Commons Sitting of 11 May 1885

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [May 7] reported.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Second Reading—Greenwich and Millwall Subway.*
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Commons Regulation (Ashdown Forest) Provisional Order *; Commons Regulation (Drumburgh) Provisional Order*; Inclosure (Llanybyther) Provisional Order.*
Second Reading—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) (No. 2) * [155]; Consolidated Fund (No. 3).
Third Reading—-Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders * [123]; Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) [134], and passed; East India Unclaimed Stocks [125], [House counted out],

MOTIONS.
  COMMONS REGULATION (ASHDOWN FOREST) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER, Bill to confirm the Provisional Order for the Regulation of Ashdown Forest, situate in the Parishes of East Grinstead, Hartfield, Withyham, Baxted, Maresfield, and Fletching, in the County of Sussex, in pursuance of a Report of the Land Commissioners for England, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER and Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT.
  COMMONS REGULATION (DRUMBURGH) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER, Bill to confirm the Provisional Order for the Regulation of Drumburgh Common and Moss, situate in the Township of Drumburgh, in the parish of Bowness, in the County of Cumberland, in pursuance of a Report of the Land Commissioners for England, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER and Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT.
  INCLOSURE (LLANYBYTHER) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER, Bill to confirm the Provisional Order for the Inclosure of Llanybyther Common, situate in the Parish of Llanybyther, in pursuance of a Report of the Land Commissioners for England, ordered to he brought in by Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER and Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT.
QUESTIONS.

  ARMY—THE BRIGADE OF GUARDS.
  MR. GABBETTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he could advise the augmentation of the Brigade of Guards by the addition of a regiment to be called the "Irish Guards," England and Scotland being already represented by the Grenadier, Coldstream, and Scots Guards?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONin reply, said, that several questions had been under consideration affecting the establishment of the regiments of the Guards. No official decision had yet been come to as to what would be done, nor would be till next year's Estimates were under consideration. At that time the suggestion would be considered; but he was not at present able to say whether it would be possible to take a different view on the Question of the hon. Gentleman from that taken by several of his Predecessors.

  BURIALS—NONCONFORMIST BURIAL AT HOLMBEACH.
  MR. RUSTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that at the recent burial with a Nonconformist service of Mr. M. E. Peet, a parishioner of Holmbeach, after a fee had been paid for the tolling of the bell, and it had been tolled for several minutes, the Rev. J. Hemmans, the vicar, ordered the ringing to be stopped; whether this was done without the knowledge of the churchwardens, who have expressed regret at the occurrence; whether the vicar has stated that he has acted in accordance with a resolution of several of the neighbouring clergy; whether an application to the Bishop of Lincoln, to use his influence to prevent the recurrence of such a proceeding, has been ineffectual; and, whether the Government will take any steps to protect parishioners in connection with the burial of the dead?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, that although he had no knowledge of this matter he had received a letter respecting it. If the facts were as stated by the hon. Member, all he could say was that they were deplorable, and very much to be condemned; but it was not a matter in which he had any authority to interfere.

POOR LAW (IRELAND)—DONEGAL WORKHOUSE—CATHOLIC ASSISTANT TEACHER.
MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to the decision arrived at by the majority of the Donegal Guardians, at their meeting on the 2nd instant, refusing the appointment of a Catholic assistant teacher for the workhouse; whether he is aware that the Protestant majority of the same Board have, for the past two years, repeatedly refused the appointment of any Catholic teacher for the spiritual instruction and training of the Catholic children; whether 90 per cent of the inmates are Catholics, and not even one Catholic official allowed in the house; whether, when there was a vacancy for schoolmistress, the Catholic chaplain applied to the Guardians to have a Catholic teacher appointed, on the ground that almost all the pauper children were Catholics and all the officials Protestants, there being no one to teach the children their prayers or catechism; whether, when the application for a Catholic teacher was refused, the chaplain applied for a catechist for the Catholic children, and whether this appointment also was refused repeatedly by the Protestant Guardians; whether the Local Government Board and the late Chief Secretary, Mr. Trevelyan, approved of the applications of the Catholic chaplain, and termed them "reasonable;" whether, "as a settlement of the question," the late Chief Secretary and the Local Government Board suggested that a Catholic assistant teacher should be appointed, an arrangement they thought "that would satisfy all parties;" whether, previous to their last refusal to appoint a Catholic assistant teacher, the Protestant Guardians have several times already rejected the Motion; whether, in consequence of the action of the Protestant Guardians, and their hostile attitude to Catholic claims

