THE ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO THE QUEEN'S SPEECH.—REPORT.

HC Deb 15 February 1882 vol 266 cc692-763

[FIRST NIGHT.]

Report of Address brought up, and read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Address be read a second time."

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

said, before the Address was adopted, he should like to ask a few questions with regard to one or two points in Her Majesty's Speech which had not been very much alluded to in the debate. It was stated in the Royal Speech that Her Majesty was in cordial harmony with all foreign Powers. What was the meaning of "cordial harmony?" Was it their old friend "the European Concert" in a new form? And might he ask how far that European Concert or cordial harmony had been used in carrying out those reforms in European and Asiatic Turkey which formed part of the original programme of Her Majesty's Government? In 1879 a Motion was made for an Address to the Crown, praying Her Majesty to secure the fulfilment of the Treaty of Berlin with respect to the laws in Turkey. Shortly after the meeting of Parliament the noble Lord the Member for Calne (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) was sent out to join the European Commission. Since that time reforms were elaborated by him with great ability in conjunction with the other European Commissioners; but those reforms had remained a dead letter. Although assurances had been received from the Government that Turkey would be pressed to carry out these reforms, they were still unfulfilled. In fact, great danger was likely to occur to Europe through the non-fulfilment of the Treaty. The disturbance in Bosnia and Herzegovina might, no doubt, have been prevented if reforms had been carried out. What reforms were being carried out in Asia? Or what part had Her Majesty's Government taken in pressing those reforms on the Turkish Government? He acknowledged that they must have considerable difficulties at present in doing so, inasmuch as Lord Dufferin was an Irish landlord; and it must be rather difficult as an Irish landlord, and a Representative of the British Government, to ask the Turkish Government to carry out reforms in Asia and in Turkey which were certainly equally required in Ireland. The species of arbitrary rule which they deprecated in Turkey was being carried out in Ireland. In Armenia they heard of agrarian outrages, and Pashas being dismissed, and the Notables imprisoned; but Lord Dufferin would lay himself open to retort if he were to press these points on the attention of the Turkish Government while Ireland was in such a state of anarchy and disorder. But there was one point on which European Concert was not actually required. There was the question of the reform of the Government of Cyprus, as to which Her Majesty's Government was quite able to play a solo. In 1880 his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) brought forward a Motion for an Address to the Crown praying for an introduction of reforms in Cyprus, and of popular representation. Nearly two years had elapsed since then, and Her Majesty's Government, with all their anxiety to introduce representative reform in the East, had taken, as far as he knew, no step, at any rate they had not introduced reform of any kind in Cyprus; and the Island remained under the despotism of the High Commissioner, as it was before Her Majesty's Government came into Office. He would not dwell any longer on that point, because there was one question he thought of far greater importance, and that was the extraordinary conduct of Her Majesty's Government with regard to relations with the Vatican. He had endeavoured by questions to elicit information from the Government on that subject; but all that the Prime Minister told them was this—that not only had Lord Granville communicated with the Vatican, but that Mr. Errington and Lord O'Hagan also had been desired by him to communicate with the Vatican on the subject. The House had a right to know why communications addressed on matters connected with the Vatican by Lord Granville were not on record at the Foreign Office. The late Government were reproached with secret understandings; but those secret understandings were recorded at the Foreign Office, so that by a breach of confidence they became public; whereas Lord Granville kept his Papers in his own despatch box, and nothing was known at the Foreign Office on the subject. It was a deliberate attempt on the part of Her Majesty's Government to conduct negotiations with the Vatican in an unconstitutional manner, and to keep these communications secret from Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman told the House last night that Mr. Errington was to act as a medium of communication between the Vatican and the Foreign Office. What was that? Was Mr. Errington to be a kind of animated telephone to receive messages from the Foreign Office and from Cardinal Jacobini, and to transmit them as they were received by him? What was the difference between information and negotiation? If the Foreign Office desired Mr. Errington to inform the Vatican that we required this, that, or the other, and that the Vatican in return should inform Mr. Errington that this or that would be done or not done, was not that information exactly the same as negotiation? If not, what was the difference? So far as he was personally concerned, he had no objection to a proper relation being established with the Vatican. On the contrary, considering that the Pope was the head of a religion professed by a large number of Her Majesty's subjects, he thought it most desirable that there should be a distinct understanding with him on matters of common interest; but, at the same time, he maintained that the Government had no right to abstain from putting on record those communications which were being carried on, in order that Parliament might have access to them if the majority wished to do so, or that a record of them might be kept for future Governments whenever this Government retired. An answer made by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—which he thought was affirmed by the Prime Minister—was this—that they were not bound to place these Papers on record, inasmuch as Mr. Errington had no appointment from the Government, and received no salary. Well, with regard to salary, he would say this—there were other Members of the House who had had experience of serving the country without salary. His right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) was sent out to Constantinople and served without salary. The noble Lord the Member for Calne (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) served without salary. The Junior Lord of the Treasury (Mr. Herbert Gladstone) served without salary. But that did not exempt them from Constitutional obligations. In fact, when the Junior Lord of the Treasury was appointed it was considered necessary that he should go through the form of re-election. He had had the honour himself of serving on those melancholy conditions, and he had never found that that fact relieved him from his responsibilities and duties to Parliament; nor did it relieve the Secretary of State. If Mr. Errington were serving without salary, Lord Granville was not; and he maintained that the Secretary of State was bound, in any communications he might make which affected the relations of this country with any foreign Government or State—that he was constitutionally bound—to keep a record of those transactions in the archives of the Department over which he presided. With the permission of the House he would go into the history of the relations of this country with the Vatican. Up to 1837 the relations of the English Government with the Vatican were carried on through the Hanoverian Ministers. When the separation of England and Hanover took place it was found necessary to have some more formal method of communication. Ac- cordingly, agents were appointed nominally attached to the Embassy at Florence, who were sent to Borne to carry on non-official communications with the Vatican. Mr. Aubyn, Mr. Petre, Lord Lyons, and Lord Ampthill were among those so appointed, and they so distinguished themselves in the non-official position which they held that they were afterwards selected for greater offices. In 1874 the late Government withdrew its non-official representatives at Borne, and since then, no doubt, difficulties had arisen in consequence of there being no direct communication with the Papal See. There had been great difficulties, especially since complications arose in Ireland, and Mr. Errington, with or without communication with the Foreign Office, proceeded to Rome. The first result of his communications with Rome was that two secret Circulars were issued from the College of the Propaganda by Cardinal Jacobini. Mr. Errington then proceeded in some non-official way to communicate on other subjects with the Papal See. He wished to say a word with reference to the statement of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India. The noble Lord had stated that no communications had passed between the India Office and the Roman See with reference to the Archbishop of Goa and the Roman Catholics in British India. Everything the noble Lord might say was correct beyond the smallest doubt; but while he was right in saying that no communications had taken place, yet there was no doubt the Holy See did know the wishes of Her Majesty's Government in this matter. He said that, because the first information that he received on the question of Goa came from persons who received it from the Vatican itself. Mr. Errington had then been some time in consultation or in communication, or on terms of information—he would use whatever phrase was most acceptable to the Government—with the Roman See. When Mr. Errington had been some time in relation with Cardinal Jacobini, the latter insisted that any future relations between himself and Mr. Errington, or any emissary of the English Government, should be conducted in a more official manner. It was perfectly well known that the Vatican at the present moment wished to establish diplomatic relations with different countries; and so much did it wish to do so with, this country, that within the lost few weeks a pamphlet had been published by Mon-signor Capel, who was officially attached as domestic Prelate to the Roman See, advocating the establishment of direct diplomatic relations between this country and the Vatican. Cardinal Jacobini wrote to Mr. Errington in September last, and, after some communications between Mr. Errington and Lord Granville, the latter invited Mr. Errington to his house at Walmer. There Mr. Errington was informed of the great difficulties that existed in establishing those direct diplomatic relations; and Lord Granville intimated that considerable prejudice might be created with the Dissenting supporters of the Government if direct relations with the Roman See were established. Mr. Errington communicated this to Cardinal Jacobini, who wrote to Mr. Errington in September, saying the Vatican was willing to receive him as the recommended agent of the British Government. Then Lord Granville twice gave Mr. Errington a letter recommending him in that capacity to the Holy See. The hon. Member seemed a kind of Reuter recommended to the Papal See. It was not denied by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that a letter was written. If a letter were written, by what right did the Secretary of State write a letter which was not placed on record at the Foreign Office? [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] It would be better if the right hon. Gentleman, instead of interrupting, would wait until he had finished. No doubt, Lord Granville was entitled to write private letters to Her Majesty's diplomatic agents abroad. But when those letters related to public affairs and did not merely contain some private details, then the noble Lord did something unconstitutional in keeping them private. The noble Lord was the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and represented Her Majesty's Government and he had no right to enter into any communications with foreign countries unless some record was kept of those communications in the Foreign Office. He would, therefore, ask whether that letter did exist, or whether it was on record at the Foreign Office? But, in any case, he maintained that Mr. Erring- ton's mission had a much more formal character than Her Majesty's Government chose to admit. He wanted the Under Secretary of State to answer the question whether or not Mr. Errington's expenses were being paid by the Government?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

indicated his dissent from the statement.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

said, he supposed they were. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister interrupted him when he did not want him. Why should not the Under Secretary interrupt when he did want him?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

I shall be very glad to interrupt the hon. Gentleman if he so desires. I shook my head when he made the statement, and I thought that sufficient. I stated the other day that no remuneration whatever was given to Mr. Errington.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

said, that his question was whether Mr. Errington's expenses were paid, and not whether he received remuneration. It was because his expenses were paid either out of public funds or out of Secret Service money that Mr. Errington was now remaining at Rome instead of serving the constituency of Longford which he represented in that House. He (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) would like to know why Mr. Errington was specially chosen for this service? He had not the slightest feeling against the hon. Member, whom he considered a very able and discreet man. But Pope Pius IX.—and several persons informed him of it—considered it unfortunate that a Roman Catholic should be appointed to communicate with the Holy See, because even he found very great difficulty in communicating with a person who was a member of his own flock. In consequence of that, Mr. Petre, a Roman Catholic, was superseded, in 1852, by Lord Lyons, Lord Russell thinking that a Roman Catholic ought no longer to represent the British Government at Rome. He supposed Mr. Errington had been chosen for this duty because he was a Liberal, who, as stated in Dod— On his first election was in favour of the system called Home Rule for Ireland; but, in 1881, withdrew his adherence from the Home Rule Party,' in the interests of the tenants,' and was in favour of denominational education, whether for Primary Schools or Universities. He should like to know what communication Mr. Errington had had with the Pope about the state of Ireland? There was no doubt that the two Circulars he had mentioned were issued to the Irish Bishops in consequence of Mr. Erring-ton's visit, and there was no doubt the Vatican was desirous of obtaining distinct and regular diplomatic relations with this country. He, for one, would welcome any such arrangement, as he believed it would prove advantageous to this country as well as to the Vatican. What was the object of Mr. Errington's mission? "Was it in consequence of the visit of the King of Italy to the Emperor of Austria? Was it a repetition of the policy of "Hands off, Austria," and a warning to the Italian Government that they must take care what they were about in dealing with any Government which was under the ban of Her Majesty's Prime Minister? It could not be to negotiate a Commercial Treaty, because the Pope had, unfortunately for himself, had no commerce to negotiate about. But how were the Government going to deal with Mr. Errington? Was he to remain at Rome as a "medium of communication" between these countries and the Vatican? Was he to be recalled, or was the Government going to establish any more permanent officer? In 1848, communication with the Vatican being then considered desirable, an Act was passed for the purpose of authorizing the Government to hold diplomatic relations with the Pope, there then being some doubt as to the right of the Government to do so. The Bill was introduced by Lord Lansdowne, and contained a clause to the effect that the Government were entitled to hold diplomatic relations with the Court of Rome; but this clause was subsequently altered to holding relations with "the Sovereign of the Roman States." Then a clause was afterwards inserted, called "The Eglintoun Clause," prohibiting any Prelate, or other ecclesiastical officer of the Roman Court, from being received as an Envoy at the Court of Her Majesty. Sir Henry Bulwer was sent to Rome in 1852 to discuss with the Pope the question of carrying on diplomatic relations under then existing circumstances; but the Pope, Pius IX., dismissed the whole question, and Sir Henry Bulwer failed in his mission because the Pope resented the sugges- tion that his temporal power had alone been recognized, and also the limitation of his power to send a Nuncio or other ecclesiastical Envoy to this country. But there was no reason why Her Majesty's Government should not have a resident official at Rome to act as a medium of communication between the two Governments. That, he maintained, would be perfectly legitimate; and therefore he proposed to the Government that they should begin by placing on record any communications that had taken place between this country and the Papal See, confirming Mr. Errington in a quasi- public capacity, with the same restrictions as those imposed on Lord Lyons, or that they should propose an Act of Parliament, by which regular diplomatic relations should be carried on with the Vatican.

MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

The object of my remarks is not so much to criticize particular details of the policy of Her Majesty's Government, or to seek to obtain a Party triumph by pointing out their grave and disastrous mistakes, as to endeavour to place before this House and the country the main cause and origin to which all their errors and misfortunes are to be traced. And, Sir, it is my hope—I say it with all humility—that the Ministry may be induced to do that which alone can save their credit and preserve the great interests of their country in Europe and in the East—reverse their fatal policy, and recur to that followed by the great statesmen of the past. The Ministry have repeatedly confessed that their chief aim has been to reverse the policy of their Predecessors. This is the keystone of their universal failure. I will show, in slight detail, the principal features in which they have so reversed the policy of Lord Beaconsfield. That illustrious statesman came home from Berlin, not only with a great Treaty which was in itself a settlement of European disputes and a guarantee for the peace of nations, but he brought with him a stable and valuable alliance. The cordial understanding which Lord Beaconsfield established with the great German Powers was at once a guarantee for the permanence of the Treaty, a bulwark of the peace of Europe, and a security for the interests of Britain. It was, indeed, a splendid and impregnable alliance; and it is worthy of especial note that while the late Government obtained this alliance and dissolved the Kaiserbund, yet, at the same time, they maintained the most friendly and most intimate relations with France. You, on the other hand, at once, without provocation and with a self-destructive wantonness unequalled in history, insulted one of those valuable Allies and alienated the other. The affronts addressed to Austria by the Prime Minister have not been forgotten nor are their injurious results yet exhausted. A long course of diplomatic mistakes and hardly disguised hostility during your Berlin Conference, during the time of the Demonstration, during your Greek negotiations, and of late with regard to Egyptian affairs, have completed the effect of the reckless invective of Mid Lothian. Now it has culminated in the open and public patronage afforded by Germany to the Turk, whom you have despised and persecuted into enmity. I dare say the hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) will meet my assertion with some general statement that the relations between our Government and the German Powers are most friendly. Sir, this is notoriously not the fact; it is a matter of common knowledge that the whole Press of Germany and Austria are loud in their condemnation of the policy of the present British Cabinet. And it must be remembered that in Germany, at least, the relations between the Press and the Imperial Chancellerie are of the most intimate character. It was quite the reverse during and before the last General Election with regard to Lord Beaconsfield's Administration. The warmest admiration was then expressed by every German and Austrian newspaper for the late Government. And why? Because they, and all Europe, felt that it was the peace of Europe, no less than the safety of British interests which Lord Beaconsfield had at heart; whereas they knew that you would—as, indeed, you have done—give the rein to the disturbing elements in Europe—Russian aggression and Panslavist incendiarism, and to French ambition as well. [Sir CHARLES W. DILKE dissented.] Well, Sir, I have the proofs in my hand. The Times Correspondent in Berlin—and this is from a friendly critic—writes— One thing is certain, and must be regretted—namely, the deepening dislike and distrust of the British Premier which is being displayed throughout all Germany. The National Zeitung, the chief Liberal organ of Germany, says— A European Concert with such aims as these never existed. Sir. Gladstone will be left to march alone; and, Sir, the time so predicted has arrived. The Government are marching alone. At present, however, their movement is that of the crab, sideways and backwards, in their efforts to escape from the hopeless complications in which they are involved. The Cologne Gazette is very uncomplimentary— Mr. Gladstone is no trust-engendering man. The actions of a fanatic can be as little foreseen as those of a maniac, and Mr. Gladstone is a fanatic. He pursues fanatical mystic courses. The Austrian papers I need not quote from; but their tone is even more trenchant and hostile. Even the Premier's particular friends, the Russians, thus spoke of his Concert and his Demonstration. The Golos said—" It is impossible to regard the cession of Dulcigno as a brilliant result." The Novosti said more— Mr. Gladstone in the East has suffered ^a severe check. Even his warmest adherent ^s candidly admit that he has made faux pas." And, to conclude, the unkindest cut of all, La République Française, the organ of M. Gambetta himself, declared "that the English policy has caused deplorable weakness." The other French papers spoke far more strongly. These extracts will be amply sufficient. The estimate in which the great German Chancellor and the Ministers of Austria hold the British Cabinet is well known, and not flattering. They are not at great pains to conceal their contempt. Let me now refer in some detail to other affairs. The Ministry congratulate themselves on their policy with regard to Greece. They trust that their monstrous blundering throughout the Greek negotiations will escape the knowledge of the country. But what are the facts? The inflammatory advice to mobilize the Greek Army and to persist in demands which all the other Powers, and notably the Foreign Ministers of France, condemned as excessive, cost Greece £7,000,000 and a wasteful mobilization of 70,000 men. In May, 1881, the British Ministry forced Greece to accept three-fifths of what they had previously promised her, and what, but for them, she might have had seven months before without any expense or trouble. Unfortunately for their little paean of self-praise, the news has just arrived of the fall of the Greek Ministry on account of this very "triumph," and of the painfully cold and disloyal reception of the King. The hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) still talks about the "Concert of Europe." The "Concert of Europe!" What a very poor joke even for the Under Secretary? How does Italy feel towards France for her annexation of Tunis, and her menace to Egypt? How does Turkey feel towards France for the same reason? How did Germany feel towards France when she saw M. Gam-betta—whose lead the hon. Gentleman so docilely follows—leading England blindfold into an intervention in Egypt, which Germany, Austria, Italy, and even Russia protested against? What did German statesmen and German opinion think of M. Gambetta's hardly concealed preparations for war, of the appointment of M. Chaudordy, and the despatch of Madame Adam to St. Petersburg? How does Austria feel towards Russia and the Pansclavist firebrands who are stirring up rebellion in her territory? And how does Russia feel towards Austria and Germany? Let Skobeleff, whose warlike speech has aroused general apprehensions, reply. How shall we in England feel towards Russia in a short time, when, having, thanks to the infatuation of our Ministry, completed the preparations and quietly sapped up to the gates of India, she makes her final attack upon Hindostan? "The Concert of Europe" is the merest sham. "The Discord of Europe" would better describe the present state of things, especially the fruits of the Prime Minister's policy. Who now believes in this "Concert?" It was an ingenious invention of the Prime Minister to tickle the fancy of the public, and to take the place in their imagination of the real and valuable alliance with the German Powers which he had destroyed. The only possible basis for common action among States is community of interest, and on this practical basis Lord Beaconsfield's arrangements were grounded. It is most unfortunate that the whole policy of Her Majesty's present Government in the East should be based upon the friendship and support of one man. I refer, of course, to M. Gambetta. The relations between that statesman and the Under Secretary of State are well known, and they have coloured and led the whole policy of England in an injurious direction. It would have been far worse had M. Gambetta remained in power to lead the British Ministry into further difficulties, perhaps into a war with Germany. The folly of such a dependence is shown by the total collapse of policy on the fall of M. Gambetta. I will bring a remarkable parallel before the public. In 1880 the Anti-Turkish prejudices of the Prime Minister were on the point of bringing about a European war. His hatred of the Mussulmans was carefully instigated from St. Petersburg, and prompted by the ambition of M. Gambetta, who made and unmade French Ministers from behind the curtains of the Palais Bourbon. Had a single shot been fired before Dulcigno or Smyrna, the antagonistic ambitions and the elaborate armaments of the Great Powers would have fanned the flame into a terrible conflagration. If this is disputed, read what M. de Freycinet and M. St. Hilaire, both eminent French statesmen, said of the crisis— The Greek Government perseveres in its erroneous interpretations. Europe has no right to dispose of Epirus, Crete, or Thessaly. Greece has not right on her side, and the aggression she meditates is a trespass on the right of nations. A war would not be confined to these countries in the present position of the Balkan Peninsula. There is no doubt that the conflagration of 1877 would be re-lighted now with an irresistible intensity. The blundering attempt of the Prime Minister at coercing Turkey had driven England into a cul de sac, from which she was only rescued without either war or a most humiliating retreat, by the intervention of the German Chancellor. Prince Bismarck, acting with Austria, persuaded the Porte to transfer the Dulcignotes, even by force, to a Prince they detested. In return, the Sultan was promised the abandonment of the Demonstration then and there, and its non-repetition in the future. As it was, the affair aroused the ridicule of the whole world—an asbestos gelôs which was quite Homeric. The course of events at that time in France was almost precisely what it has been within the past three months. M. de Freycinet's Cabinet succumbed in September, 1880, just as M. Jules Ferry's melted away in November, 1881, without any open reason for its fall. It had not been defeated in the Chambers; but the real cause was well known. The great wire-puller of France thought that his time was coming. He saw, in the influence he possessed over the Under Secretary of State, and in the pliability of the British Premier, the means of effecting such combinations as would enable him to involve England in a policy first anti-Turkish and then anti-German. Russia, like M. Gambetta, was bent upon inducing Mr. Gladstone to set the spark to the mass of inflammable material she had so carefully prepared throughout the Balkan Peninsula. The influence of the Czar in this whole business of the Demonstration is easily recognized. The principal instrument and henchman of Russia had to be rewarded, and, of course, Mr. Gladstone was only too ready to have a hand in that "civilizing mission" and that "knightly crusade." M. Gambetta began his 1880 campaign at Cherbourg in his celebrated speech, which was at once interpreted by Europe as the opening of a politique de combat. His motives were set forth in a Berlin paper of that date—Berliner Tagblatt, September 23— Mr. Gladstone is quite determined to become the patron of all the Balkan populations without minding the opposition of the other Powers. M. Gambetta gives his full assent thereto, hoping that it will afford him an opportunity for creating a conflict between England and the Austro-German Allies. The whole of the German Press was instantly on the qui vive as to French aims. M. de Freycinet—then, as now, in favour of a peaceful policy—replied to M. Gambetta in a very powerful speech, at Montauban, which the "Dictator of Tours" met by upsetting M. de Freycinet. All France, and, indeed, all Europe, then expected M. Gambetta's immediate accession to Office. The Count de St. Vallier at once resigned his post at Berlin, determined not to be made the direct or indirect or putative instrument of M. Gambetta's guerre de revanche. Knowing the German people and the German Army, he felt the war must be certain ruin for Franco. General alarm prevailed. M. Grévy, the President of the French Republic, whose influence, quiet and unobtrusive though it is, has counted for much more during these troublous years than superficial observers imagine—M. Grévy saved England from complicity in a fatal policy and Europe from war. He refused to send for M. Gambetta. M. Jules Ferry was given the seals, and M. Barthélemy St. Hilaire was made Foreign Minister. That statesman, brought up in the old school of diplomacy, under and with M. Thiers, saw the danger. He resolutely held aloof from the tempting offers of Russia, and from your crusade. The French Fleet had orders not to join in any forcible action; the French Government refused point blank to have a share in the Premier's piratical proposals to seize Smyrna; and the nice little plots of Russian Panslavists, English Turcophobes, and French Chauvinists collapsed. The hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke), to this day, has not forgiven M. St. Hilaire; and he never loses a chance of making some uncomplimentary assertion with reference to the prudent statesman who, in the autumn of 1880, thwarted the ambitious plans he had laid together with M. Gambetta. Let the five facts be noted. (1.) The arrangements between Downing Street—and especially the hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke)—and M. Gambetta. (2.) The attack on Turkey, which was the starting point for the whole scheme of an anti-German European combination. (3.) The overthrow of the existing French Ministry, in order to pave the way in France for M. Gambetta's control. (4.) The alarm and resistance—successful in the end—in Germany to the plot. (5.) The fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon(Mr. Goschen) was, in 1880, sent in hot haste to Berlin and Constantinople to extricate the British Cabinet from their untenable position, when Turkey refused to be coerced and the other Powers declined to join Mr. Gladstone in the application of force. It has been denied that he was sent last mouth for a similar purpose; but there was a remarkable coincidence in his visit to Berlin. It may be true that the right hon. Gentleman was not sent nor had any formal or official mission; but it is none the less true that he did have those indirect, unofficial, and private communications which are now the favourite methods of diplomacy with the present Government. Now let us pass on 13 months. Another opportunity arrives for the great French Tribune. France has been allowed to overrun and conquer Tunis. She has acquired a fertile district and a commanding port in the Mediterranean, as near the Suez Canal as our arsenal of Malta is. In this process the British Cabinet have been half dupes, half accomplices. Led on by the bait of a Commercial Treaty, which perpetually, like a will-o'-the-wisp, has eluded their grasp under the clever manipulation of the Frenchman, the British Ministry assented, step by step, to the steadily-increasing aggression upon Tunis. Then, when the veil was cast off, and that country absorbed by Prance without their having got the quid pro quo of the Commercial Treaty, our Cabinet felt compelled, in sheer desperation, to assent to M. Gambetta's pressing desires as to Egypt. Once more, in Paris, a stop-gap Ministry is overturned without defeat. Poor M. Ferry, who had done almost all that M. Gambetta had bid him, is ruthlessly put on one side, and the great man himself at last steps boldly into the arena. Precisely the same results ensue as in September, 1880. Instantly the Count de St. Valier resigns, a general alarm is raised in Germany, and the most vigilant attention is given to every movement of the French Prime Minister. The same course is followed as in 1880. The Prime Minister's anti-Turkish prejudices are worked upon, and he is induced to send a most unfortunate and most damaging despatch to the Khedive in conjunction with France, and against the better judgment of his own Foreign Minister. This Note was a threat to the Khedive, to the National Party, and to the Egyptian Army. It was equally an insult to the Porte, and an outrage on International Law. The Sultan is Sovereign of Egypt, and has been so recognized by a dozen Treaties. By his Firmans, the Khedives are made and unmade. For England and France to send a guarantee to the Khedive without the assent of, and even without consulting, the Porte, was an insult which was promptly resented. A protest was despatched from Constantinople to Paris and London, worded with dignity, and even with severity. "There is an imperious necessity for us to receive explanations as to the Note," &c, &c, &c. Very surprising language, no doubt, for the Prime Minister, and not a little unpleasant for him to have to swallow after his repeated assertions "that the Porte will yield to pressure as it has always yielded!" Neither the Egyptians nor the Turks have been in the least terrified by this threat of intervention into which M. Gambetta has unfortunately dragged us. Turkey, driven from her long alliance with, and confidence in, England, driven only by the outrageous injustice and persecution to which she has been subjected by Mr. Gladstone for the past five years, has found powerful protectors, who appreciate the innate vitality of her noble people and the splendid fighting qualities of her valiant Army. Once again the British Ministry finds itself in a cul de sac. But this time it cannot escape without public ignominy. A year has effected a great change in the estimate formed by foreign Governments of the political capacity of the British Cabinet. The doubts and ridicule which the "Concert of Europe" and the Naval Demonstration aroused have been turned into something very like open contempt. Besides this feeling the position of the great Chancellor has been made, quite as much by the blunders of the Premier as by his own astuteness, more powerful than ever. The invasion of Tunis has effectually severed Italy from the combination planned by the right hon. Gentleman in 1880. The bitterest animosity prevails between Rome and Paris, and the Italian Government have thrown in their alliance heartily with the German Powers. Turkey, once our faithful ally, has been forced into the same camp. Even the new Czar is now more under the influence of Berlin than he is of the British Cabinet. The Russians are quite willing to cajole, but not to trust the British Premier. So there is no loophole for escape from the dilemma. They threatened armed intervention in case of the fall of Cherif Pasha. Cherif Pasha has been forced to resign, but there is no intervention. The protest of the Porte has been publicly backed up by four Great Powers, who have formally stated that they will suffer no interference with the status quo in Egypt, as regulated by Imperial Firmans—the exact claim made by the Sultan in his protest—and that no alteration in the relations of the Porte to Egypt can be made save by the assent of all the Powers in conjunction with the Sovereign—that is, the Sultan. It is a painful position for the British Cabinet. The Anglo-French Note is defied by the Porte, and rejected by the other Powers. This is an application of '' the Concert of Europe" to its author with a vengeance. The engineer is most beautifully hoist with his own petard. In his distress the Prime Minister has tried the same remedy a second time. But the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) was a little too late. The Joint Note of four to Constantinople had already floored the Joint Note of two to the Khedive. The rebuff is published to the world; the humiliation must be endured. Fortunately, the good sense of the French Chamber has provided the Government with an undeserved means of escape from the danger. M. Gambetta, the fons et origo mali, with more than. Gallic swiftness, has fallen from the Office he so long and so laboriously prepared for, and our Government are comparatively free. But, Sir, the answer of the Government to these criticisms will probably be, as the hon. Gentleman has already tried to prove, that they have only followed the precedent of their Predecessors. This is not the case. The Joint Control established by Lord Beacons field's Government in Egypt was not a political one; it was purely financial. It was most wise and most beneficial. You have gone far beyond this, not only in kind, but in degree. Your Note of January 10 was not only a direct interference in the political affairs of Egypt, but it was done without consulting the Sultan, who is the Sovereign of Egypt, and without referring even to the other Powers. I quite agree that it is most undesirable to put Egypt under your Concert of Europe, for that would make her neutral in case of war, and deprive you of her main use to England—as an avenue of communication with India and the East. I defy the hon. Gentleman to show any precedent for such a Note as you have sent, guaranteeing the Khedive his Throne, and threatening alike the Porte and the National and Military Parties in Egypt. Every stop taken by Lord Salisbury was taken with the full knowledge and assent of the Porte. Yours are taken under directly opposite conditions. I will quote a few extracts from your Note of January 10 to Sir Edward Malet— You are to inform the Khedive and his Government of the determination of France and England to afford them support against their difficulties of various kinds. The two Powers are entirely agreed upon this subject, and the meeting of the Chamber of Notables has given them the opportunity for a further exchange of views. You will declare to the Khedive that the English and French Governments consider the maintenance of His Highness on the Throne as alone able to guarantee the good order and development of Egypt for the present and the future. There are other expressions equally forcible. Yet all this was written without any consultation with the Khedive's Sovereign. If this is not so, why did the Porte protest in such vigorous language—such imperious language? If the Powers assent to your course, and the Note of four to Constantinople meant, as you may try to prove, the same thing as the Note of two to the Khedive, why did not all the Powers join in your Note to the Khedive, and why did you not join in the Note of four to the Porte? No, Sir; it is perfectly well known that the Note of four was in. reply, and in defiance, to your most ill-advised Note to the Sultan's Vassal, and that it was meant to strengthen the Porte in its protest against your threatened intervention, the troops for which had been got ready in France, if not in England. You have affronted and attacked every interest, and you have intimidated none. Withdraw at once from the position, and you may yet restore your shaken credit, and, what is of infinitely more importance, you may restore the power and influence of England in the East, and her ascendancy in Egypt. The priceless value of Egypt to this country is recognized by all parties. My object in this lengthened criticism is not merely to point out the cardinal blunders of the Government, but to urge upon them the remedy, and the only remedy. There are only two ways in which our ascendancy in Egypt can be secured. The one is by single-handed conquest from the Turks, which no one wishes to undertake, and which we could not now effect if we would. The other is by a frank, and cordial, and real friendship with Turkey, whom you have despised, hectored, and persecuted. You cannot make a greater mistake in policy than to under-rate, as you do, the strength and vitality of the Ottoman people, and the value of the Turkish alliance. It is the greatest of popular errors to picture the Turk as an effete or an exhausted race. It has only been the inherent strength and wonderful vital energy of the Ottomans that have enabled them to bear up so long against enormous odds. In the late war they would have defeated all their foes—Russians, Servians, Montenegrins, Bulgarians, and Greeks as well—had. they possessed a General-in-Chief of moderate ability. The Sultan can still put in the field 400,000 men of the finest physique in the world, ready and eager to die for their country and their faith; and if well led they are more than a match for an equal number of any other European Army. With English generals they would be simply invincible. Unhappily for us they have been driven to seek leadership from Germany. We shall feel their need when Russia forces the great struggle upon us—perhaps at a moment when our Armies are occupied in the Transvaal, or paralyzed in Ireland. With the aid of the Turkish Armies England could hold Egypt against the world. Without them she is helpless; against them she could not hold or control Egypt for an hour. The Sultan and his people clung to the English alliance so long as they could; but they saw the British Government plotting against them in every corner, and forcing upon them the sacrifice of territory to every bandit little race that could issue a pronunciamiento and call itself "a rising nationality." But it must be a real and not a pretended friendship. Revert to the policy of Pitt and Palmerston, to what was your own policy till you were seduced by the exaggerated ravings of a partizan Press, the ingenious whisperings of the O. K's and Maccoll's, and the desire to make capital against an envied and successful rival. If you are just with the Turks you can do as you like with