole villages, and some of the unfortunate inhabitants were found frozen to death in the woods where they had sought shelter. From Cettigne telegrams reported that a sixth part of the population were nearly dying of famine. Miss Irby wrote that in Bosnia and Herzegovina,, and in the recently-occupied portions of Novi-Bazar, people were dying of want, cold, and hunger. Sir Henry Layard wrote to Lord Salisbury that in Mossul the people were reduced by want to sell their children. In Italy we read of large meetings of working men demanding—not with clamour and menace, but with a really pathetic moderation—that, if the Government wanted them to pay the heavy taxes imposed upon them, they must first find them work by which they could earn bread for themselves and their families. Nearer at home, in Ireland, there has been distress so severe as to approach to famine. And so in most other European countries, especially in those countries where the mania of militarism is pushed to the greatest length. But, in the meanwhile, what are the Governments of this distressed, paralyzed, half-famishing Europe doing? Oh! they are in full and feverish activity, organizing Armies, Navies, and Reserves; forging rifled cannon, manufacturing Minie rifles and chassepots by the million; building iron-clads and torpedoes; constructing new fortifications; drilling and dragooning the people in martial exercises, and stimulating with lavish rewards the inventors of infernal machines for the destruction of life and property. And thus, the resources of all nations, whether derived from the gifts of Nature or the rewards of industry, instead of being turned to purposes of utility and advantage, are squandered, to use again the words of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the most unsatisfactory and unprofitable of all forms of expenditure. Is it any wonder to find, as we do, that multitudes of people in some European countries are streaming away from their own homes, to seek in foreign lands some rest and relief from this intolerable system of taxation and military servitude? And those who are too poor to emigrate, which is by far the largest number, are driven in sheer desperation into sullen discontent and dangerous conspiracies against the Governments, until Society becomes honeycombed by Socialism, Communism, and Nihilism; while the Governments, instead of removing the causes of these evils, which they dread, seem to have no other resource than to add to the incumbent weight of militarism, which tends only still more to exasperate the angry and mutinous spirit of the people. Now, the question I wish to ask the House to-night is this—Can nothing be done to put some check upon that system? This, of course, is the very knot of the problem with which we have to deal. Of the magnitude of the evil there are no two opinions. All men acknowledge it freely. Even the statesmen who most actively promote it declare, with more or less sincerity, they do so with infinite regret. The more thoughtful among military men, while professing to consider it inevitable, join in the lamentation over such sinister necessity. All our leading statesmen have given their testimony in the same direction, and in powerful and eloquent terms deprecate, deplore, denounce, as preposterous, insane, and ruinous, this system of universal armaments. I have quoted already the words of Lord Salisbury. I could quote equally emphatic words from Lord Derby, from the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, when he spoke of "the demon of militarism;" I could quote numberless passages from the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), and a forcible passage from a speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). All the journals of the country are constantly denouncing this state of things; but I shall content myself with quoting one sentence from an article which appeared a little time ago in The Times— If such a state of things," says The Times, "is permitted to continue, it will he a disgrace to European statesmen; it is upon their shoulders that the real blame will rest. What, then, are we to do to get rid of this hideous nightmare, which is sitting on the heart of nations and almost suffocating their life? Is what I propose impracticable?—that the different Governments should come to an understanding with a view to the mutual and simultaneous diminution of their armaments. Sir Robert Peel did not think so, when he said— Is not the time come when the powerful countries of Europe should reduce those military armaments which they have so sedulously raised? Is not the time come when they should be prepared to declare that there is no use in such overgrown establishments? What is the advantage of one Power greatly increasing its Army and Navy? Does it not see that if it proposes such increase for self protection and. defence the other Powers will follow its example? The consequence of this state must he that no increase of relative strength will accrue to any Power; but there must be a universal consumption of the resources of every country in military preparations…The interest of Europe is not that any one Power should exercise a peculiar influence; but the true interest of Europe is to come to some common accord so as to enable every country to reduce those military armaments which belong to a state of war rather than of peace. I do wish that the councils of every country (or that the public voice and mind, if the councils did not) would willingly proclaim that doctrine. I will now quote the authority of one who will be admitted by Gentlemen opposite to be a great statesman. Lord Beacons-field, speaking on the 21st of July, 1859, with a special reference to France, said— Let us terminate this disastrous system of wild expenditure by mutually agreeing, with no hypocrisy, but in a manner and under circumstances which admit of no doubt, by the reduction of armaments, that peace is really our policy, and then the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) may look forward with no apprehension to his next Budget, and England may then witness the termination of the Income Tax. Has anything of this kind been done or attempted before? I will not again refer to Vattel's testimony as to what was formerly done in Europe. I will only now allude to the Convention between Great Britain and the United States in 1817, as to the number of armed boats that they would keep on the American Lakes. Nor was that a matter of small moment. The greatest importance was attached to naval supremacy on those Lakes, so much so that the Duke of Wellington thus wrote to Sir George Murray— I have told the Ministers repeatedly that a naval superiority on the Lakes is a sine qua non of success in Avar on the frontiers of Canada, even if our object be solely defensive, and I hope that when you are there they will take care to secure it for you. And yet, in the face of this opinion of that great military authority, the two nations had the good sense to enter into this Convention, limiting the number of ships-of-war upon the American Lakes. And what was the result of that? The number of armed boats agreed upon was four or five; but the effect of this limitation was, that the spirit of jealousy and rivalry having been laid asleep, they ceased to have any armed boats at all on those Lakes. In 1851, the year of the Great Exhibition, the late Mr. Cobden brought forward a Motion in this House expressed in much the same language as I have adopted,—proposing a mutual reduction of armaments between England and France. He was answered by Lord Palmerston in a most friendly and complimentary speech, in which he said he adopted both the Motion and the language of the hon. Gentleman. Lord Palmerston said— I am glad the hon. Member has taken advantage of this meeting of the world to declare, in his place in Parliament, those principles of universal peace which do honour to him and the country in which they are proclaimed."