123
in respect of the workhouse paupers, the parish priest, the Very Rev. Hugh M'Fadden, resigned the chaplaincy of the workhouse; whether, inconsequence, the Donegal Workhouse is without a Catholic chaplain for two years, and the great majority of the Catholic inmates deprived of Divine Service on Sundays and holidays, and the ministrations of their religion at Easter and other times of the year, only comparatively few being able to attend the church in Donegal town; whether the Local Government Board will allow this state of things to be continued, and permit such spiritual destitution to exist in the Donegal Workhouse, and whether a remedy will be provided by setting aside the present Board, and appointing Vice-Guardians; and, whether it is the fact that the present teacher of the workhouse, whom the Protestant Guardians persisted in appointing, was found on examination by the National Board two years successively to be incompetent for his position?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Beyond the fact that the Guardians have again passed a resolution declining to appoint an assistant teacher, there is nothing new in the position of this case, which has been the subject of repeated Questions. The views and powers of the Local Government Board in the matter have been frequently explained, and I can add nothing to the answers already given.
MR. HEALY: Would the Government consider the propriety of dissolving the Board of Guardians for constantly and repeatedly refusing to carry out the orders of the Local Government Board?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think the hon. Member will find that, too, was answered in reply to the Questions referred to.
MR. HEALY: No; it was not. I asked the Question 20 times, and it was not answered.

THE ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND.
MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the Government will consider the advisability of granting additional powers to the Senate of the Royal University, with a view to facilitating the obtaining of degrees by medical men qualified be-
124
fore the passing of the Royal University Act?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: A power such as that referred to was granted to the Senate in their original charter, but lasting for three years only. It expired in November last, and the Senate have not sought to have it renewed. There was an obvious reason for giving it in the first instance which does not now hold good, and I am not aware of any intention to revive it.

WAYS AND MEANS—THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT—THE SPIRIT DUTIES.
MR. H. S. NORTHCOTEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he has considered the probability that the proposed increase of the Spirit Duties will lead to the increased consumption of newly distilled spirit of a quality likely to be deleterious to the health of the consumer; and, if he can see his way to propose such a graduated increase on spirits as will favour the consumption of those over twelve months in bond?
MR. HIBBERT: This is a point which has already been considered. Experience shows that a larger portion of matured whisky is consumed now than previous to 1860, in spite of the increase of duties; and looking to the present facilities for bonding, and the probable improvement in the consumer's taste, there seems no reason to fear that this increased proportion will not be maintained. The suggested sliding scale is considered by the Revenue Authorities to be impracticable. Apart from the action of the consumers, the only feasible way of securing what we all desire—a check on the consumption of new and unwholesome spirits—seems to be that all spirits should be required to be kept in bond for the period of at least a year. This is hardly a Revenue question; but I may observe that the adoption of such a plan would throw a very heavy burden on the several branches of the spirit trade, who would doubtless have a good deal to say on the subject.

LAW AND JUSTICE (SCOTLAND)—DISCHARGED PRISONERS.
MR. J. W. BARCLAYasked the Lord Advocate, Whether, in the case of persons apprehended on suspicion, taken to prisons, often, since the number of

125
prisons was reduced, a long distance from their home, and subsequently liberated without trial, presumably innocent, any regulation exists for assisting them if impecunious to return home?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): The Prisons Commissioners are empowered by Act of Parliament, the 36th section of the Prisons Act, 1877, to provide a prisoner "with the means of returning to his home by causing his fare to be paid by railway, or in any other convenient manner." When a prisoner is taken to a distant prison and discharged without being brought up for trial, his railway fare to his home or the place from which he was brought is in practice paid under the authority of this enactment.