Egypt, you can regenerate the whole of the Ottoman Empire by peaceful and regular administrative reforms, you can immensely strengthen your tottering position in the East, and obtain for England a magnificent and a most needed ally in the great struggle for your Indian Possessions which recent events in Central Asia show is now close at hand. Ministers, and especially the Home Secretary, still find it convenient to denounce Turkey as a "Decaying Despotism." A Decaying Despotism! When I contemplate the spectacle of the Czar of Russia, the favourite Potentate and the favourite Power of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), shutting himself up in triple casements against the vengeance of his oppressed subjects, or flying from one city to the other with every foot of the railway and the road guarded by armed men; not able to meet his brother of Germany save on the sea and surrounded by iron-clads; when I see the unhappy Irish Secretary passing from the landing-stage at Dublin to the Castle protected by armed Constabulary, if not by soldiers; when I see the Prime Minister himself guarded in the midst of free England by extra police; when I know that the reviled and scorned Sultan of this "Decaying Despotism" can drive and walk about his capital unguarded and with safety, I am tempted to wonder if a "Decaying Depotism" is, after all, a desperately bad Government. This intrigue with France has caused England the greatest injury. It has cost her the alliance of Austria and Germany, valuable and serviceable as such an alliance is, and has given her nothing in return. For the very man whose action was the keystone of the whole business has himself, in three short months, fallen from power, and left the guidance of the changing and shiftless Republic of France to other hands that will not follow his dangerous paths. An alliance with a State which has had its 20 Ministries within 10 years, and is steadily going down the road of corruption, cannot be reliable or advantageous. It has brought you twice to the brink of a great European struggle, in which you would have been on the wrong and the losing side. It has left you stranded and isolated in Europe, without a single ally, without even one of those "friends" to whom even the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster attaches some importance. It has now brought you, in this miserable Egyptian imbroglio, to a position where you cannot advance without incurring certain war, and from which you cannot retreat without the most painful and disastrous humiliation before Europe. And now, Sir, with regard to Central Asia and Afghanistan, Her Gracious Majesty is made to speak of "the restoration of peace beyond the North-Western Frontier, together with continued tranquillity, and plentiful seasons." The weather plays a large part in the present Speech, and with justice; for the "plentiful seasons" and the "mild winter" are the only real ob- jects of self-congratulation open to the Government. The hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke), indeed, went further in addressing a meeting at Chelsea; a meeting, by-the-bye, in which he made the discovery in a very interesting manner that "force is," after all, the "remedy for violence." The hon. Gentleman there described the policy of the Government in Afghanistan as a "magnificent success!" Can any follower of the Government believe this? [Mr. CARINGTON: Yes.] The distinguished statesman the Member for the County of Bucks believes it. "A magnificent success!" The Ameer, your protégé, and the pensioner of the Czar, is developing, according to the Correspondent of The Times—a friendly authority, be it noted—"a ferocity equal to that of his most bloodstained predecessors." He is carrying out the policy of Tarquin the Proud at Rome; he is cutting off the heads, plundering, or exiling all his principal nobles. Is this a "magnificent success?" The people of Candahar, to whom the word of the British Government was solemnly pledged, have been, in consequence of your breach of faith, thrice conquered, thrice pillaged, and thrice oppressed since you evacuated the stronghold of Candahar. Is this "a magnificent success?" A revolt has just broken out in Herat, the Western capital of Afghanistan, and the outer gate of India. The discontents in Herat and Candahar are, or will be, without the slightest doubt, Russia's opportunity. Is this "a magnificent success?" ["Hear, hear!"] The Russians themselves have, during your tenure of Office, within the last 12 months, advanced from 500 to 700 miles further. If this be an over-estimate, it is due to the ignorance of the Government with regard to those facts upon which they ought to be well informed, and to inform Parliament. We do not know how far their progress may not have extended. Is this "a magnificent success?" I would beg hon. Members opposite, who are disposed to ridicule my warnings, not to pass them over with the easy optimism which shuts the eyes to all dangers that affect remote portions of the Empire, however valuable; but to listen to what I venture, with all respect and with the deepest conviction, to lay before them. I would ask them to undertake a very simple and easy pro- cess—to compare the Russian boundary on the map of 1862 with her present Frontier. Even those most confident in the wealth and superior moral elevation of their country will be startled by the advance towards India, the enormous, the unparalleled advance made within a score of years. The conquest of the Caucasus in 1862 was one great crisis in the history of Russia in Asia. The conquest of the Turcomans in 1881 and 1882 is of no less moment. By the former, Russia broke down the boundary which shut her out from Turkey in Asia, and which had for decades occupied the flower of her Armies in a desperate struggle; she also acquired a splendid recruiting ground. The Circassian mountaineers, then her bitterest enemies, are now her choicest troops. By the conquest of the Turcomans, Russia has put the coping stone to her steady approach to the Indian Frontier. She has conquered the last independent people that separated her from Afghanistan. Above all, she has obtained a secure foothold in the fertile districts south of the Great Desert, which so high an authority as Lord Napier of Magdala has described as the natural boundary between her influence and that of England—a boundary which it was essential for you to maintain. The predictions of Vambéry, of Rawlinson, of Malleson, and of Macgregor are now becoming true. Estimate the leagues the Russian Forces have traversed, the countries they have overrun, the difficulties they have surmounted. In one direction, from Orenburg on the North, her Frontier has been advanced over 1,000 miles to Samarcand and the Oxus, if not, indeed, to Merv itself. Still more important is her progress from the Caspian towards Herat. Within 12 months they have swept, eastward and south-eastwards, a distance of 500 miles at least. They are now close upon Sarakhs, a position of great strategic importance, which commands alike Mery, Herat, and Meshed, the capital of Northern Persia. They can, at any moment they like, seize Herat before you could come to the rescue; in fact, it is more than probable that any protective measures, or attempt to secure our Frontier, would be at once made the excuse for a Russian occupation of Herat. What, however, is of the greatest importance is the fact that their railway from the Caspian through the Turcoman country is being rapidly completed. It will not only enable Russia to reinforce her Armies with ease and to any extent, but it will give her, as has already been the case to a considerable degree, the control of the commerce of these regions. But a second railway, of even greater importance, has just been finished. It is that which connects Tiflis, the capital of the Georgian and Circassian territory, with the Caspian, and with the recent conquests of Skobeleff. Thus the Russians at Askabad and Sarakhs will be in direct steam communication with the whole Army of the Caucasus, which numbers not far short of 200,000 men. When we know that Russia has obtained a foothold in the rich and abundant districts of Northern Persia, and at the very gates of Herat, and that a railway connects the main centres of her military power with these coveted regions close to our Indian Frontier, and that our own invaluable railway to Candahar has been abandoned and now lies rotting, I ask hon. Members opposite, with confidence, no longer to neglect nor contemn the grave warnings of these important facts. Every single step of the Russian advance, from the North and from the West, has been directed towards Hindustan. That, beyond a doubt, is the goal of her ambition, as it has been of all the great conquerors of the East. Her military men have always, from the time of Peter the Great down to the living Skobeleff, aimed at India—that general has now practically confessed his ambition to the world. Let not hon. Members confound the Russia of to-day with the Russia of the Crimean War, nor the Russian Army of 1882 with the badly equipped, badly led forces we encountered in 1853. Then Russia had not a single railway even in the heart of her dominions. Now the iron horse conveys her soldiers from Petersburg and Moscow to the Black Sea, the Caucasus, the Caspian, and even to Bami and Askabad in the Turcoman territory. Her Army, which then may have numbered 500,000 men, now embraces a nominal total of 4,000,000, of which 2,000,000 could take the field. It is well armed and well led. The experienced strategy and valour of a Todleben, a Gourko, a Radetsky, and the brilliant qualities of a Skobeleff, are not surpassed in any European Army. How, then, do you propose to meet the coming attack? All the confidence in your own superior civilization, all the talk about your wealth, all your exploded arguments about the overgrown size of the Russian Empire, and its hoped-for, but never-witnessed disintegration, all your vain self-glorification will not avail you at the hour of crisis. It is only by force that force can be met. It is only by the bayonet that you can repel the bayonets of Russia. They are no foemen unworthy of the soldiers of England in her palmiest days. Russia has within the last 20 years conquered and formed into her Army some of the finest fighting material in the world. It is said of the Daghestani Tribes of the Caucasus that you do not know what the human race is until you have seen them, so splendid is their physique. These are the men who stormed Ears in 1877, and who took Geok Tepé in 1881, after some of the most desperate fighting of modern times. Will you pit the soft Sepoy against the hardiest races of Central Asia, reinforced by the splendid cavalry of the Turcoman Tribes? I have seen the Russian soldiers fight, and I know that the Army that left the bones of 70,000 of its comrades around the trenches of Plevna is not to be despised. It is essential for the security of India, for the happiness of its people, and for your own interests and your commerce, that this advance of Russia should be no longer neglected. Language, plain but courteous, moderate but unmistakeable, should be addressed to Russia with regard to this continuous advance. The Government should, in unmistakeable terms—terms which, if used, would have prevented the Crimean War—fix a boundary, and say—"Beyond this you shall not advance." If you do not stop her now you may find it impossible to do so a little later. The ball is rolling rapidly onward, gaining fresh momentum with each advance. Take care that its impetus does not become too great to be resisted. A point should be fixed, and fixed at once, beyond which the Russian advance will not be tolerated. It is only by this course that you can avoid a war more dangerous and more costly than that of the Crimea. It is time that the Representatives of Her Majesty in this House, the responsible Ministers of the Crown, ceased to play the part, willingly or unwillingly, of the apologists and de-fenders of Russia. I refer more especially to the kind of answer which is regularly given by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and by the noble Marquess who represents India, to Questions which seek to elicit facts as to the details of the successive Russian advances. There is a regular official routine. First, they deny the truth of the reports. Then they are forced faintly to admit them. A little later they confess the truth, but extenuate their importance. They state that assurances have been received that the Russian Forces will advance no farther. After a few brief months, or, perhaps, only weeks, the next stride onward is made, quite regardless of previous assurances; and then the old process is repeated by the Ministers of England. General Ignatieff and M. Giers themselves could not frame answers with more adroit consideration for the interests of Russia than does the Under Secretary of State (Sir Charles W. Dilke). His replies are, indeed, an interesting study. I intend some day to give the hon. Gentleman a treat, of which I now give him fair notice. I shall, with the permission of the House, quote the various replies which he has made since he came into Office to Questions that have been addressed to him upon the Russian advance, and upon the French annexation of Tunis. His replies will not add to his own reputation in history; and I believe that before a few months have passed, no one will regret them more than the hon. Gentleman himself. Each reply, considered by itself, is ingenious, and phrased with the ability which none denies to the hon. Gentleman; but each one is fatal to its neighbour, and why? Because there is no consistent course of manly, resolute, and practical policy, guiding the actions of the Ministry or the words of their spokesmen. This shifting, hand-to-mouth, ever retreating policy of the Government, which may be called the Danegelt policy—that is, bribing your enemies to leave you alone for a few months or years by a series of ever-growing concessions—must prove in the end the most warlike, the most costly, and the most ruinous of all possible courses. Ministers of the Crown have frequently confessed in this House that their information with regard to these all-important subjects is three, five, and even six months old, and even then that it is derived from Russian newspapers, The Under Secretary of State was last year unaware of the existence of a telegraph to Meshed, the capital of Khorassan. I am aware, Sir, that my remarks will be met with ridicule, perhaps with scorn. I shall be called an alarmist, a Russophobist, and I know not what else. I would gladly incur all the ridicule and the invective of hon. Members opposite if thereby the dangers which I have foreshadowed could be averted or proved groundless. A very short time will prove the accuracy of all that I have said. Although I can wait for the confusion of those who condemn my warnings, there is that which cannot bear the delay. There is at stake the safety of your magnificent Possessions in Hindostan, of that Empire which is the source of such priceless benefits to the myriads of our fellow-subjects in India, and of such abundant wealth and prosperity to our own people at home. While you have conferred upon the diverse peoples of India the inestimable benefits of a peaceful and orderly Government, you have, at the same time, taken from them the warlike spirit and the martial habits which they once possessed. You are, therefore, doubly bound to guard with ceaseless vigilance their interests and their safety. For the sake of the British people it is no less your duty to defend your Indian Empire. Through that Dominion England gains not only the vast commerce and fields for enterprize supplied by India itself, but also the carrying trade of the whole East. Your commerce with China, with the Islands of the Archipelago and Further India, with Persia, with Arabia, and even with Egypt, depend upon your possession of Hindostan. Trifle with the security of your Indian Empire, and you imperil what is not only the brightest ornament in your Imperial diadem, but also the main factor in your national wealth and your individual prosperity. I dread to contemplate the misery, the wide-spread ruin that such a catastrophe as the loss of India would of necessity inflict upon this country, and especially upon the labouring classes. The responsibility of Her Majesty's present Ministers with regard to their policy in Asia is most grave. And, Sir, in favour of whom is it that you are abandoning, neglecting the vital interests of your Empire? It is in favour of the most backward, the most cruel, the darkest despotism of any time, ancient or modern. You would be abandoning the people of India to a tyranny compared to which the beneficent sway of the Sovereign of these Realms is as light to darkness. You would be handing over the people of India to a Power whose odious tyranny over its own subjects is only equalled by the inhumanity with which it grinds down the life and the soul of the peoples whom it has conquered. You would be surrendering your beneficent rule in India to the tyrant of Poland, the exterminator of the Mussulmans of the Balkan Peninsula, and to the Power that has revelled in the massacre and outrage of the unoffending Jews. It was with regret and shame that I listened to the timid and halting sentences in which the Prime Minister refused the request of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry de Worms) that a day should be given for the discussion and. public reprobation of the horrible barbarities lately perpetrated upon the innocent and industrious Israelites of Russia. I could hardly believe my ears as I listened to the honeyed words towards the oppressed and the equivocal sympathy towards the victims with which the Prime Minister declined to grant even one day at this early period of the Session to the consideration of so grave a subject. His argument that a public discussion in this House would only provoke the Russian people to further acts of persecution and outrage is utterly futile. Not one single line of news is ever published in the Russian Press, except by the express permission of the Russian Government through their censor. Therefore, unless the Russian Government so wills it, the bare fact of a debate in this House will never be known in Russia. But, Sir, did the right hon. Gentleman show the same tender and solicitous consideration for Turkey in 1876 and 1877, when she was accused of atrocities not more heinous and far less numerous; and, if such foul deeds can be in any way extenuated, of atrocities for which far more allowance might be claimed? What was the language then used by the present Premier with regard to the "Bulgarian atrocities?" I will quote a few of the specimens of the invective which he distributed broadcast over the country. Speaking of the "Bulgarian horrors," he said— We now know in detail that there have been perpetrated, under the immediate authority of a Government to which all the time we have been given the strongest moral, and, for part of the time, even material, support, and so unutterably vile as well as fierce in character, that it passes the power of the heart to conceive, and of the tongue and pen adequately to describe them. Let the Turks now carry away their abuses in the only possible manner—namely, by carrying off themselves, their Zaptiehs, and their Muchirs, their Yungbachis, their Bimbashis, and their Pashas, one and all, bag and baggage. And again— A 'respite' for Turkey is simply a respite to the criminal, not from punishment, but from prevention; a solemn licence to continue his misdeeds. 'A year of grace' to Turkey is to Turkey's victims only another year of debasement, of want, of misery and shame. I will give one more extract very briefly— What civilization longs for, what policy no less than humanity requires, is that United Europe, scouted, as we have seen, in its highest, its united diplomacy, shall pass sentence in its might upon a Government which unites the vices of the conqueror and the slave, and which is lost alike to truth, to mercy, and to shame. Yet the "Bulgarian atrocities" were committed, not by Turks, but by Bulgarian Mussulmans upon Bulgarian Christians after great provocation. They were committed at a time when Turkey was in imminent peril, with revolts and attacks and intrigues on all sides. It was the malevolent advice of General Ignatieff, the present Russian Chancellor, that led to their perpetration, and the chief offenders were severely punished. The Government of Lord Beaconsfield actually addressed a Note of the strongest remonstrance to the Porte upon the subject. These outrages upon the peaceful and unoffending Jews are perpetrated in time of profound peace, in large cities of the Empire, under the eyes of the high officials and generals of Russia, with thousands of soldiers and police at their command. Yet in hardly a single case was a hand raised to check the brutal licence of the populace. How can this difference—this amazing difference—in the tone of the Prime Minister be explained? There is but one way in which the policy of the present Government can be adequately described and adequately stigmatized. It is in the burning words of the great Earl of Derby, applied, in 1864, to the conduct of the same men, to poor, betrayed, persecuted Denmark. It is a policy of "bullying the weak and truckling to the strong." I ventured last August to make certain statements, and to advance certain charges against the Government. My facts were then met by the Prime Minister by the convenient formula that "he denied everything that I affirmed and affirmed everything that I denied." It is true that the Prime Minister made considerable capital out of the fact that I spoke alone and to an empty House. However true this may be, it is no less true that the audience which then honoured me with its attention was, within four or five Members, as numerous as that which listened to the great Premier himself. Well, Sir, I now re-affirm everything that I then said. Most, indeed, of my statements have been since more than proved by the irresistible logic of events. Your policy has not been a "magnificent success." It has been a universal failure. I. stated that the Government had concluded a discreditable peace in the Transvaal; that was no settlement at all. South Africa was never in a more dissatisfied or disturbed condition than at present. You have disgusted and alienated the loyal Colonists. You have excited the Natives, and you have not satisfied the Boers. I stated that the Russian progress towards India was great and menacing, and not likely to stop even at Geok Tepé or Askabad. Since that date the Russians have annexed territory for 150 or 200 miles still further in advance, and now they command Sarakhs and Herat. I warned the Government that they were alienating Germany and Austria, and driving Turkey into another alliance. This has but too soon been justified, and England stands alone in Europe. I stated that their policy with regard to Ireland had been a complete failure; that they had found Ireland enjoying a peace and prosperity which had been unknown for many years. ["No, no!"] Well, Sir, the promising state of Ireland was the plea put forward by the Ministry for allowing the Peace Preservation Act to lapse. The outrages in Ireland in November and December, 1879, and during January and February, March and April, 1880, were steadily decreasing, until in April they were only 69. From the moment the fatal hand of the present Government grasped the helm of affairs, the number of crimes steadily rose until last year, when they attained a figure that was unprecedented in the history of Ireland. ["No, no!"] The outrages in 1881 were 4,713, and in what year had there been so many? [Mr. SEXTON: In the Famine period.] No; not even during the height of the Famine were figures so high. During the Famine period, from 1844 to 1848, the number of outrages only amounted to 5,900 during the whole period of five years. The Government have passed a Bill which, according to all evidence, has failed—which has benefited no one but the lawyers, and has unsettled everything, and which is mere unadulterated Communism. ["No, no!"] The confiscation of the property of private individuals, however necessary, without compensation, is Communism, and nothing else. M. Gambetta's organ—the organ of the extreme French Republican Party—has so designated it. The Ministry have reduced Ireland to a state of disorder, terrorism, and anarchy almost unparalleled in history, and they have done it all themselves. They begun it, they carried it on, they neglected it, they attempted to coerce Ireland, and they attempted to bribe her. They have failed signally. Let me pay, however, one compliment to the people of Ireland. Though I deprecate and denounce in the strongest manner the course, the means, the instruments by which the objects of the Land League have been directly and indirectly enforced, and though no one has spoken more strongly with regard to the outrages that have been committed, yet I do admire one thing in the Irish people—the fidelity with which they have adhered to their natural leaders in their suffering and distress. They have refused to be bribed, as they refused to be coerced. You have, in two years, reduced from a condition of order and peace to a state which, in the words of the Prime Minister himself, "is a disgrace and a shame to England in the eyes of the civilized world." Your bribes and your coercion have alike been unsuccessful, and your failure is conspicuous and undeniable. In Europe you have wantonly alienated the valuable allies which Lord Beaconsfield gained for his country. You have reduced England to isolation, and almost to impotence. In a word, you have proved yourselves as incapable of defending the interests of the Empire as you are unable to appreciate what is due to the honour and the reputation of the British people.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