— [3 Hansard, cxvii. 941.] But while thoroughly approving of the object, he did not like to be fettered and bound in a negotiation. The next movement was made in the memorable proposal of the Emperor of the French, in 1863, to hold an International Congress on the subject. In the speech which he made at the opening of the I French Chambers, he shadowed forth his intentions in these words— Have not the prejudices and rancours which divided us lasted long enough? Shall the jealous rivalries of the Great Powers unceasingly impede the progress of civilization? Are we still to maintain mutual distrust by exaggerated armaments? Must our most precious resources he indefinitely exhausted in a barren display of our forces? Unhappily our Government alone, of all the Governments of Europe, peremptorily refused to entertain this proposal of the Emperor of the French, although the late Lord Derby said that— If there was a country in all Europe that had less interest in sending a blank refusal to have anything to do with the Congress it was England. I hope I shall not appear too egotistical if I refer now for a moment to myself. In 1869 I visited several of the capitals of Europe, including Paris, Brussels, the Hague, Berlin, Munich, Vienna, and Florence, then the capital of the Italian Kingdom, to put myself in communication with members of different Representatives Assemblies in order to see whether we could not promote some concerted action for reduction of armaments in the respective Legislatures. I met many of the leading politicians in these capitals, and found them well disposed to entertain my proposals. Soon after, as the first fruit of my visit, Dr. Virchow proposed in the Prussian Chamber of Deputies the following Resolution:— That the Royal Government be requested to use all its influence with a view to reduce within the narrowest practical limits, the expenses of the military administration of the Northern Confederacy, and to seek to bring about by diplomatic negociations, a general disarmament. There was a very interesting and animated debate upon the Resolution, and although Dr. Virchow did not succeed, he was sustained by no fewer than 99 votes. Soon after a similar Motion was made in the Chamber of Saxony and carried by a large majority. And, but for the outbreak next year, of the unhappy Franco-German War, this would have been followed up in other Legislatures. Another movement in this direction, of which I do not know much, was made in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester (Mr. Otway) has told me that while he was in the Foreign Office as Under Secretary, about the year 1869, Lord Clarendon originated the movement. Communications were opened with various Crowned Heads and leading statesmen of Europe, with a view to bring about a simultaneous reduction of armaments. I do not know why the matter was broken off; but I suppose the Franco-German War put an end to that also. However, it did great credit to Lord Clarendon to have made the effort. In Austria, Dr. Fischoff, a very distinguished writer, published some important articles in a leading journal of Vienna, which led to the matter being taken up by a considerable party. The result was that 49 Members of the Austrian Parliament, headed by MM. Fux and Heilsberg, have lately laid upon the Table of the House this Resolution— The House of Deputies express a hope that the united Imperial and Royal Government may take into consideration the plan of such a general, proportionate, and simultaneous reduction of armaments, as shall not alter the respective position of the States of Europe; and that the Government will not withhold such efforts as may he necessary for the attainment of this object. The Imperial and Royal Government is also besought to bring this Resolution formally before the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Minister of War himself, in his Report on the Army Bill, joyfully hailed the idea of a simultaneous reduction of the Armies of the various States of Europe, and acknowledged the idea as a practical one, which he was willing to support. It may be said there are difficulties in the way; but no great service was ever accomplished for humanity that had not to encounter difficulties. The triumph of true statesmanship is to overcome difficulties. I cannot see why, if the various States of Europe pursue the process of increasing their armaments on a principal of emulation, if they can add to forces, batteries, ships, guns, fortifications, &c, against each other; why, in the name of common sense, cannot they reverse that process, and begin to undo the mischief they have been doing so long? I cannot but think that the present time is favourable for such overtures as this. We enjoy a lucid interval of peace; and there seems no present danger of a breach of that peace, except from the existence of these enormous armaments. All the people of the earth are groaning under the burdens which these armaments fasten upon them, and they would hail with gladness and grati- tude any proposal of this kind, especially coming with the approval of a powerful Government like this. I cannot but think that foreign Governments themselves would rejoice to have such proposals made to them. There are ominous signs abroad among them. When Sovereigns are spending their time in congratualing each other on escaping from assassination, it is surely time that they took some means of removing the dangers which threaten them through driving people into such extremities as these by adding constantly to their armaments. Sir, I venture, in conclusion, to make a very earnest and respectful appeal to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government, that he will not turn aside from this great question. The task to which I invite him is not unworthy even of his transcendent abilities. It is not unworthy of his high character, as I estimate it, as the passionate friend of justice and humanity. He has already won many laurels by great deeds of practical statesmanship; and a greater than any of them awaits his hand. No greener wreath ever surrounded any man's brow than that which will encircle his if he will only consent to grapple with this high argument, and endeavour to bring the various nations of Europe into general concert to reduce those armaments. Above all, he will earn the grateful benedictions of millions of the people who are now groaning under this baneful system of militarism. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Motion of which he had given Notice.