HARBOUR ACCOMMODATION—PUBLIC WORKS LOAN COMMISSIONERS.
MR. MARJORIBANKSasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he can now state the means Government have resolved on as the best way of assisting harbour works by a judicious system of loans; whether the grant of such loans is intended to be dependent on the security which localities applying for them are able to offer rather than on the special suitability with regard to site and other considerations which any given locality may present; whether it is intended to leave to the decision of the Public Works Loan Commissioners the policy of the construction of a harbour at any given place, as well as the adequacy of the security which is offered for a loan; and, whether he will not recommend the appointment of a small Royal Commission, consisting of experts (for instance, a distinguished naval officer and two engineers of eminence), to complete the work of the Select Committee on Harbour Accommodation by reporting, after thorough local inquiry: (1) as to the correctness of the conclusions arrived at by the Select Committee as to the districts in which additional harbour accommodation is most urgently needed; (2) what are the places within such districts where the grant of public money by way of loan for harbour works would be productive of the greatest amount of public advantage?
MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The Government proposed to assist harbour works
126
as follows:—By reducing the rate of interest on loans. The Treasury have agreed to the following rates—namely, for a loan of thirty years with collateral security, three and a-quarter per cent; for a loan for forty years, three and a-half per cent; and for a loan for fifty years, three and three-quarters per cent. That is in every case a half per cent less than the present rate of interest. Secondly, by enabling Local Authorities, including the Governing Bodies of neighbouring counties or districts, to guarantee the security. The Government are of opinion that the repayment should be a fixed annuity, instead of a varying sum, consisting of instalments of principal with interest on the sum remaining due. The effect of that will be to lessen the charge in the earlier years of the loan. The Government are also of opinion that the decision on the policy of making a loan for constructing harbours should rest with the Board of Trade, leaving the consideration of the adequacy of the security to the Public Works Loan Commissioners. The Government do not propose to make any absolute grants of public money for harbours; but neither do they propose to limit the advance of public money in the shape of loans by selecting only a few special sites as suitable for the purpose. It will not, therefore, be necessary to appoint a Committee to perform this duty. Any place which fulfils the requisite conditions will be able to apply, and an inquiry would then take place as to such application.
MR. W. J. CORBETasked if the new conditions as to loans for harbours would apply to Ireland?
MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly.

EGYPT-COLONEL DE COETLOGON.
MR. MARUMasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, when Colonel de Coetlogon was appointed on the staff of Hicks Pasha it was stipulated that he should receive six months pay as a gratuity; whether he was placed in command of Khartoum by Hicks Pasha, and whether he did defend and take charge of that town till the arrival of General Gordon; whether General Gordon by the power vested in him raised Colonel de Coetlogon to the rank of Pasha, and ordered him to be paid £100 monthly; whether General Gordon requested the Egyptian

127
authorities to confirm the rank of Pasha, and to further reward Colonel de Coetlogon by giving him employment and certain decorations; whether it is true that the Egyptian Government have declined to confirm the rank of Pasha, or to bestow upon Colonel de Coetlogon any decorations, or to give him the six months gratuity promised; and, whether they have offered him employment inferior to that which he had when he first left for the Soudan?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Her Majesty's Agent and Consul General at Cairo has been requested to report upon this case, to which the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called by Colonel de Coetlogon. The reply has not yet been received.

ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE ROYAL IRISH RIFLES—DISTURBANCE AT DOWNPATRICK.
MR. SEXTONasked the Secretary of State for War, with regard to complaints from Downpatrick on the subject of the billeting of men of the 5th Battalion in a number of houses in the town, Whether he is aware that, on the night of the 30th ult., a number of men, about forty, of the Battalion, accompanied by a few privates of the Devonshire Regiment, marched through the town yelling, and making use of provocative party cries, breaking the windows of houses occupied by Catholics along the line of route, and finally rushing into the licensed premises of Mr. John Gilmore, a Catholic, made a deadly attack with their waist-belts on the waiters and other persons there, knocked down and trampled on some persons, and broke the glass of the windows before retiring; whether the commander, Colonel Waring, has recently taken part as a prominent member of the Orange Society in party demonstrations in the North of Ireland; and, what steps will now be taken to re-establish Military discipline in the 5th Battalion?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The training of the 5th Battalion Royal Irish Rifles has not yet commenced; but the recruits have been up at Downpatrick for preliminary drill. They are stated generally to have behaved well. I have called for, but have not yet received, detailed Reports of the events on the 30th of April; but I have had telegrams on the subject, in which the
128
particular outrages cited in the Question are categorically denied. It appears that on the previous day two civilians had been arrested by the police for unprovoked assault on the soldiers and militiamen. Hence, I have no doubt, arose ill-feeling between the civilian and military elements. As to what followed, I will read the telegram from the General Officer commanding at Belfast:—
"About 8.30 evening of the 30th some Militia and men of Devonshire Regiment walking about town were hooted by civilians, who used threatening, abusive, and seditious language. Shortly afterwards, by request of police, extra picket was despatched, but everyone had rapidly disappeared. All present at 8.45 roll call. During evening pickets were frequently abused by civilians. There was no disorderly marching by soldiers or Militia, nor were party cries raised by them; no windows appear to have been broken, nor can Gilmore identify anybody, though facilities offered him to do so. It is known that Colonel Waring recently attended Orange meetings. Pickets patrol town nightly. Militia encamped now one mile from town."
From this it would appear that the information regarding the attendance of Colonel Waring at Orange meetings is contradictory.
MR. HEALY: It is notorious.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: As I have stated, the regiment is not at present in training, and if Mr. Waring attends meetings I am not aware that any notice can be taken of it.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (SCOTLAND)—SCHOOL BOARD EXAMINATIONS.
DR. CAMERONasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether it is true, as stated by a correspondent in The Scotsman of May 1st, that the following questions were set by the Inspector of the Department to Standard VI. children in some of the schools in Perthshire in March last:—
"Hay for five hundred mules cost £77 per week. If hay rises in price so that three tons cost as much as five now do, find the price of hay for sixty horses during sixty days, allowing to three horses as much as to five mules; if five boxes of coffee are equal in weight to seven boxes of tea, but two boxes of tea are equal in value to five boxes of coffee, what will be the price of a box of coffee if a box of tea cost £10;"
whether it is true as stated that the questions at inspections in Perthshire have been of a similar description for years past; whether it is intended that