Before I come to the somewhat impassioned oration which has just been concluded, I shall have to notice the remarks which fell from the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) earlier in the debate. To the speech we have just heard, I will only make this reference before I examine it in detail. The hon. Member, in his remarkable speech, as to which I might say, as the hon. Member said of the Government policy in Ireland, "that we have done it all ourselves," that as regards the conduct of foreign affairs on the Conservative side of the House, the hon. Member has done it all himself. He asks us to disprove his facts. I fear I may detain the House some little time in an examination of many of the hon. Member's facts; but there are one or two of them which I wish to take the earliest opportunity of alluding to. Some of them are startling, as those which relate to the state of Ireland, to which I will not myself refer. For instance, that which he made to the effect that the present Government repealed the Protection of Person and Property Acts, which were in existence when they came into Office.

MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

That was a mere slip.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

Oh, a mere slip. I think there were a large number of mere slips of that kind in the hon. Member's speech. Perhaps that, again, is a mere slip as to the number of outrages during the Famine years; for if the hon. Member will look to the outrages in 1833 and 1834, he will see that the total, especially of murders, exceeds in an extraordinary degree the figures he read to the House. For instance, there were 163 murders in 1833.

MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

What is the total?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

The outrages were differently computed at that time, and it is impossible to say. Amongst his facts on foreign affairs, which the hon. Member asked the Government to disprove, are those relating to the mission of the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) to Berlin. I have had much experience of the hon. Member, and I have really ceased to expect that he will believe anything that I say.

MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

I did not say the right hon. Member for Ripon went on a mission on his second visit. I said his first visit could not have been denied to be a mission. I said his second visit was of a private character; but that it certainly resulted in negotiations, formal or informal, official or unofficially.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

Yes; he said the right hon. Member for Ripon went to Berlin for the purpose of holding unofficial negotiations.

MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

No, no.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

I really do not know what the hon. Member said. I will quote one distinct statement he made. He said that the right hon. Gentleman arrived in Berlin one day too late; and he distinctly led the House to understand that the visit of the right hon. Gentleman to Berlin had something to do with the policy of the Government in Egypt. Now, I beg to give that statement a most absolute and unqualified denial. I thought I had done it in sufficiently strong terms yesterday to convince any Member of the House. I spoke in the hearing of the right hon. Gentleman himself, and all I can say now is, that no form of words would be too strong to repeat the denial that I have already made. There were a large number of remarks which fell from the hon. Gentleman in this impassioned speech which I regard with some alarm. For instance, he told us he intends to give us a real treat at some future time—that he had only touched on the fringe of his subject in his speech. For my part, I am willing to consider what he has given us to-day as a sufficient treat. The hon. Member has promised me that he will, on some future occasion, read to the House the whole of the Answers I have given to the House on the subjects of Central Asia and Tunis. All I can say is, that when he reads the Questions and Answers to the House, I think the House will be of opinion that the whole of the Answers were accurate at the time they were given—at all events, I have not been able to detect any in- accuracy in them—and that they will form an intelligible and consistent whole. The hon. Member is very apt to pick and choose his evidence in a singular way, and he went round Europe in search of newspapers which supported his view in condemning the policy of the Government. He positively quoted the Russian newspapers against this policy, although he asserts our policy is Russian. There was one debate last year in which my noble Friend the Secretary of State for India made a speech in two ways remarkable, not only because we all listened to it with pleasure, but because it convinced all Parties in the House, as it was applauded and well received on the Opposition side of the House, and by the Opposition Press, and the Press generally. In that speech my noble Friend referred to Central Asia, and the Russian papers commented on it at length; and the semi-official journal which the hon. Member now quotes against the policy of the Government, while grumbling more or less at the speech of my noble Friend, admitted that he was substantially right in saying that England had always maintained that she would permit no interference either in the internal or the external affairs of Afghanistan. The Russian semi-official journal used strong language with reference to the speech of my hon. Friend opposite, which provoked the speech of my noble Friend, and used language so strong that I should hesitate to quote it to the House. [Cries of "Read!"] I hesitate to use the language, because it is quite un-Parliamentary language. [Renewed cries of "Read, read!"] On two occasions this journal spoke about "Les insanities de Sir Ashmead-Bartlett." I only mention this fact to show that the hon. Member ought to use some little discretion in quoting foreign newspapers to this House, and I will not otherwise follow him through his quotations. Before I pass to a detailed examination of the hon. Member's statements, I must make a few remarks upon what fell from the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff). The first words of his speech were words which I was glad to hear fall from him, because they go to strengthen the hands of Her Majesty's Government in pressing reforms on the Government of Tur- key. The hon. Member gave very valuable service to the country as Commissioner for the European Provinces of Turkey, and ever since that time he has always spoken in the same sense, and supported our action in that direction. But the effect of these words was somewhat impaired by other expressions to which he resorted. He told us that if the reforms had been carried out in European Turkey, it would have prevented the rising in the Herzegovina. Now, I cannot see how the carrying out of these reforms in Turkey would have prevented a rising in Bosnia and Herzegovina against Austria. Passing on to his observations regarding Cyprus, the introduction of a responsible Government was kept back until the completion of the Census; but it is now being actively pushed on. And now I come to the main portion of his speech, which dealt with what is called the mission of Mr. Errington to the Vatican. I can only repeat that no such communications have been addressed to the Vatican; and when he says that we have informed the Vatican that we required this or required that, I beg to say no such demands have been made of the Vatican. He says that we argued that Mr. Errington need not make official Reports, because he does not receive a salary. That has never been our doctrine. I would ask the hon. Member on what authority he made the statement that Mr. Errington did not receive a salary, but received his expenses? That is a statement which should not be lightly made. The hon. Member knows the difficulty there is in this House speaking upon these subjects, and I think he ought not to have made that statement without some authority.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

I made the statement on authority, and I believe Mr. Errington's expenses to be paid, either out of the Secret Service money, or some other source. I ask whether that was so or not?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