MR. W. H. JAMES

seconded the Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to instruct Her Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to enter into communication with other Powers, with a view to bring about a mutual and simultaneous reduction of European Armaments."—(Mr. Richard.)

MR. BAXTER

said, he was glad, whatever the issue of this Motion might be, that it had afforded to his hon. Friend (Mr. Richard) an opportunity of delivering one of his terse and telling speeches in favour of the good cause he had so much at heart to a far more sympathetic Parliamentary audience than he had ever addressed before upon the subject. He (Mr. Baxter) was old enough to remember the time when a Motion of this kind and sentiments such as he had uttered would have been received with derision; but, fortunately, the last General Election had added very largely to the number of Gentlemen in that House who sympathized with those opinions, and, however distant they might be from the time of universal peace and the abolition of those armaments to which his hon. Friend referred, he might console himself with the reflection that his cause was steadily making progress. It had been his (Mr. Baxter's) lot, especially in recent years, to travel very extensively in various countries in Europe, and if there was one thing that struck him more than another it was the deplorable results of this military system. The idea of several millions of men being taken away from industrial pursuits ! What an incalculable loss to a nation through their being abstracted from its productive power! What a waste of time and an interruption of business were caused by the system of compulsory military service. These things had really made him think sometimes that civilization was not advancing but retrograding. They even cast a reflection upon their common Christianity. The other day, after his election, he paid a short visit to France, and spent a day or two in the great frontier garrison town of Bayonne, and it was positively pitiable to look at the streets and boulevards of that city crowded with soldiers in every stage of dress and undress, nearly all of them being boys, very dirty, drafted by the conscription, which was weighing like an incubus on the prosperity of France. Then, what was going on in Germany? They all knew perfectly well that Germany was suffering at the present time, and had been for years past, in consequence of the mighty multitude of soldiers she thought it necessary to support, and they also knew that there was an increasing amount of emigration from Germany to the United States in order to evade military service. He had spent a great deal of time in Italy, and the great difficulty in that country, which imperilled its very existence, was the immense pecuniary pressure occasioned by keeping up such an absurdly large military force. When the Italians were asked why they kept it up, they all said that it was to protect them against France; but directly the traveller got over the frontier into France on the Riviera coast he found himself in the midst of the most preposterous fortifications, some of them still in course of construction around Toulon, which he was told were put there as a protection against the Italians. Then Austria was in constant financial embarrassment in consequence of her enormous military forces; and only the other day he was reading an account of the fearful misery caused by the conscription in the Southern part of Russia. The writer describes the piteous shrieks, heartrending cries, and bitter lamentation of young men and boys taken away from their homes and friends to serve in distant parts of the Empire, most of them never to return. But he wanted to say a few words about military spirit in this country. It was very true, and he was thankful for it, that no such scenes as those he had alluded to were witnessed here; but he was sorry to say —and they had much experience of it of late years-—that the spirit of militaryism was far from being dead in Great Britain. There were some people who said there was really no class amongst them who were in favour of war; but he was not quite so sure about that. There were professional soldiers who, very naturally—and he could not blame them for it—wished opportunities to distinguish themselves in their Profession, and to obtain promotion. There was also a certain class of traders and contractors who had a direct interest in promoting war. He was very much struck with an observation which was made in his hearing by a merchant from South Africa not long ago. That gentleman was conversing about the prosperity of the country, and he made this remark— Well, plentiful rains and fine seasons and all that sort of thing are very well of their kind, hut there is nothing so good for business as a jolly Kaffir War. Therefore, there were many people who were directly interested in promoting war; but, not only so, he was sorry to say there was a vast body of people in this country ignorant and barbarous enough to take delight in the pomp and circumstance and vain-glory of victory, without the slightest regard to the justice of the case or the sacrifice of human life. It must not be said that such people were to be found principally, or even largely, amongst the working classes. There was no class so much to blame in that respect as that which was called "Society." "Society" was constantly getting up and fomenting panics, suggesting and playing upon unrea soning and unreasonable fears, and inventing hobgoblins to terrify the community in order to increase the national expenditure. He recollected at the time when the people of this country had gone a kind of crazy about French invasion and the wild utterances of certain French colonels, a distinguished politician, now deceased, telling him that if he went about as he was doing, laughing at the whole thing as a mere bugbear, he would certainly lose his seat at next election. We were ashamed now of that panic. At the close of the Civil War in America, the same wise people told us that the 1,100,000 men there in arms would certainly make an attempt to annex both Canada and Jamaica; and, therefore, that it was our duty at once to raise a force sufficient to cope with the United States. The French and Americans were now very good friends, and so, he ventured to predict, would be the Russians when this deplorable national enemy game should have been entirely played out. He maintained that the verdict of the nation at the recent election was against this spirit of militaryism and these unnecessary wars. That was the main issue that was brought before the country; and a clear indication was given to the "Services" that in future they would be expected to obey, and not to control, the Government of the country. The attitude of the constituencies offered a very strong encouragement to those who took the view of the author of the Motion before the House; and another reason why the time was favourable for bringing it forward now was that they had got rid of pretty nearly every remnant of the unfortunate Treaty of 1815, which was founded entirely upon the interests of Kings, Princes, and Dukes, who were all to be provided for without the slightest reference to the wishes of their subjects. He was reading yesterday the newly published autobiography of Prince Met-ternich, in the introductory explanatory note to which occurs the following re- markable sentence, written in December, 1844:— Architects present themselves on all sides; not one, however, is permitted to see the work concluded; for that, the life of man is too short. Happy the man who can say himself that he has not run counter to Eternal Laws. This testimony my conscience does not deny me. Was there ever such a delusion? This was precisely what he did do. Eternal Law requires that statesman should consult the wishes of the people. Metter-nich disregarded them entirely, and he had not been 20 years in his grave when his cherished edifice fell to pieces, like a house built of cards. The principle of nationalities had received many practical illustrations of late yearn, and this consideration of itself removed one of the principal causes of war. Italy had now become free and independent. The long-desired unification of Germany had taken place, and the same process was going on on both sides of the Lower Danube, and the best results might be hoped for from the permanent establishment of a peaceable and peace-loving Republican Government in France. Dynastic ambition had been the bane of that country; and, now that the Napoleonist, Legitimist, and Orleanist factions were losing strength every day, he hoped they might look forward with some degree of confidence to seeing France playing an entirely new roóle in the history of Europe. The principle of international arbitration had advanced considerably in the estimation of public men all over the world during the last 25 years. It was recommended in the Protocol of Paris in 1856, and received a most practical illustration in the settlement of the Alabama Claims. During the next two or three years Her Majesty's Government would have ample opportunities of recommending to the other Cabinets the principle of international arbitration. His right hon. Friend at the head of the Government had many times and in many difficult and complicated circumstances, which Members of the House as old as he well recollected, in connection with the French Treaty of 1860 and the Fortification Vote, proved himself pre-eminentty a man of peace; and now that he had a powerful majority at his back, elected and sustained by the sense and conscience of the nation, he had no doubt that his foreign policy would be in accord with the spirit of the Motion now before the House.