129
Standard VI. should be passed by children of twelve; and, whether, in view of the fact that the extremely low percentage of passes in Standard VI. in Perthshire as compared with other counties in Scotland is due to the exceptional number of failures in arithmetic, he will suggest that the arithmetical test as applied by the departmental inspector should be of a less puzzling character?
MR MUNDELLA: We have communicated with the Inspector for Perthshire, and it appears that of the two questions the second was not set in the terms quoted. The first question was sot together with three others which were much simpler, and of the four only two were required to secure a pass. The questions set were on a separate card; it was not, therefore, expected that the same scholar should attempt both. It is not intended that Standard VI. should be passed by children of 12; and, in fact, out of 49,660 children of that age, only 19,742 were examined in the Sixth Standard. The reason why the Sixth Standard passes in Perthshire are below the average is because in many of the rural schools of that county children are qualified for examination Thy 150 attendances; but in the general passes in arithmetic there are many counties in which the percentage of passes is lower than in Perth. I may add, however, that the Department has already taken steps to secure greater uniformity in the examination papers in Scotland, so as to prevent a different Standard for passes being applied by different Inspectors.

LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—EXPLOSIVE OUTRAGE AT LONDONDERRY-GEORGE M'GARRIGLE.
MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Orange apprentice boy, George M'Carrigle, charged with the explosive outrage in Londonderry on the 17th March, has been returned for trial to the assizes; whether he has been liberated on bail, himself in £50, and two sureties in £25 each; whether there is any particular reason for extending this clemency in cases of outrage in the North; whether according to the evidence of Sergeant Kirby three or more persons must have had share in the outrage; and, will he explain why no Crimes Act inquiry has been instituted?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNEEMAN: M'Garrigle has been returned for trial at the Assizes, and the magistrates, in the exercise of their discretion, have admitted him to bail as stated; but there has been no extension of clemency in the case. Sergeant Kirby heard two other persons running away at the time of the explosion, but did not see them. He did see M'Garrigle. An inquiry under the Crimes Act will be held if it should be considered that this would further the ends of justice.
MR. O'BRIEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an instance of where a Nationalist was released on bail on as easy terms?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not aware.

POST OFFICE—THE PARCEL POST-TEMPORARY CLERKS.
MR. STUART-WORTLEYasked the Postmaster General, Whether he will consider the possibility of granting to the clerks "temporarily" employed in the Parcel Post the same rights as regards (1) annual increment of pay, (2) superannuation allowance, (3) sick pay and sick leave, (4) compensation for dismissal, (5) leave of absence for holidays, as those enjoyed by the clerks provisionally appointed to the Telegraph Department in anticipation of the increase of business expected to arise out of the sixpenny telegram scheme; and, if not, in what event and how soon he expects to be able to dispense with the so-called temporary services of the Parcel Post clerks?
MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The temporary force employed at the Post Office was engaged on terms which, generally speaking, excluded the rights specified by the hon. Member. I cannot hold out hopes that the conditions of their employment will be altered, or that more than a limited number will be appointed to the establishment. The case of those employed in the Telegraph Service is different, and the terms of their engagement were different.
MR. STUART-WORTLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the Parcel Post will be of a temporary nature?
MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: No; but no promise was given that their employment would not be of a temporary character.