The hon. Member knows, as well as I do, of the difficulty that exists, the reasons of which are obvious to the House, of stating what sums are or are not paid out of the Secret Service money. ["No, no!"] If you once answer Questions as to the sums which are or are not paid out of the Secret Service money, you at once put an end to the whole use of the Secret Service. I categorically repeat what I stated the other day, that Mr. Errington received no remuneration in any shape or form.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

I did not say remuneration. I said his expenses were paid, and that is not denied.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

On the authority of Lord Granville as to the facts, but without his authority to make the statement, but with the assent of my right hon. Friends who sit by my side, I will take upon myself to deny that statement.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

I ask the hon. Baronet whether Mr. Errington is paid out of the Secret Service money? And I re-assert that he has his expenses paid out of the Secret Service money.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

The moment the hon. Member made that statement, I wrote to my noble Friend Lord Granville, and it was with the knowledge of Cabinet Ministers sitting beside me, and the statement I make is the statement he made to me. For that reason, and in order to bring that matter to a point, I ask the hon. Member upon whose authority he made the statement? The hon. Member stated that in consequence of Mr. Errington's supposed mission two secret Circulars were sent to the Irish Bishops. I certainly never heard of these Circulars, and the Minister sitting by me says he never heard of them. The hon. Member again alluded to Goa, as to which he recently asked a Question of the Secretary of State for India. The hon. Member appears to have better communications with the Vatican than we possess, because he appears to know the nature of what is passing better than we do. With regard to Goa, I think the answer of my noble Friend was more than sufficient, because he might have confined himself to a simple answer, No! But my noble Friend expanded his answer, because for the last 100 years there has been a question as to Goa's jurisdiction in India, and there has been correspondence within the last few years—he expanded his answer, and dealt fully with the Question. The implication of the Question was that Lord Ripon, being himself of the Roman Catholic religion, had used his position as Viceroy of India for the particular purposes of this Church. The noble Lord pointed out that the suggestion had come from the Governor of Bombay, who is a Presbyterian, and was sent by the Viceroy and his Council without any endorsement of the recommendation which was made by the Governor of Bombay.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

I specially guarded myself from throwing the slightest shadow of doubt on the statement of the Secretary of State for India. All I said was, that no one disputed what he said was true; yet the question might arise out-of-doors, as the information I have comes from the Vatican.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

I have said it has been made subject of discussion for the last 100 years.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

Recently?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

Yes; there has been recent discussion on the subject, during the tenure of Office of the late Government. The hon. Member also stated that Lord Granville gave Mr. Errington a letter to the Papal See. He certainly never gave him any such letter. I really can only repeat, with regard to Mr. Errington's mission, that which I have said heretofore. The information that was personally conveyed through him was not of a diplomatic character, and was not of a nature which could be treated as an official communication, or as such presented to Parliament. Exaggerated notions appear to prevail in the mind of the hon. Member as to the character of the communications that have been made. No communications, proposals, or requests have been made by Mr. Errington to the Vatican, or authorized by Her Majesty's Government. Her Majesty's Government were glad that information which Mr. Errington had himself collected, or derived from official sources, on matters of interest to the Roman Catholic subjects of the Empire, should be conveyed to the Vatican. Mr. Errington and, during his recent stay at Rome, Lord O'Hagan supplied such information. Coming, in a little more detail, to the speech of the hon. Member for Eye—who, I see, is engaged writing his next speech—I must really ask his attention, as my remarks must be directed very largely to himself. The hon. Member for Eye has repeated to-day a statement which he has made on several previous occasions—that Her Majesty's Government encouraged the Greek Government to mobilize its Army, and was, therefore, very nearly being the cause of war. The hon. Member is always terrified by our being on the brink of war; but his argument is rather spoiled by the fact that none of these wars ever occurred. We have been on the brink of them a thousand times; but, somehow, by some interposition of one kind or another, we have been miraculously saved, and we have managed to avoid these all but inevitable wars. I have denied the hon. Member's statement with regard to Greek mobilization upon five or six distinct occasions. I can only repeat my denial; and I will invite him to ask a precise Question, giving the exact occasion and the exact words in which we encouraged the Greeks to mobilize. On the contrary, it so happens that the English Government were the last of all the Governments of Europe to withdraw the objections that had been raised to the mobilization of the Greek Army. The hon. Member tells us that by our action we have destroyed the Greek Monarchy itself; but the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold), who knows more about Greece than he does, dissented from that proposition. The policy of the Government as to the cession of Thessaly was endorsed and approved by the country, and thoroughly accepted. The hon. Member recurred several times to our action with regard to Egypt; and he said we broke the Concert of Europe, formed an alliance with France, and received a rebuff from four other Powers. These phrases have been applied by Members of the Liberal Party to the policy of the late Government in Egypt in establishing the Anglo-French Control. Whatever might be their application then, the present Government not only accepted the policy of their Predecessors in Egypt, but all we have done has been done in trying to carry it out. That was a statement that would not be denied by the Front Opposition Bench; and when it was made in "another place," it was entirely accepted by the Leader of the Opposition. What he had said in "another place" must be read along with what he had said previously; and, speaking some months ago at Newcastle, he said— I am glad to see that the present Government acknowledge, on the whole, the beneficence of the arrangements which we thought it necessary to adopt. I believe that they have loyally attempted to sustain that arrangement; and I trust they will continue to do so. Speaking a few days ago in the other House, the noble Marquess, in a very few words, expressed his general concurrence with what had fallen from Lord Granville, and endorsed the position that the policy of this country in Egypt has in view—first, the supremacy of the Sultan; the liberties of the Egyptian people, as guaranteed by the Firmans; and the obligations of the Egyptian Government towards the European Powers. We maintain that the Note, from which the hon. Member dissents, exactly carries out the policy to which he appears to assent, and which was laid down in a previous despatch to Sir Edward Malet. The hon. Member has stated that our policy in Egypt was based upon the personal influence of the late Prime Minister of France; and on the authority of gossip and rumour, of a kind which ought not to be brought into the House of Commons, he has ascribed the paternity of the Joint Note to the late Prime Minister of France and myself. Now, it does so happen that although when I am in London I see everything that goes out from the Foreign Office, having been in France engaged in the Commercial Treaty negotiations at the time when the Joint Note was agreed upon, I knew nothing of that Note. The Note was agreed to before I had seen it. It so happened that on that occasion, through my business in France, I was entirely unaware of what had taken place until the main steps had been taken by Lord Granville. I give my distinct denial to the statement that there was any difference between Lord Granville and the Prime Minister on the subject of that Note. The hon. Member said that it was a Note from which Lord Granville dissented, and that it was forced from Lord Granville by myself and the Prime Minister, for he put my name first. With regard to the Prime Minister, I give the most distinct and unqualified denial to this idle and ridiculous rumour, for the Joint Note was one approved of by the Prime Minister, and approved of by my noble Friend, who was, in fact, responsible for the Note. The hon. Member says that all our difficulties in Egypt have come from the fact that we were determined to reverse the policy of our Predecessors. But these difficulties have come from the fact that we have decided to sustain the policy of our Predecessors. We have reversed their policy in Afghanistan and in South Africa, and our action has been approved by the House; but in Egypt we have not reversed their policy, and Lord Salisbury has accepted the conduct of the Government as a continuation of his own policy. The hon. Member said, with regard to Egypt generally, that we have twice been on the brink of war quite lately. He said that war was averted by the President of the French Republic. I am quite unaware of any occasion when M. Grévy prevented this country and France from going to war. We are always on the brink of war—according to the hon. Member—of a war which has not broken out. These general accusations raise an interesting topic. At the last General Election the speeches and addresses of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite all stated to the country that the accession of the present Government to Office would be marked by the outbreak of a European war. The late Postmaster General (Lord John Manners), in his Election address, said— The peace of Europe depends, to a great extent, on the conviction entertained abroad that England intends to uphold her present international policy. The right hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), in his Election address, said— One of the issues submitted to the constituencies is whether the policy which has averted war in Europe is to be reversed. The late Prime Minister, in his address, said that— The peace of Europe will largely depend upon the verdict of the country. When the hon. Member points out to us that we have been upon the brink of war—which we entirely deny—I must say that it is somewhat material to the argument to consider that under very difficult circumstances peace has been successfully maintained. He tells us that the Note which was addressed to the Agents of England and France was a breach of precedent. The question of precedent was considered, and the precedents were looked at, and the Note exactly followed precedents which were set by Lord Salis- bury. The hon. Member says that so near were we to war that troops were assembled for the purpose of invading Egypt. That is one of the idle rumours to which the hon. Member makes himself the mouthpiece in this House. There is no foundation of any kind for the statement that there was any question of preparing troops for employment. The hon. Member states distinctly that he knows troops were so prepared by France. I am not in a position to give denials for the French Government; but I cannot think that would be case without our having heard of it, and I never heard of it in any shape or form. The hon. Member's wildest flights of fancy are always with regard to Central Asia. The hon. Member said, on three several occasions, that the Russians had advanced 500, 600, and 700 miles since the present Government came into Office. He also said that they advanced 200 miles since the date of the Candahar debate. At the time of that debate the troops of General Skobeleff, who was then in command of the Russian Army, were at Askabad. [Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: No, no!] My noble Friend the Secretary of State for India, who sits by my side, agrees with me that they were at Askabad. At all events, I entirely deny the statement that Russia has advanced 700 miles nearer India in the time of the present Government. I do not know if "moonshine" is a Parliamentary expression. If it is a Parliamentary expression, I shall be glad to apply it to the statement of the hon. Gentleman. He told us that our policy had broken up the Concert of Europe; that we had no Armies to send anywhere, because they were shut up in Ireland and the Transvaal. As a matter of fact, there is not a single British soldier now in the Transvaal, and there are only 4,000 troops in South Africa. He said that we had no care for the future of the British Empire—that we had alienated Germany and Austria, and he spoke with special emphasis of the alienation of Prince Bismarck. The hon. Member is so much better informed than I am that I feel scarcely a match for him on these subjects. I was under the, impression that Prince Bismarck was rather on friendly terms with us at this time. He sent his son here some time ago in a kind of way that was taken by us—we are deluded people, no doubt—as as piece of personal friendship. Our official relations cannot be more friendly than they are at the present time. The hon. Member told us that we have broken up the Concert of Europe, which he, however, never believed in; and then he adds, with immense vigour—"which nobody ever believed in." We on this side believe in it, but I suppose we do not exist. We do believe in the Concert of Europe, and we have always believed that the Concert of Europe did afford a means of dealing with difficulties in European affairs which no other machinery can equally accomplish—that it is a safer and more prudent, and wiser and more cautious means of dealing with these questions, and one in no sense opposed to the interests of this country. We certainly do not despair of seeing the delicate machinery of the European Concert prove of value even with regard to the affairs of Egypt. A great difficulty had occurred owing to the refusal of Lord Salisbury to allow Austria, Germany, and Italy to share in the control of that country, although those countries protested against being excluded. The Government have admitted that they ought to have a voice in the political affairs of Egypt, at any rate. Just at the end of his speech, the hon. Member suddenly burst out into a violent attack on the statements I have made within the last few days. I stated that the Russians were 150 miles from Sarakhs, and the hon. Member has attacked me for using information which was four months old. The facts of the case are as follow:—The hon. Member, I believe, asked a Question some few days since as to the distance of those troops from Sarakhs. In the course of the reply I stated that I was unable to give the exact distance; but I gave information which was then said by the hon. Member to be four months old. Having received information yesterday from our Minister in Persia that the distance was 150, and not 11 miles, as stated by the hon. Member, I communicated that fact to the House, and the hon. Member then asked whether that information was also four months old. The hon. Member has, moreover, assumed that there has been a successful revolution at Herat, and that we have lost all prospect of retaining a united Afghanistan. That statement rests on an idle rumour, for which there is no foundation. The hon. Member closed his speech by a peroration, in. which he went over the affairs of the whole world, and made a vigorous attack on the Government for not having officially represented to Russia the views of the English people on the sufferings of the Jews in that country. I heard with regret the language the hon. Member used with reference to the statement of the Prime Minister on the subject. The Prime Minister has expressed his horror at what has taken place. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition does not agree with the hon. Member on this question evidently. He said, in "another place"— I quite concur with the noble Earl that official representations, and oven unofficial representations, in matters of this kind are of very doubtful utility. If in the discussion of this subject or at any meeting those who represent in this country the political Party to which I belong have thought it, on the whole, better not to make a prominent appearance, it is because we have been actuated by much the same feelings as those which guide the noble Earl; we were afraid that the motive for our interference might be mistaken, and that this, which is a question of pure humanity, might be mixed up with others which are purely political questions; and we thought it better, on the whole, that the voice of the people of England should be hoard in some less official form than it can receive within the walls of this building. That means that Lord Salisbury not only objects to unofficial representations, but he seems also to discountenance discussion within the walls of Parliament. When the hon. Member says we ought to make official representations, I would ask the House to consider what has been the effect of the representations with regard to the internal affairs of other Powers. In 1848 Lord Palmerston, who was always considered a statesman of a very vigorous type, made representations to Spain with regard to her internal government. The result was that the Spanish Minister told him that the Spanish Government protested in the most energetic manner against such communications. The despatch was returned—that was almost the strongest action that could be taken—and it was threatened that if there were any repetition that Government would immediately send our Minister away. Lord Palmerston was obliged quietly to submit to the violent language of the Spanish Government. In that case, therefore, more harm than good was done. Again, in 1856, in Lord Clarendon's time, a question was brought forward during the sitting of the Paris Conference with regard to the political acts of the Neapolitan Government, and a message was sent to that Government on the matter. Again no good was done, and the Government were compelled to retire from the position they had taken up. In fact, it would be difficult to quote instances in which official British interference in these cases has done good. With regard to the effect of unofficial communications, I cannot do better than refer the hon. Member to the prudent and carefully-weighed words used by Lord Granville in "another place." Upon the final peroration—the 11th peroration—of the hon. Member I have only one remark to make. The hon. Member accuses the Government of "bullying the weak and truckling to the strong." Well, I once myself applied those identical words to the policy of the late Government when they wreaked the whole of their wrath against Russia upon the unfortunate Ameer of Afghanistan. I cannot, however, admit their applicability to the conduct of the present Government; and I think that the hon. Member in using them has been guided by that spirit of romance which is so conspicuously apparent in the majority of the observations which he has addressed to the House.