COLONEL BURNABY

would take this opportunity of reminding the House of the words uttered by Lord John Russell at the time of the Duke of Wellington's death, that England had buried a man whose greatest horror was of war. He believed that that feeling was shared by every military man, and by none more than himself. He thought they might congratulate themselves on the fact that this country had never set an example that would encourage other nations to keep up great armaments. He quite agreed that European armaments were at present too large. There were 9,500,000 men under arms at this moment, the odd 500,000 being our own countrymen. That number was as small as it possibly could be consistently with the safety of our shores from invasion. The number of our troops actually under Colours was 135,000. Foreigners often said that our Army made up in efficiency for its want of numbers. One matter for congratulation was the great improvement in our Volunteer Force, which now numbered 200,000 efficient men—24,000 of them trained to the use of the cannon, and this auxiliary would render it unnecessary for England ever to resort to foreign mercenaries, as she did at the time of the Crimean War. He feared it would be found very difficult for any Minister to bring about the disarmament of this country, much as he might wish to do so. The great object which they should keep in view was the uprooting of national rivalries and enmities. Until that object was successfully accomplished he feared foreign countries would turn a deaf ear to any advice we might give them. In conclusion, he urged the House to believe that he and most of his comrades would be very glad to see a reduction in the armaments of Europe, for he had the greatest horror of war in common with the majority of military men.

MR. GLADSTONE

I have no desire to obstruct the declaration of opinion by an hon. Gentleman; but the appeal made by me by the hon. Gentleman who made the Motion, and by my right hon. Friend behind me, has been sufficiently pointed to make me think I shall be consulting the convenience of the House if I proceed at once to declare the sentiments with which I regard the proposition it- self, and the general opinions upon which it is based; but I must draw a distinction between the basis of this Motion and the opinions and convictions that have been expressed, which I place on one side, and the adoption of a Resolution of this kind by the House at the present moment, the effect of which is not only to indicate a particular course as the course desirable to be pursued; but to indicate that course in such a manner as to commit the House to the proposition that the moment has arrived for taking the step described in the Motion. Now, Sir, upon that subject I will presently state my reasons for being compelled to act and speak with some reserve. With regard to the speech of my hon. Friend, and that of my right hon. Friend behind me, and in the same manner and in the same sense of that speech we have heard from the opposite side of the House, I need hardly say that they command my fullest concurrence. My hon. Friend the Mover of the Resolution before the House has quoted from speeches made by me a strong expression of opinion, not, I am sure, with a desire to catch me tripping by a reference to those speeches, but because he thought that he was expressing the opinions which were really in my mind; and it is, I will at once say, impossible to exaggerate the mischief and. the danger attending many of the operations to which he has called our attention. I must, however, point out to my hon. Friend that great operations have been accomplished in Europe in the course of the last 30 years, and that, although those operations have been accomplished by the sad and painful and deplorable, but sometimes necessary, means of war, they have been favourable in the result, in various important instances, to the permanent happiness of mankind. I will now speak of the Crimean War— for in that I had, perhaps, a particular concern—except to say that I do not agree with my hon. Friend in the censure which he passed upon it. But when I consider such great constructive operations as the creation of a really national and united Italy in lieu of the number of sectional fragments of people among whom violence and corruption were resorted to in large portions of their country, if not entirely, to keep down the spirit of freedom and the sentiment of nationality, and to extinguish the glorious traditions of the race, I find, I am sorry to say, that it is not by peaceable means that that great change has been effected. In the same way the reconstruction of Germany, however attained, has been a great advance in the political system of Europe. Nor can I refrain from saying that when I recollect that within the last two years from 10,000,000 to 15,000,000 people have obtained a new position, and made a great advance on the road from the most degrading servitude and violence to freedom, and through the means of war, while agreeing with my hon. Friend in everything he says as to the deplorable consequences of war itself, yet I will not travel with him in holding the opinion that those wars—wars of liberty—however we may lament that an end desirable to be attained was not attained by other means, are to be regarded as unmixed evils. As to dynastic wars for the purposes of aggrandisement, needless wars, wanton wars—and I am sorry to say we have not to go far for our experience of them —no words which my hon. Friend can devise, or which the wit of man can invent, are strong enough to describe the folly and the guilt of wars of that description. But I think the distinction is a real one which may be drawn between a war made for lawful purposes, and carried through with benefit to mankind, and wars which have no such justification, and which are to be regarded as among the most terrible plagues that can afflict mankind. Even though we may refrain from censuring the objects of a war, yet I go all lengths with my hon. Friend in expressing a desire that we should endeavour to devise and encourage other more rational, less costly, and less demoralizing means of securing these objects. He has quoted figures which must have startled the House as to the cost of wars. The cost of wars belonging to the present and the past, and the preparations for the future, he places at £500,000,000 a-year in Europe. I wish I could re-duco greatly that estimate, but I cannot. I believe my hon. Friend has not greatly overstated the cost of past wars and of the preparations for future wars. I have not had an opportunity of minutely examining the figures; but he was, no doubt, very near the mark when he spoke of £150,000,000 of actual Military Estimates, and I think I am justifying in saying that the conse- quence of the withdrawal from useful industry to military purposes of a vast number of hands doubles the cost; because not only are men occupied in an employment which does not produce, but they are taken away from the business of production in which they might otherwise be occupied. I am not, of course, saying that this is an argument against adequate, rational, and becoming measures of defence for the security of a country which is bound to have regard to its own safety; nor am I contending that the pecuniary aspect of the question is the whole, or even the most important part of the various branches of the subject. But if my hon. Friend, on account of the withdrawal of labour from peaceful industry to warlike purposes, doubles the £150,000,000 I cannot find fault with him. We have, first, to consider the effect of the War Estimates; next, the withdrawal of labour from other pursuits; and, thirdly, the consequences of former wars of which we are now bearing the charge. In this matter it is wonderful to see how much more easy it is to judge our ancestors than ourselves. It is exactly the case of judging one's neighbour as compared with oneself. It is very easy for us to find out that other nations are extravagant in the military and naval establishments which they maintain; but the hon. and gallant Colonel opposite (Colonel Burnaby) has told us that his friends in foreign armies have pressed the point upon him that we have the advantage of an insular position, and that we ought, in consequence, to be able to afford a better example to the world. I shall not enter into any argument on that point at present; but I may observe that, as a general rule, the wars which have led to the creation of the National Debts of the world have been chiefly dynastic or religious or re-action-ary wars, and almost all of them wrong and unjust. If those wars have left behind them National Debts now passing £4,000,000,000—I was not aware that the figures were quite so high—there has to be paid in the shape of interest an amount little short of £160,000,000, to be added to the £150,000,000 which my hon. Friend has mentioned in his computation. I am afraid, therefore, that £450,000,000 or £500,000,000 is somewhere about the actual charge to Europe for past wars and its present preparations for the same purposes. That is the pecuninary view of the matter; but there is a point at which this pecuniary question becomes connected with another question. My hon. Friend was quite right when he said that, in many countries, what may be called war interests are created by the extraordinary expenditure which is indulged in. The case of the Cape of Good Hope has been quoted, and I do not think a fairer or better instance could be cited. Nothing can be so ruinous to a country, nothing so mischievous as to its progress and the formation of a just civilization, as to be in the position which we have too often witnessed in the case of the inhabitants of our own Colonies in later times, of having the privilege of provoking wars for which they were not called upon to pay. When we say to a community—"We will pay the expenses of your wars," they may imagine that we are conferring upon them a great favour; hut I believe their worst enemies could not devise a scheme more lowering to the character of free citizens in a free State. Going back to the debates of 30 or 40 years, we find Mr. Cobden in a very marked degree, and Sir Robert Peel in a degree less marked, but, no doubt, not less sincere, even then deploring the enormous scale on which the military establishments of Europe were maintained, and the tendency of those military establishments not to preserve peace, but to weaken the securities for its continnance. Since that period— since Sir Robert Peel thought it his duty in his place in Parliament to call attention to the dangers which menaced Europe through the maintenance of needless establishments—these establishments have been in some cases doubled, or trebled, and the cost of them is advancing at, perhaps, even a greater rate. Amid all our boasts of civilization—amid all our ideas of incessant progress—we have this sad, almost plague spot, as it may be called, upon us; and, as my hon. Friend says, we delude ourselves with the notion and cling to the idle and empty formula— for such it has become—that to be prepared for war is the best way to avert it. My hon. Friend has said, and said with truth, that at one time an endeavour was made by Lord Clarendon, in conjunction with the Government of which I had the honour to be the head in 1869, to setin motion if we could some small measure, at least as a beginning, of disarmament. It was not an attempt to combine the armed nations of Europe for that purpose. Lord Clarendon's belief, in which I still share, was that if you could gather the Plenipotentiaries of Europe