MR. RITCHIE

said, Her Majesty's Gracious Speech contained a paragraph, in which Her Majesty informed them that a measure would be submitted to Parliament for the extension of Municipal Government to the Metropolis at large. It was not his intention to enter at present into the question of Municipal Government, and he would not have spoken on the subject but for a statement of the Home Secretary to the effect that the Government did not propose to deal with the question of Metropolitan Water Supply directly in this Session, or, indeed, at all, but that they were going to refer that matter, along with many other matters, to the body which would be created for the government of the Metropolis at large; and as he thought the course which the Government proposed to take in this matter was one which would be very detrimental to the interests of the people of London, he deemed it his duty, as a Member representing a very large portion of the inhabitants of the Metropolis, to draw special attention to this matter. The question of the Water Supply of the Metropolis was one which was by no means new to either House of Parliament, and it had formed a topic of much discussion outside the walls of the House. It had been regarded as a question of great importance, not only from a sanitary point of view, but also from the point of view of protection of life and property from fire. It had also been regarded as a matter which called urgently for speedy legislation; and the Home Secretary himself had recognized the urgency of the question. Delay in dealing with it meant a very large additional cost to the ratepayers of the Metropolis. ["No!"] An hon. Member said "No!" He (Mr. Ritchie) did not know whether the Government proposed, having dealt with the Irish Land Question in a spirit of confiscation, to deal with the Water Question in a like spirit. At any rate, it would be difficult to refuse to give the Water Companies a fair value for their property, if it were taken away from them. The value of that property was increasing day by day; and unless the Government were about to propose the confiscation of the property of the owners of water shares, he did not see how they could get out of the difficulty of the enhanced value of those shares in consequence of delay. The Postmaster General said, in the discussion which took place in 1879, that this was a question which could not wait, and various other authorities had dealt with it in the same spirit. When the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the Postmaster General) brought forward his Motion in 1879, his right hon. Friend below him (Sir R. Assheton Cross), who was then Home Secretary, was able at once to undertake that the question should be dealt with; and the then Government did make an honest attempt to deal with it, whatever might have been the objections which many hon. Gentlemen in the House, and many others outside the House, had to the amount which was to be paid under the celebrated agreements with the Water Companies. That attempt would have resulted in immediate legislation if the agreements had been approved and ratified. He was not there to defend those agreements. On the contrary, he thoughts that in more than one instance the late Government undertook to give prices which were beyond the value. But he understood that the late Government did not propose those agreements as a hard-and-fast line. They had got Companies to come together, and to agree on certain prices. Those agreements formed a subject of discussion upstairs in Committee; and it was quite possible, and, indeed, probable, that if those agreements had been dealt with in a fair and proper spirit they might have formed the basis of a satisfactory settlement. The Bill of his right hon. Friend below him came to an untimely end along with the Parliament in which it was proposed; and the House would remember that this question of Water Supply was a fruitful source of discussion upon the various platforms throughout the country at the time of the General Election. It was stated, indeed, that the Water Question was the question on which Parliament was dissolved—that the late Government came in on beer and went out on water. But, however that might be, promises were given by the Liberal Party during the General Election as to what would be done by them on this great question of water when they came into power. There was to be no delay, and the legislation on the subject was to be entirely in favour of the inhabitants of the Metropolis. When the present Government came into power, the Home Secretary proposed to refer the agreements with the Water Companies to a Committee, and they were referred. The Committee did not approve of those agreements, and they fell to the ground. In 1880 the Home Secretary promised that a Bill should be introduced to deal with this question in 1881. In 1881, at the beginning of the Session, that promise was more than once renewed; but upon a question being asked as to the intentions of the Government upon the subject this year, they were told that the Government had no intention of introducing a measure dealing with water, but that they hoped to be able to submit a measure with reference to the Municipal Government of London, and that the body to be created by that measure would be able to deal with this, as well as with all other questions of interest to the inhabitants of London. It appeared now that having waited so long there was every prospect of the House having to wait for a period which, he thought, even the greatest supporters of the Government would regard as a rather indefinite one. At any rate, the Postmaster General, in August, 1879, said that some friends had asked him to wait, before dealing with the Water Question, for the formation of a new Municipality, to which he replied—"We might as well wait for the Greek Kalends." And he said, further, that he believed the question would be dealt with better by a body specially appointed for the purpose than by a Municipality, even supposing they had one. So that there was one Member of the Government, who had taken great interest in Metropolitan questions, who was of opinion that the question might be best dealt with by a division of labour. This was not the first time they had heard of a new Municipality for London. In 1880 and 1881 the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth) brought in a Bill to create a new Municipality; but not one word was said by any Member of the Government, when speaking on the Water Question, to lead the House to believe that they thought it would be better to wait until this new Municipality was created. And one could not help thinking that a mere attempt was now being made to get rid of a difficult and thorny subject, and to shift it on to other shoulders. If a Water Trust were created there would be no difficulty in handing over the Water Question to the new Municipality when it was in working order. The effect of the decision of the Home Secretary was to postpone dealing with the question to an indefinite time, though it was one affecting the health and comfort of the people of London. When did the right hon. and learned Gentleman expect to pass his new Municipality Bill? [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: This Session.] This Session! Well, of course he did not know what effect the new gag which was to be applied under the coercive threat of Dissolution would have on the House of Commons; but he should not be surprised if it had no more effect than the Government's coercive policy in Ireland. At all events, it would, in his opinion, be a very unwise thing to attempt to pass a measure upon this subject in the present Session. The question was a very large and important one; and it was his opinion that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not be likely to further the objects he had in view, unless the parties interested in such a measure were afforded an opportunity of discussing the provisions of it, especially the Local Bodies of the Metropolis whose power it was proposed to take away. Discussion should be invited, and there could be no doubt the measure would be greatly improved by the consideration which such a question necessarily demanded. There were, however, several other matters referred to in the Speech which were entitled to priority over this new Municipal Bill. There was the Bankruptcy Question, which was one of vital importance to the country at large. Then there was the repression of corrupt practices at Elections, which they had understood from the Attorney General last Session was a matter of such paramount importance. Then there was the conservancy of rivers; and there were many other matters of equal importance to be dealt with. These formed a budget which he thought would be a not insufficient programme even for such a Government as that of the right hon. Gentleman. He had grave doubts, then, whether the Government could pass such a measure during the present Session, and he did not think it desirable they should do so, even if they could; but, whether the new Municipality were created this year or the next, it must be some time before the Water Question could be dealt with by the new Municipality, and it could not be dealt with without legislation. The question must be dealt with by a Public Bill, and such a measure could only be passed by the aid of the Government. Now, assuming that the Municipality Bill would be passed this year, certainly the new Municipality could not be in a position to propose a Bill dealing with the Water Question next Session; probably it would be 1884, at the very soonest, before any proposal could be submitted to the House. Such a measure, whether in the hands of a private Member or of the Government, could not be passed without a considerable amount of discussion and amendment. Therefore, even if a new Municipality were created now, the settlement of the Water Question would still be remote. What would be the result of such a delay upon the price to be paid to the Water Companies for their undertakings? The value of their stock was increasing at the rate of £1,250,000 a-year. In June, 1879, the Southwark Company's Shares stood at £126 in the market, and in 1881 they were £207; the New River Shares were £395 as against £350; the Lambeth Company, £214 against £155; the Grand Junction, £120 against £86; the Chelsea, £203 against £155; the East London, £210 against £165; and the Kent, £295 as against £210. That was the increase in three years, and the House could judge of what the increased value would be three years hence when a Water Bill should be introduced. There was the constant re-assessment and the increasing number of houses. That, no doubt, suited the Water Companies very well; but it was not likely to suit the ratepayers. He contended that the inhabitants of London had great cause of dissatisfaction with the delay in dealing with that question. No speaker who was acquainted with the subject had failed to lay it down that one of the most important factors in dealing with it was speed; and yet the Government were proposing to hand over the ratepayers of the Metropolis to the tender mercies of the Water Companies for three or four more years at the least.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

observed, that no apology was needed from the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets for calling attention to so important a subject as the necessity of a supply of good and cheap water to the people of the Metropolis, and also of that supply being given with the least possible delay. All the arguments of the hon. Member, however, as to the delay incident to the establishment of a newly-constituted municipal authority for the Metropolis applied equally to the creation of a water authority, unless, indeed, it was proposed to postpone indefinitely the establishment of the new municipal authority; and if that were his object, he might succeed in delaying the supply of water to the Metropolis. But he (Sir William Harcourt) hoped when the scheme came before the House, his sanguine anticipation of its success would be justified. That expectation was partly based on the fact that the principles on which it was founded had had the great good fortune of having had, by anticipation, the approval of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), not when the pre- sent Government was in Office, but in the time of the late Administration. He was not meaning to tell the House any secrets on the subject, but only showing how it was that in the youth of the Session, which was the period of hope, they had a right to be sanguine. Perhaps later in the Session despair might overtake him; but he did not wish to be so gloomy in his anticipations as the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets at this early period. What had happened in regard to the Water Question? His Predecessor in Office had made an experiment of which he did not complain. All experiments were good until they were tried. The right hon. Gentleman opposite thought it would be possible to act as a sort of mediator between the public and the Water Companies, and to arrive at some fair terms on which the property of the Companies should be acquired by the public. The right hon. Gentleman employed for that purpose a gentleman, now dead, who was of very great ability; but the experiment failed. Mr. Smith made an estimate which certainly did not meet with popular approval. He did not refer to that as being a matter of very great importance, because popular opinion might be often mistaken on such points. But there was a change of Government, and the question was referred to a Select Committee. He had never understood it to be the intention of his Predecessor to force that bargain on the people of London; but it was offered to them; they were to examine it and to take it if it was a good offer. He was sorry that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets was not on the Committee; but several Members for the Metropolis sat upon it, as well as Representatives of the Corporation of London and the Metropolitan Board of Works. The Committee examined the estimate made by Mr. Smith, and they unanimously said that they could not accept it. It was unanimously repudiated by the Committee, with the assent of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Everyone who had judged the question condemned that estimate as one which was totally incapable of being accepted. He (Sir William Harcourt) had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman opposite was of opinion that the estimate would be taken as a basis for making a bargain by some sort of negotiation on the part of the Committee with the Water Com- panies and the Representatives of the ratepayers. For himself, he was bound to say that was an experiment which he had no mind to try, it being one in which the Representatives of the Corporation and the Metropolitan Board of Works would take no part. They would not accept Mr. Smith's estimate as a basis of negotiation. But he went still further—if he thought he could make a bargain on the subject he would not attempt it. He did not think it was the business of the Government to make a bargain on behalf of the ratepayers of London and the Water Companies. They must make a bargain for themselves, and that was what the Committee decided, and decided unanimously. The hon. Gentleman said he could not see it in the Report of the Committee. It was in every line. He had stated before the Committee was appointed that he would have nothing to do with that bargain; and all the Government insisted on was that it was expedient that the Water Supply of the Metropolis should be under the control of some public body representing the interests and commanding the confidence of the water consumers. That was the principle on which, from the first, he took the question. He said it was not a question for the Government at all, or for Parliament, except to give the ratepayers an organ which should deal with their own interests in the matter. And that was what the Committee accepted and agreed to. The hon. Member said the Committee did not recommend that the question should be intrusted to a municipal authority for London. In the 4th paragraph they said that in the absence of any central authority to which it could be committed, a water authority of a representative character should be constituted. What did that mean? It meant that the best body for taking charge of the question was a municipal body for the government of London; but if they did not get that, then the best substitute would be a separate water authority. No doubt, his right hon. Friend the Postmaster General did not then think there would be a municipal authority for London; but at that time the present Government had not acceded to Office, and things were now different. The Committee said, as they had no central body in London, which would be the only proper body to take charge of that matter, they must, as a pis aller, create some body ad hoc, and as soon as they could. In pursuance of that, in the winter of 1880, notice was given that it was proposed to create such a body ad hoc for water purposes. Well, the House knew how, in the last Session, Aaron's Rod swallowed up all the other serpents, and that proposal disappeared. Last year he had to consider what he was to do on that Water Question, and whether he should again give notice of the project of creating a body ad hoc for water purposes. The hon. Member said it was a very easy task to create such a body; but if he ever set to work to constitute it he would not find it quite so easy. The moment he approached it he would find himself involved in the very same difficulties which attended the creation of a central municipal body for the Metropolis. Therefore, he had felt that this Water Question was urgent; that in constituting a water authority all the difficulties would arise that would present themselves in constituting a municipal authority for London; that it would be just as easy, or nearly as easy, to do the one thing as to do the other; and, therefore, the Government determined to undertake the task of dealing with the Municipal Government of London. The Water Question had made that necessary, and he hoped that that water power would be one of the wheels which would move the Municipal Government of London. It would thus be found that those who opposed the Municipal Government of London were postponing the settlement of the question of the Water Supply, because the urgency of the one question constituted the urgency of the other. The hon. Member was afraid that the delay, which he himself regretted as much as the hon. Member did, though not exactly for the same reason, would cause a great increase in the cost of the property of the Water Companies. He did not think it would cost one farthing more. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the Water Companies had an indefeasible right to be bought up at any price to which they might raise their shares. For himself he had never admitted that view, but had condemned it. The Committee had, in express terms, absolutely repudiated that view, which, if recognized, would, they held, leave a population of 4,000,000 at the mercy of certain Trading Companies armed with the power of raising the price of one of the first necessaries of life to an extent practically without any limit—a situation from which the Companies seemed to think there was no escape, except by offering them such a price as they were willing to accept. That was the view which the Committee condemned. But he would point out that the Metropolis was not compelled to take the Water Companies at their own rate; on the contrary, there were two other courses open to it. One was to proceed by regulation of the powers of the existing Companies as the Gas Companies were regulated. Another was the introduction of an independent Water Supply; and the third was the purchase of the existing Companies. Those three courses were open to the water authority, and they would adopt that which, in their opinion, was the best, the cheapest, and the most expedient. Therefore, with every desire to have the question settled at the earliest possible moment, he was not desirous of coming to a hasty or premature conclusion on the subject. He was not speaking as a Minister of the Crown, nor was he going to express any official opinion; he spoke merely as a ratepayer. But if the ratepayers of London were going to pay £30,000,000 for that which it was possible to obtain for £15,000,000 or £20,000,000, he should be surprised. What was the measure of the price which a body capable of dealing with the Water Companies would have to pay? Clearly it had nothing to do with the question of how far the Water Companies could run up their shares; and, therefore, so far from these increases of price being the inevitable sum which must be paid for them, it must be regarded as a level from which the increased price had risen. This plan of estimating the value of the property of the Water Companies had been called confiscation. Whenever Gentlemen opposite did not agree with any plan they called it confiscation. Reference had been made to a Report of a Committee of that House, and various courses were open to the new authority in dealing with the Water Supply. The Report said that they might regulate the prices as was done with the gas supply, or they might introduce a fresh Water Supply—purchasing existing supplies, and the best of them. They might think that the Thames water was not good enough, and, therefore, might not use it at all, or they might think it sufficiently good as a supplementary supply and procure the main supply from elsewhere. Under these circumstances, he was not at all disposed to tell everyone to buy water shares. Sometimes it was a gentleman who gave them this advice, sometimes it was a letter in The Times, saying—"For Heaven's sake buy up the Water Companies, or it will be the worse for you." He was not in a hurry in the matter. The ratepayers of London had better look about them; and, when they were asked to give £33,000,000 for what originally cost £12,000,000, including the cost of a great amount of re-duplication of works, they ought to consider whether they could not get a much better thing for half the money. The ratepayers of London were not going to jump down the throats of the Water Companies whom the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets was supporting.