round a table to hear a discussion on disarmament, their meetings would end in no positive and substantial result, and that the only way in which a measure of disarmament can be initiated is in detail. It is to take advantage of some occasion when particular countries are in face of each other—burdening their own people, exhausting their own resources, and endangering peace—and to endeavour to prevail on them relatively to these particular circumstances to pursue a more rational course. Lord Clarendon was apprehensive, in 1869, of those difficulties with respect to which his prognostications were but too speedily and surely verified. He thought the relations between France and Germany were menacing to Europe; and he endeavoured to prevail on those two countries to begin the good work of some small measure of disarmament. It is not for me to refer to this matter in the character of a judge between those two great countries. What happened was simply this: The French Government adopted the first part of Lord Clarendon's proposal to this extent—that they offered to make a reduction in their Army of 10,000 men. It was not a large reduction; but it was a reduction. On the other hand, the Government of Germany stated that the force they had under arms was smaller in proportion to their population than the force of France, and that, consequently, they could not undertake to make any reduction whatever. That is the history of the effort made by Lord Clarendon; and I would ask my hon. Friend to note that the effort made in 1869 was not forced upon the Government by any Parliamentary movement. It was an effort made by them spontaneously, and from a desire, if possible, to make some progress, however small, in the beginning of an undertaking which would, if it acquired any considerable development, be of immeasurable benefit to Europe. It is on that ground I ask my hon. Friend not to compel me to vote upon his Motion. What I would say to my hon. Friend is this: If he has reason to suspect a want of inclination on the part of the Government to move in the direction of promoting peace and pacific means in the reduction of armaments, then he would be perfectly justified, whatever our general political relations may be, in striving to force the Motion upon us. But if he really believes that we are associated with him in the desire he entertains, then I would ask my hon. Friend to allow us some discretion in regard to the time and the circumstances of our action. With regard to addressing other Powers upon the question, that is a very serious step. When Lord Clarendon made overtures to France and Germany, there was nothing in our policy in any portion of the globe that at all weakened our position or made it otherwise than desirable to be the authors of such overtures. This was an essential point. It was necessary that we should stand recti in curiâ, and that we should not be met with the remark—"What are you doing yourselves? You preach the gospel of peace; but are your hands free from the stain of blood? Have you purged yourselves effectually from that stain? Have you retired from the positions into which you have been driven?" I need not enter into particulars; it is not necessary, for everyone would understand the allusions I might make. I hope my hon. Friend will agree with me that we must have some regard to the situation in which we are able to place ourselves before we undertake the lofty and, in certain circumstances, the pretentious office of instructing other nations. There are, in my opinion, three distinct modes by which, apart from application to other Powers, the Government of this country may walk in the direction indicated by my hon. Friend. The first and the most essential is that they shall pursue a foreign policy of peace and justice. Unless they do that, the words of admonition they may use to others will be a bitter mockery in the estimate of others. The second condition is that they shall study to the best of their ability whether they can honestly moderate their defensive establishments. That is a point on which Her Majesty's Government are not in a position at this very early period of their existence to make any announcement or to give any definite promise. Of course, when I speak of moderate establishments I esti- mate moderation by the just proportion between the real demands of the country for its honour and its safety and the charge and the extent of establishments which are required by Parliament and by the people in order to maintain these essential things. There is a third way, however, in which I think it is in the power of the Government to qualify itself for becoming a missionary for those beneficial purposes which are contemplated by my hon. Friend; that is, by showing their disposition, when they are themselves engaged in controversy, to adopt those amicable and pacific means of escape from their disputes rather than to resort to war. Need I assure my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Baxter) that the dispositions which led us to become parties to the arbitration on the Alabama case are still with us the same as ever; that we are not discouraged; that we are not damped in the exercise of these feelings by the fact that we were amerced, and severely amerced, by the sentence of the International Tribunal; and that, although we may think the sentence was harsh in its extent, and unjust in its basis, we regard the fine imposed on this country as dust in the balance compared with the moral value of the example set when these two great nations of England and America—which are among the most fiery and the most jealous in the world with regard to anything that touches national honour—went in peace and concord before a judicial tribunal to dispose of these painful differences, rather than to resort to the arbitrament of the sword. These are the means by which I think it is in the power of the Government at all events to prepare the way for holding the language of peace, and even for recommending on the proper occasion disarmament among the assembled Powers of Europe. Some time must, in my judgment, elapse before these conditions can have been sufficiently realized in our case to qualify us for the duties which my hon. Friend benevolently and philanthropically wishes us to undertake. My hon. Friend has been referring, as I have been referring myself, to the proceedings of Mr. Cobden on this subject. In 1849 Mr. Cobden made a Motion very closely corresponding in its terms with that of my hon. Friend. On that occasion, when Mr. Cobden had in view something of the nature of general disarmament, Lord Palmerston made a speech expressing his great admiration of the sentiments of Mr. Cohden, and expressing the conviction, which I entirely share, that a discussion of this kind is not a thing to be viewed with jealousy or grudge, but to be regarded as an opportunity—a beneficial opportunity—of declaring one's opinion on matters of the highest importance. Lord Palmerston, on that occasion, moved the Previous Question, in order that he might not appear to negative Mr. Cobden's Motion. Mr. Cobden, however, thought fit on that occasion to go to a division. In the year 1851 Mr. Cobden renewed his Motion in substance, but gave it a more specific application, and made it refer only to the relations between England and Prance. He moved an Address to Her Majesty, praying her— To enter into communication with the Government of France, and endeavour to prevent in future that rivalry of warlike preparation in time of Peace, which has hitherto been the policy of the two Governments, and to promote, if possible, a mutual reduction of armaments. I am interested in finding a difference between Mr. Cobden's two Motions, because I think he perceived that an attempt to act on all Powers simultaneously was not as likely to succeed as an invitation to one other Power to enter into communication with a view to disarmament. On the occasion in question Lord Palmerston said— I am glad that the hon. Member for the West Riding has taken advantage of this meeting of the world (the Exhibition of 1851) to declare in his place in Parliament those principles of universal peace which do honour to him and the country in which they are proclaimed; and, if I object to being sent bound and fettered into a negotiation through which I confess I cannot see my practical way, it is not because I object to the end the hon. Member desires and proposes to accomplish, but because I think that end is more likely to be accelerated by the language of the hon. Member, and the sentiments he and the House have expressed, than it would be by the particular and specific Motion he has this evening brought before us."—[3 Hansard, cxvii. 941.] He went on to say— Her Majesty's Government feel as ardently on the subject as any man in this country or in the world can do; and as far as their influence, and power, and persuasion may extend, they will, so long as it may be their lot to have anything to do with the affairs of the country, use every effort in their power to avert the miseries and calamities of war."—[Ibid.] Mr. Cobden expressed his unfeigned satisfaction with the tone of the debate and with the declaration of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, and withdrew his Motion without pressing it to a division. I venture to express my hope that that course may be taken by my hon. Friend on the present occasion. It is not desirable, under present circumstances, that the House should place the Government in a position in which they would be compelled either to seem to slight the great authority of the House, or to be driven at a time which we do not believe yet to be ripe or opportune to make overtures to other Powers of the world under circumstances and at a moment from which we could not anticipate beneficial results.