MR. RITCHIE

denied that he was supporting the Water Companies. His only interest was that of the ratepayers, and he had no interest whatever in any Water Company.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

accepted the disclaimer of the hon. Member, but he maintained that it was not the interest of the ratepayers to give £33,000,000 for works which only cost £12,000,000; and he hoped, as the hon. Member had the interest of the ratepayers at heart, he would support the Bill for establishing Municipal Government for London, in which the ratepayers would be properly represented.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he did not propose to pay the Water Companies £33,000,000; but, on the contrary, distinctly stated that the price proposed by them was too high.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

remarked that £33,000,000 was the sum fixed by Mr. Smith, and the hon. Member distinctly said that the price would go up. He would advise the hon. Member maturely to consider the interests of the ratepayers, and allow them, when properly represented, to deal with this matter themselves. It was for the representatives of the ratepayers to determine whether it was most expedient for them to deal with the present Companies, if the Companies were prepared to deal on reasonable terms, or, if not, whether they should seek for a new supply at a more reasonable rate.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he had no fault to find with the way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had alluded to the proceedings which had taken place two years ago; but he found fault with the observations into which he had been accidentally led in reference to the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets. Those observations were calculated to convey the impression that the hon. Member had brought forward this question in the interests of the Water Companies——

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I wish altogether to disclaim that.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

replied, that the intention had been disclaimed after the interruption of his hon. Friend; but the observations of the Home Secretary, if not explained, would have led the public to believe that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had brought the question forward in the interests of the Water Companies, instead of solely and simply in the interests of the ratepayers. He had also to find fault with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, because from the beginning to the end he had endeavoured to evade all responsibility in this matter, thus entirely differing from the view expressed a year previously by the Postmaster General, who strongly urged the Government to take up the question of the Water Supply, because if they did not nobody else would. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said they had tried an experiment, and that it had failed; but it had failed to a great extent because the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not put his shoulder to the wheel or undertake any responsibility. The estimate made by direction of the Home Office during the late Administration was intended to be considered by a Select Committee, and he had no intention of pressing this matter down the throats of the Metropolis; but if it had been examined in a different way—if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not approached the Water Companies in a spirit of hostility—he believed the Committee would have come to a satisfactory conclusion. It would have been possible to have brought the Water Companies to their bearings; and he had not the slightest doubt whatever that if the Home Secretary had taken a different line, London by this time would have had a cheap and proper supply of water, and that a vast saving would have been effected. The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had brought the greatest pressure to bear upon the Gas Companies, and in doing so he had taken a great responsibility upon himself. If the Home Secretary had used his authority in another way, he had not the slightest doubt that the Representatives of the City of London and the Metropolitan Board of Works would have taken a different view, and a different result would have been arrived at. He was not one of those who thought that the Water Companies should get all that they demanded; but, at the same time, he thought that the rights of great public bodies, who had been induced to invest an enormous capital in their works, should be respected. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had talked about the merits of a competitive scheme; but he had not been able to call a single witness in favour of that scheme before the Committee, and, therefore, they had to bear the burden of things being left as they were. Had a different policy been adopted, they might have had better water and a constant supply at a reduced expenditure. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that if they wanted better water they must have municipal reform, and admitted that he had kept this scheme back as a lever which was to enable him to pass a measure for the Municipal Government of London. He, however, felt satisfied that when the right hon. and learned Gentleman attempted to make use of that lever, he would find that he had been very much mistaken in his anticipations as to its efficacy. With reference to Mr. Smith, who had been so much abused for making the calculations which were laid before the Committee, he could only say that Mr. Smith was a most excellent public servant, and he tried to make the best bargnin he could for the ratepayers. He believed that Mr. Smith's death was hastened by that business, and he regretted he had not been better remunerated for his labours.

MR. FIRTH

said, there was not the least evidence before the Committee to induce the Committee to make their agreements with the Water Companies a basis of negotiation with a view to a reduction of terms, and Mr. Smith had been compelled to accept the condition that they must all stand or fall together. He entirely failed to see how the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) could have resulted in a satisfactory state of things for London. One of the great complaints against the present system was the want of a sufficient supply of water in case of fire. When a large fire occurred 2,000 gallons of water per minute were required to extinguish it, and that supply could not be obtained anywhere outside the City of London. In these circumstances, they would have gained nothing by purchasing the existing Water Supply system at an extravagant price. It had been alleged that he advocated a confiscation of the property of the Water Companies. He did nothing of the kind—what he advocated was the establishment of a new system of supply, which certainly did not mean confiscation. It now stood as the stereotyped opinion of the Committee of 1880 that there were only three courses open for dealing with the Water Companies—namely, purchase, regulation, or the initiation of a new supply. He wished to remind hon. Gentlemen opposite of a fact which they seemed to ignore—that the shares of the Water Companies would be worth from £6,000,000 to £10,000,000 less if the late Administration had never touched the question at all. The prospect of the shares being turned into the best security that this country could give forced the shares into the hands of people who had succeeded in keeping them up, and, in all sorts of ways, in endeavouring to influence the public mind. With respect to the statement that had been made earlier in the debate—that it would be better to deal with the question on the lines of a Water Trust than on the lines of a new municipal body—the difficulties in the way of a water trust were enormous. He did not think that human ingenuity could construct a Water Trust, which would have to be elected or selected, that would have the confidence of the whole of London. Whatever the solution of this question was to be, he trusted that it might be found in giving a central representative authority control not merely of the Water Supply, but also the providing of the money from which, ultimately, the supply must come.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he was not surprised that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Firth) showed such a preference for the municipal scheme of the Home Secretary. He (Mr. W. H. Smith) wished to remind the House that in 1880 the Home Secretary laid before the Committee certain proposals, one of which was that, in the absence of a single municipal body, a water authority of a representative character should be constituted, and that a Bill be introduced by the Government on this subject. The right hon. and learned Gentleman committed himself absolutely to the constitution of the water authority in the absence of a Municipal Government; fully contemplating the impossibility of constituting a municipal authority for the whole of London within a reasonable period—probably not entertaining any expectations that he was likely to undertake a duty of such enormous magnitude.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he had stated that it was intended to deal with the question.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, the matter was laughed at rather as a joke; and he thought, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman stated that he hoped to pass the Bill during the Session, he must have had more than a shade of a doubt on the point. But what he complained of was that the Government had not carried out their own recommendations. They had said that this thing ought to be done by a water authority, and they had not taken any steps to create that authority. Two years had passed since the Government made that recommendation. Now they said that a Bill for the Municipal Government of London was to be introduced, and that if it passed the municipal authority might next year take steps to provide a Water Supply for London. If that course had been pursued by any other Government, hon. Members would have charged them with delaying the reform to a very unreasonable time. This was a question which did not brook delay. The Water Companies had recently put in force powers which they believed they possessed under the Metropolis Valuation Act of 1869 to increase the water rates very largely indeed. He did not express any opinion as to whether the Water Companies had these powers or not; but they claimed that they had, and the water rates were being raised in different parts of the Metropolis. This was an additional reason why the matter should be dealt with by the Government, and dealt with on the lines that were suggested by the Home Secretary, and which were unanimously the views of the Committee which had been appointed at that time. He considered that it was not the duty of the Government to make a bargain with the Water Companies, and that it was quite reasonable to leave that with the Water Trust; but to postpone the matter, as was now proposed, only meant that a decision upon the question would never be come to. If a municipal authority was constructed for the whole of London that authority might hesitate before it ventured to undertake to supply water for London, and might say that, before they entered into a matter that might involve £30,000,000, and which involved the question as to whether they should look for a now supply or purchase the existing Companies, that they must consider the question very carefully, and, in considering it, must bear in mind that they had other and important duties to discharge. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must bear the whole responsibility. He could not see how the right hon. and learned Gentleman could reconcile to himself his sense of public duty in allowing two years to elapse without introducing a Bill on this subject.

MR. MACFARLANE

wished to call the attention of the House away from the subject then under discussion, and to remind it of a very peculiar incident which took place at 8 o'clock last night. He was told that the "count out" which occurred at that hour astonished the whole Cabinet, and it certainly had a bewildering effect upon himself. It had necessitated the loss of three or four hours to-day, because, had the House continued to sit till the usual hour last night, the debate on the Irish Question might have been finished then. The speeches made the previous afternoon relieved him from all necessity of going into the general question. He would confine himself to making a few remarks, which would come better out of his mouth than out of the mouth of an Irishman. He was afraid that Her Majesty's Government too often took for granted that everything said from the Irish side of the House was inspired by extremes Nationalist feeling. Such a feeling could not be imputed to him. He was an impartial observer of the events that had been taking place; nevertheless, he was reluctantly and with sorrow compelled to condemn the policy of Her Majesty's Government in Ireland. He willingly admitted the Government had had serious difficulties to contend with; but a number of those difficulties during the past year had been of their own creation. Beginning with coercion, they had since multiplied exceedingly. He would not pursue this subject, because he thought it had been already proved that crime in Ireland increased under coercion. He had a firm belief in the good intentions of Her Majesty's Government, and the mistakes they had made were due, he believed, to their ignorance of the feelings and sentiments of the Irish people. Some nights ago the Prime Minister went so far as to express regret that Irishmen had not a larger share in the management of their own affairs. Without purposing to enter on the question of Home Rule, he must ask, if the Prime Minister really regretted that state of things, why was it there were not now any Irishmen in high Office in the Government of the country? Why was there no Irishman in the Cabinet? Why was the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant almost invariably an Englishman? Why was the Lord Lieutenant himself almost invariably an Englishman? Justice was not done to the Irish in this respect. He ventured to think there was not an hon. Member in the House, and very few out of it, who would not concur with him in saying that if the Government of that day had had the courage, instead of putting O'Connell in prison, to put him in the Cabinet, the condition of things in Ireland would now be very different indeed. For Irishmen there was nothing but the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table, and some of those crumbs were very small. Popular opinions in Ireland were clearly a bar to promotion. The holding of popular opinions, or even of Radical or Democratic opinions, in England had not proved any bar to promotion to high Office. If any hon. Member would run his eye along the Front Treasury Bench when it was fully occupied, he would observe a remarkable corroboration of this statement. Why was not the same "soothing syrup" applied to Ireland? The enemies of those right hon. Gentlemen said, though he would not say that he believed the statement, that the silk stockings of a Court dress, when put upon Radical legs, had an effect somewhat similar to hobbles upon horses. He was sure it had some effect upon those people, though he would not make the charge which others made. On this question he was speaking, not as an Irishman, but as a Scotchman, and as a spectator of events. As such, he had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had acted with good intentions. [Mr. BIGGAR: Oh, oh!] The hon. Member for Cavan did not appear to be a believer in good intentions; but he (Mr. Macfarlane) believed that no man ever occupied the position of Chief Secretary who wished better to the people of Ireland than the right hon. Gentleman, or who had done more wrong. It was not just to blame the right hon. Gentleman personally. A new Chief Secretary put in Dublin Castle was like a new dial put upon an old clock. A new dial would not make the clock keep good time while the machinery was bad. The great defect of the Government clock was that it was always made to keep English time. The Land Act had been made, and he thought unjustly, the subject of much denunciation. Though hon. Members from Ireland behind him would not concur with him, he considered it one of the greatest measures ever passed for the Irish people. Still, it was not wide or large enough. It left out in the cold 100,000 leaseholders. The ignorance of Members of the Government in high places was the main cause of their mistakes in policy, and in that House and the country there was too much disregard of Irish feelings and sentiments. Persons trampled upon those feelings without the slightest consideration, and things which might in themselves be necessary were done in such an offensive way as to add very materially to the exasperation of the people of Ireland. One instance of this was the incident which occurred in the Guildhall in October last. People of all shades of political opinion were invited to the Guildhall to do honour to a statesman for whom he had the highest admiration. He went there cordially and willingly to assist in honouring the right hon. Gentleman; but, like a great many others, he was led into what turned out to be a political demonstration. Everybody must recollect that upon that occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister announced, in a most melodramatic manner, the arrest of the hon. Member for the City of Cork. He witnessed that demonstration. He could not help it. A war dance was performed on the occasion by the City dignitaries in red and blue. He thought it a very improper exhibition. Even if the people held that the arrest of Mr. Parnell was a necessity, it was not a matter for such a display. It was received as if it were the announcement of a great British victory. The whole British power was apparently strained to accomplish the arrest of one man, and when it was accomplished the City dignitaries engaged in a war dance. He wondered would it be the last dance of the City dignitaries to the piping of the right hon. Gentleman. He was almost inclined to think it would. He had the highest respect for the talent, character, and position of the right hon. Gentleman; but the right hon. Gentleman ought not to have, he would not say betrayed, but led other people into a false position on an occasion which was solely intended to do him honour. With regard to the Chief Secretary, he thought they could not see the end of the war which he had entered upon against the Irish people. The more people he arrested the greater would be the number of disloyal people thereby created in Ireland, and certainly there was no loyalty to spare in Ireland. He regretted that this should be so. Every man who was put into prison, especially every innocent man, and many such had been arrested, came out a more disloyal, or at least a less loyal man than when he was arrested. Loyalty in Ireland had survived long starvation; but it was dying fast of inanition. This was much to be regretted. He could say so, because he belonged to a loyal country, and the remarks he had made were not words which an Irish mouth would utter.

MR. MACARTNEY

was glad to say that loyalty was not extinct in Ireland, though in some quarters it might be a diminishing quantity. With regard to the Land Commission, no one would suppose that he was prepared to criticize the acts of that body with anything like acrimonious severity, seeing that he was one of those who on many occasions supported the Government in passing the Land Act, and on one or two occasions he found himself almost the only one in the Lobby with them. But there was a great difference between approving of an enactment and approving of the mode in which it was carried out. In the first place, it was not to be expected that the Chief Judge of the Court at the opening would have made a long oration instead of proceeding with the business of the Court. In the beginning of that speech, the Judge mentioned that the expenses of the Court would be very small, in as much as the only charge imposed by the Government was 1s. upon claims for reduction of rent, and 1s. upon notices of claim for appeal. It was very much to be regretted that he did not extend his investigations further, or recollect that there was a third 1s. upon the voluntary agreements between landlord and tenant. He mentioned that to show the difficulty that had arisen in the carrying out of the measure in consequence of the action of the Stamp Office. When a voluntary agreement was made—though he failed to see how that could be voluntary in which one party had only Hobson's choice—the Stamp Office required that a graduated stamp should be used as though the instrument were a lease and not an agreement. Now, it was not a lease at all, and how it could be considered in the light of a lease he could not understand. He thought that if the Prime Minister looked into the question, and exercised the influence over the Stamp Office which he possessed as Head of the Government, that question ought no longer to be mooted. The next point to which he wished to call attention was the absence of anything like comprehensive instructions from the Chief Commissioners or the Government to the Sub-Commissioners when they began their campaign in Ireland. It did not appear that there was any calling together of these Sub-Commissioners, comparing of notes, or laying down of rules which were to govern them in the deciding of the cases which came before them—so much so, that the greatest difference of opinion seemed to exist between the Sub-Commissioners in different parts of Ireland. One of them, who was formerly a Member of the House (Mr. M'Carthy), had said, unless he was completely misreported, that he did not care a pinch of snuff about the opinion or evidence of any land valuator whatever, whether on the part of the tenant or the landlord. ["No, no!"] Well, it was stated in the report of his speech; another, in the North of Ireland, had said that he could not decide fairly unless evidence was produced by the landlord as well as the tenant; and a third had felt bound to decide the case on the tenant's evidence, because no valuator had appeared on the part of the landlord. But as for the absence or presence of valuators, most hon. Members knew that it was not always an easy matter to secure their services. That, at least, had been his own experience in County Down, where a valuator had practically been compelled to retire by the ill-will, if not the actual threats, of the tenants. Then came the question of the county cess. In most of the cases decided in the North of Ireland, the Commissioners seemed at first to think that they had authority to settle whether in the new arrangement between landlord and tenant the county cess should be paid as heretofore by the tenant, or whether half of it should be charged on the landlord. That was their practice at the beginning of their sittings, and it was not till the Chief Commissioners had gone to Belfast that the point was decided. The Sub-Commissioners not only imposed half the county cess on the landlord, but in nearly every case gave the tenant his costs. The conduct of the landlords had been severely criticized because they had dared to stand up in self-defence. He was not concerned to defend rack-renting; but the great majority of the Irish landlords had been acquitted both by the Bessborough Commission and by the Prime Minister, and it was hard that they should be at once execrated and impoverished. The "no rent" movement, by the way, had recently been illustrated in an entertaining manner, for the rents of the Dublin Corporation had declined so considerably in the course of the last year that the recently increased salary of the Lord Mayor would probably have to be reduced to its original amount. The resolution to increase the salary had been passed for the purpose of enabling the Corporation to appoint to the office of Chief Magistrate gentlemen who had not sufficient means to pay its expenses. He might also mention that the Lord Mayor, in the exercise of a wise economy, had not given the usual banquet, but had decided to contribute the money that would have been spent upon it for the purposes of a Joint Stock Company to start the Exhibition in Ireland, which was to be held for the purpose of proving that the people of Ireland were sufficiently disloyal to prefer an Exhibition which was not patronized by Her Most Gracious Majesty to one in which the name of Her Majesty appeared at the head of those who concurred in it. He would not discuss the good taste of that. Another hon. Member (Mr. Sexton), who spoke last night with such consummate ability that he seemed to have completely dumbfounded the Ministry, said in his speech which he made previously during the course of this debate that his hon. Friend (Mr. Ewart) was one of the English garrison, a colony alien to the soil and people of Ireland, which thrived on the discontent and misery of Ireland. Was it true of most of the landlords of Ireland that they were a colony alien to the soil? It was just as true of a great part of the inhabitants who were tenants; and if they searched among the names of some of the great patriots who threw this accusation in their face, he thought it would be found that they sounded much more Saxon than Hibernian. The accusation made was that this colony thrived upon the discontent and misery of Ireland. Who was it that thrived on the discontent and misery of Ireland? The agitators. He believed that those gentlemen thrived upon the discontent and misery of Ireland; but he doubted very much whether the landlords during the last three years had thriven very much upon it. He begged leave to inform these gentlemen that they were the English garrison—that was, they were the garrison that intended to hold by the Union with Great Britain. On former occasions they had shown that they were not a despicable garrison when it came to struggle with force of arms. He hoped it would not come so again; but, if it did, these gentlemen would find it was not so easy to uproot them out of the soil as they seemed to think. Before sitting down he wished to refer to the extraordinary statement the Prime Minister had made the other evening about the administration of Irish affairs. The right hon. Gentleman had said, with respect to the point which had been alluded to by the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. P. J. Smyth), that if Members who advocated a repeal of the Union would specify distinctly what the subjects were which an Irish Parliament might exclusively handle, and would distinguish them with sufficient clearness and precision from those which should be left to the Imperial Parliament, then they could, perhaps, come before Parliament with a good case, and might receive consideration. When the right hon. Gentleman went so far as to say that, if the demand was only formulated in a particular manner, he might look at it differently, he was bringing matters to a rather dangerous crisis; and it was to be hoped that before the present debate ended the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to giving an explanation of his words, if the view he (Mr. Macartney) had taken of them was inaccurate. He wished to refer to a declaration made by the Chief Secretary, for whom he had the deepest respect. [Mr. BIGGAR: Hear, hear!] He believed there was not a single subject on which he agreed with the hon. Member for Cavan. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Government were not sufficiently well acquainted with the state of Ireland for several months. If so, they must have been the only people who did not appreciate the true state of the case. The other day he happened to be talking to a large landed proprietor, who said that, in December, 1880, he sent a detailed statement of the outrages and other occurrences on his own property to both the Prime Minister and his Predecessor; and from the latter—whose loss the Conservatives, at least, so greatly deplored—he received the following reply:—

"Hughenden Manor, Dec. 16, 1880.

"Dear Sir,—I return to you the papers which you did me the honour to submit to me. I hare read them with the deepest interest and equal indignation. The state of Ireland is amazing, but not so astounding as that of England, which can witness in silence the first revolution which unblushingly confesses that its object is plunder.

"I have the honour to be, dear Sir,

Faithfully yours,

"BEACONSFIELD."

That seemed to him to be a graphic description of what was going on at the time—a revolution which unblushingly confessed that its object was plunder. This confession was made by the hon. Member who made the principal speech of Tuesday evening, and who daringly announced that he adopted the doctrine of "no rent." When such declarations were made, and crime and outrages were committed, there was no excuse for not adopting the strongest measures.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, he wished to give an explanation as to something that had fallen from the hon. Member who had just addressed the House, which it was very necessary should be explained. The hon. Member had referred to a supposed dictum of Mr. Commissioner MacCarthy, who was well known in that House as formerly Member for Mallow; and he had the authority of that Commissioner to state that he was wholly misunderstood and misrepresented in what he had said. Mr. Commissioner MacCarthy found at the Court over which he presided many amateur land valuators, who presented themselves especially on the part of the tenants, and whose opinions were really of no value at all. In reference to these men, the Commissioner had said that his Colleagues were men of great agricultural experience, and that they would visit the lands and make their own valuations. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to pay, and was not entitled to pay, much attention to those amateur valuators. The Commissioner did not use the word "amateur;" but he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) knew personally that the tenants of Ireland had been greatly imposed upon by persons going about and. suggesting that they should be made valuators of their farms. He knew that in one part of Ireland two persons had gone about from tenant to tenant, and suggested that they should be paid 1s. in the pound for valuing, merely stating—"If your farm is so much, I will get it for you for so much." It was in reference to this that Mr. MacCarthy had assured the tenants that their interests would not be lost sight of. Mr. MacCarthy did not consider himself a practical agriculturist, and did not himself usually go on to the lands; but his two Colleagues were, to his (Mr. Mitchell Henry's) knowledge, as good judges of land as any to be found in Ireland.

MR. DAWSON

said, he also wished to make a personal explanation. The House had been led to understand that he had induced the Corporation of Dublin to sacrifice its dignity, and had refused to give the usual banquet to the Viceroy from motives of economy. He had to say that when he was offered the high office which he now held, and which he had never sought or canvassed for, he did not pretend to be rich when he was not. He did not, like Irish landlords, stand in a false position, but candidly stated the circumstances of his case; and, having done so, the Corporation unanimously forced the office upon him. That was error number one. In regard to error number two, the rental of the Dublin Corporation was not falling back. The rental was increasing. The Corporation tenants were accustomed to pay a year's rent in advance; and it was decided that the Corporation ought not to press for the year's arrears, but that it should go on the current year. The rental of the Corporation was increasing every day, and the fund upon which rested the increase of salary was largely and hourly increasing. With regard to the charge that he was disloyal in not giving the usual banquet to the Viceroy, how could he meet him, when every man on the fringe of Castle influence had ''Boycotted" the Chief Magistrate of the City of Dublin? Was he to be there merely for giving entertainments and banquets for the people of the Castle, and not for the people of Dublin, and was he, in the present state of feeling, to ask them to come to a public banquet? He confessed he could not do so with comfort to himself or comfort to them. He therefore thought that the money he had contributed ought to be given for the benefit of Ireland rather than for the purpose of giving banquets. The accounts of the Dublin Corporation were properly audited, not like the accounts of the Corporation of this City, where, last year, £30,000 was lost and unaccounted for. No Corporation in the country could stand the test of financial examination so well as theirs could. With regard to the question of the Exhibition, which the hon. Member alluded to as having been promoted by disloyalty, he thought he was entitled to explain the subject.

MR. SPEAKER

pointed out that the right hon. Member had been permitted, by the indulgence of the House, to make a personal explanation, and that the Address to the Crown was the Question before the House.

MR. DAWSON

said, he considered that, having been charged with disloyalty, it was surely necessary that he should clear himself of such an imputation. He utterly repudiated such a charge.

MR. MACARTNEY

denied that he stated the right hon. Gentleman was disloyal. He merely mentioned that he subscribed a sum of money towards an Exhibition, which was started for the purpose of showing that the people of Ireland could have an Exhibition without having the patronage of Her Majesty.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

said, that it would be an evil day for Ireland when one in the position of the Lord Mayor of Dublin failed to express publicly his political opinion. He heard with regret the statement of the Lord Mayor of Dublin that he had been "Boycotted" by those who formed "the fringe of the Castle." He did not know whether the right hon. Member included him in that category; but he would assure him that he had never "Boycotted" him. If the Lord Mayor had honoured him with an invitation, he should have been happy to respond to it. He was glad to assure the House that if the Lord Mayor had "Boycotted'' the Viceroy, he had not been "Boycotted" by the Viceroy, because, being one of that "outside fringe" who was sometimes at Dublin Castle, he had the honour, when last there, to meet the Lord Mayor of Dublin, and not only the Lord Mayor, but also the Lady Mayoress, who was a public character, and had been brought to the notice of that House on a memorable occasion, in the course of a memorable speech. There was, therefore, no reciprocity in this instance, for the Representative of the Queen had not "Boycotted" the Lord Mayor of Dublin, though the Lord Mayor of Dublin seemed to have "Boycotted" the Representative of the Queen. He was afraid that he should not be able to conclude his observations in the short time that was left. ["Oh, oh."] Hon. Gentlemen who cried "Oh, oh!" should recollect that, besides all the other speeches on the other side, one speech delivered on the previous night had occupied three hours, and that no time was left to him to reply. [An hon. MEMBER: You will have an opportunity.] He hoped he would have an opportunity, and he should avail himself of it. The hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney), who had blamed the Land Commissioners, was, he believed, mistaken altogether as to the duty of the Government in relation to the functions of a judicial body. He understood the hon. Member to say that the Government should instruct the Sub-Commissioners. [Mr. MACARTNEY: Or the Land Commission.] Such a doctrine as that—namely, that the Government or the Land Commission should instruct a judicial body how to discharge their functions—was untenable. The Sub-Commissions were undoubtedly judicial bodies. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Oh!] Perhaps the noble Lord was wiser than himself in the matter. It was inadmissible that the Government should interfere with the Sub-Commissioners in the discharge of their judicial duties, or that a Superior Court should beforehand instruct an inferior one how they were to deal with the cases which should come before them, and what decisions they were to give. The hon. Member was not well-founded, therefore, in his strictures on the administration of the Land Act. There was one point, however, raised by that hon. Gentleman which he had now heard for the first time, and into which he should make it his business to inquire. It was in connection with the additional stamp which he understood the hon. Member to state was required on the agreements.

MR. MACARTNEY

I said it was proposed to impose an additional stamp.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

said, if that were all it was not worth considering. Such a decision as that referred to by the hon. Member in reference to the county cess had certainly been given; but it was speedily corrected. The Sub-Commissioners had no jurisdiction so to deal with the county cess. The hon. Member had also referred to the reduction in rents. It was quite impossible at present to ascertain the general result upon rents, the Land Act having been in force but so short a time. What cases was it naturally to be expected should be first brought before the Courts? At the time of the passing of the Act a great many tenants were suffering from rack-renting, and the cases of rack-rental were naturally the first likely to come before the Courts. Of course, in such eases a reduction had been made; but one could not argue from this that a large reduction in rents would generally be made. It was not merely by the Land Commissioners, and not merely in the case of small proprietors, not merely on poor and mountainous districts, that reductions, and considerable reductions, had been made. He would refer the House to a case in which he had taken a particular interest, inasmuch as he knew the locality and also the Judge who decided the case, who was not a Land Commissioner or a Sub-Commissioner—and here was the case, which would be found reported in the newspapers. The Recorder of Cork heard a case at Mallow, in which the Earl of Egmont sought to have a fair rent fixed on his tenant. This property was only a short distance from the town of Mallow. The landlord was a wealthy landlord in England and Ireland; and, so far from this being a case in which the tenant brought the landlord into Court, it was a case in which the landlord brought the tenant into Court. The Judge was the County Court Judge. The rent was £78. The landlord offered the tenant the farm at a rent of £66, in place of £78. The tenant declined to pay that, and would not give more than £50. The landlord's valuators valued the land at £58—that was £20 less than the rent which was payable, £8 less than the landlord offered, and £8 more than the tenant proposed to pay. The Judge adjudicated in that case, and fixed the fair rent at £56. That Judge was the County Court Judge; a Conservative of the truest blue; a scion, he believed, of the noble house of Abercorn. He merely mentioned that to show that the Judge had no partizan views; he was a perfectly honest man, a lawyer of the highest ability, and a gentleman of whose acquaintance, which he had enjoyed for many years, he was most justly proud; and if he wanted—which he did not want—a corroboration of the opinion he had ventured to express of that just and upright Judge, he could appeal to the Attorney General under the late Administration. What conclusion, in view of this decision, could the House be asked to draw from the fact that any Commissioner or Sub-Commisioner had largely reduced rent on the application of the tenants? He would then turn to a Sub-Commission which had been the subject of much stricture. It was presided over by a lawyer of ability. Several cases were heard and decided by it in Tipperary in December, in which a fair rent was fixed between the tenants and the proprietor, who was a relative of a distinguished Member of that House. After the rent had been reduced, the landlord stated that— He could not, of course, express satisfaction at the reduction made in the rental; but the decision showed the great care and discrimination that had been exhibited by the Commissioners. That was the opinion of a member of the landlord class, who had had his rents reduced by the Sub-Commission.

And it being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.