MR. LYULPH STANLEY

said, that while he was prepared to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Merthyr, he was also ready to acquiesce in its withdrawal, or in any course his hon. Friend might think it wise to take after the speech of the Prime Minister. He quite appreciated the force of the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Gladstone's) remarks, and understood that in many cases it was more easy to teach by precept than by example. He could not help thinking that in the present complicated state of Europe the great armaments which they saw were as much a result as a cause. He could not help feeling that the unhappy state of the political organization of many countries, the unhappy union of Provinces that ought more properly to be parted, and the separation of States and sections of States from their natural connection, led to that antagonism between nation and nation which had its natural outcome in those increased armaments which had been referred to. He did not wish to particularize by illustrations, because where responsible Ministers shrank from pointing their remarks by apposite illustrations which were in the minds of all, it was better for others to follow the example of eloquent silence. In the Parliament of England and in the House of Commons they had a right, as it was their duty, first of all to look at home, to do what was practical, and to ask themselves whether, in proclaiming their love for peace and disinclination to armaments and military preparations, it was not possible to do something to give effect to their views. The course of this country ought to be one of peaceful progress, not of military aggression; and the expression which that sentiment had found in the House of Commons in the course of that debate would strengthen the hands of Her Majesty's Government if they should choose to enter on a course of peace and military retrenchment. It was perhaps by example that they could best promote the course the hon. Member for Merthyr had at heart. He feared that if they were to go at that moment into the councils of Europe, and invite the nations to simultaneous disarmament, they would say—"Would you guarantee us against the consequences of the jealousies and hatreds resulting from past wars? Will you secure to us that the state of Europe, so eminently unstable, shall become stable?" When they thought of these things they must see that it was difficult, say oven for such a country as Spain, to consent to something which involved the relinquishment of an object of national longing on their part. He thought, considering all these things, it was more possible for them to do something by acting on those organizations where they were complete masters of the situation within the region of their own authority and political responsibility, and then, when they had washed their hands of that blood of aggression of which many of them felt that they were guiltily enjoying the gains, they might go, fortified by example, and speak a word of counsel that might be advantageous in Europe.

MR. COURTNEY

said, he thought they might all be satisfied at hearing that the spirit of the Government was in favour of the Motion of his hon. Friend. In the belief that that opinion deserved to be recorded he would propose an Amendment to that effect; but before doing so he wished to observe that he would not be the first to denounce the employment of force for a just object. Almost the first speech he had the honour of making in that House was a speech distinctly in favour of the employment of force for the procuring of what he believed to be just ends. He would not, therefore, engage in any abstract condemnation of war when justified by such an object. The Prime Minister referred to the case of Italy. No one could deny that the unification of Italy, which had given so much satisfaction, could not have been produced so soon, if at all in this generation, if force had not been employed. The Austrian Government did not withdraw its forces from Lom-bardy and Venice from any conviction of the injustice of its domination over the Italian people. Nor was it simply from a feeling of injustice on the part of the Bourbon dynasty that the Two Sicilies became lost to them. He would have been glad if in the course of recent years a desire had been shown by the British Government and Parliament for the promotion of the great work of liberation further in the East of Europe. All that brought him to the conclusion that if there was a desire to promote peace and the disarmament of Europe their efforts must be primarily devoted to the establishment of just international relations in Europe. It was in the establishment of justice between nations that they should have the best security for the establishment of peace between nations. As long as they had injustice between nations they could not possibly prevent a spirit of international antipathy from being maintained, nor avert the danger of war. The Government over which the Prime Minister formerly presided did something towards establishing partial disarmament between France and Germany. When the Franco-German War unhappily seemed to be certain they entered into a Treaty with the two principals in that war, by which they bound themselves by certain definite obligations to incur the risk of hostilities in order to maintain the just rights of Belgium. No act of the Government could be regarded with greater satisfaction. But the Prime Minister would forgive him when he said that he wished the conclusion of the Franco-German War had been accompanied by some similar act. They all knew perfectly well that there was no danger to the peace of Europe so formidable as the terms of the Treaty between France and Germany which closed that war. The French were not satisfied; the Germans were apprehensive. Therefore, the terms of that Treaty were a standing menace to Europe. He was speaking in ignorance of the efforts of Her Majesty's Government at the time; but he would have been glad if there had been some public record that they had approached the two belligerents and proffered to enter into some engagement which, upon a just termination of the war, should have bound the Powers of Europe to maintain that just termination. That would have been a real step towards peace. But, as he said before, he rose to move an Amendment to which he hoped Her Majesty's Government would assent, an Amendment which would enunciate the sentiments which had been heard with great satisfaction from the Prime Minister, and which might satisfy the ambition of his hon. Friend (Mr. Richard) by putting on record the policy of England on the matter. He begged to move to omit all the words after the word "that" in order to insert— In the opinion of this House, it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government on all occasions, when circumstances admit of it, to recommend to Foreign Governments the reduction of European Armaments.

MR. W. FOWLER

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government on all occasions, when circumstances admit of it, to recommend to Foreign Governments a reduction of European Armaments,"—(Mr. Courtney,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. GLADSTONE

I should rather acquiesce than concur in the adoption of this Amendment, but simply upon the ground that I am not friendly, as a general rule, to the assertion by the House of Commons of propositions not susceptible of immediate application to practice. I doubt the policy of it. At the same time, I should not wish, in the present state of things, to go so far as to resist the passing of the Amendment, embodying, as it does, what is undoubtedly true, and what is likewise in itself of the highest importance. I therefore will not take any steps, even by moving the Previous Question, to prevent the adoption of the Amendment, if there be a general wish in the House to adopt it; but, on the ground I have stated, I confess I should not have recommended that course.

MR. RICHARD

expressed the extreme satisfaction with which he had listened to what he must call the magnificent speech of the Prime Minister, which was one of the most eloquent expositions of the policy of peace he had ever heard, and its effect, he was sure, would be most beneficial. He would withdraw his Motion; but it would be very gratifying if the Prime Minister would allow the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liskeard to be passed without a division.

Question put, and negatived.

Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put.

Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government on all occasions, when circumstances admit of it, to recommend to Foreign Governments a reduction of European Armaments.