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE—TEA.
MR. BIGGARasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is true that tea consigned under bond from London to Dublin is often delivered direct into the premises of consignees, instead of to the bonding warehouses in Dublin; whether such teas often lie there, or are redelivered into consumption several days before the Duty is paid at the Dublin Custom House; and, whether this system brings a loss to the Revenue?
MR. HIBBERT (for Mr. CHILDERS): The facts are as stated in the first paragraph of the Question. The practice is not peculiar to Dublin, but is allowed at all chief bonding ports. Goods so delivered may go into consumption immediately on receipt by the consignee; but in that case the Revenue is secured against loss by the regulations under which, such removals are allowed.

THE MAURITIUS—REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON THE FRANCHISE.
MR. COLERIDGE KENNARDasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, At what date was the Report of the Commission on the Franchise to the people of Mauritius received at the Colonial Office; and, can he fix a date when Lord Derby's decision on the Report will be ready, so as to relieve the anxiety of the people of Mauritius on the question?
MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The Report of the Commission on the Franchise was received from Mauritius the end of last January. The views of the Secretary of State upon that Report have been conveyed in a despatch to the Governor, which was sent off about a week ago. As soon as this has been received and considered in the Colony, there will be no objection to giving the Papers.

NAVY—TORPEDO NETS—H.M.S. "NORTHAMPTON."
COLONEL KING-HARMANasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, Whether H.M.S. Northampton is provided with torpedo nettings; whether the other ships of the North American Squadron are so provided; and, if they are so provided, when the torpedo nettings were received by the ships?
SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: The nets for the Northampton are in the Dockyard at Bermuda. When she left England ships were not fitted with iron nets. But on the occasion of torpedo exercise at Bermuda, the ship under the command of Captain Fisher was so effectually protected by her nets and improvized appliances that she could not be attacked successfully with the torpedo. The ship which relieves the Northampton will be completely fitted.

WAYS AND MEANS—THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT—THE SUCCESSION DUTIES—EXEMPTION OF UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES.
MR. GIBSONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Will Universities, Colleges, and Heads or Provosts of Colleges be liable to the tax on Corporate Property proposed in the Budget Resolutions, or are they intended to come within the exemptions?
MR. HIBBERT (for Mr. CHILDERS): The property of Universities and Colleges, and also of the Heads and Provosts of Colleges, so far as it is legally appropriated and applied exclusively for the promotion of education, will be exempt under the Bill before the House.

CRIMENAL LAW (IRELAND)—THE CROSSMAGLEN PRISONERS.
MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is it the fact that the Government have refused to allow the Crossmaglen prisoners to read the memorial addressed to the Viceroy, setting forth facts in reference to their trial; and, that their friends consider it necessary that the prisoners should have an opportunity of seeing the memorial in order that they may supplement it by facts within their knowledge?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: What has happened is this. Mr. Alfred Webb memorialized the Lord Lieutenant in favour of these prisoners, and His Excellency, on full consideration, was unable to accede to his request. Mr. Webb then applied to the Prisons Board for permission to send a copy of the Memorial to each of the prisoners, in order that they might see what had been urged on their behalf; but the Board considered that to grant such a request would be contrary to prison

133
rules, and they so replied. The Board point out that prisoners can at certain periods see their friends, and urge any points which they may desire to lay before the Government. They can also memorialize the Lord Lieutenant at any time.
MR. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether it is the practice in England in the case where there is a belief in the innocence of prisoners, and where there is a doubt as to whether the facts are fully stated in a Memorial for their release, for objection to be taken to laying that Memorial before the prisoners in order, where necessary, to supplement it by facts within their own knowledge?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I should not like to answer that Question off-hand.
MR. HEALY: I will ask the Question to-morrow.

IRELAND—INFLAMMATORY LANGUAGE—MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON, INSPECTOR OF FISHERIES.
MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Johnston, Inspector of Fisheries, has been called on to deny the statement in The Northern Whig of April 29th, that he attended the meeting of the Orange Lodge in Sanday Row, Belfast, and personally consented to his being named as a candidate for one of the divisions of the borough; have the Government had before them his Letter, dated 24th March, to The Belfast Newsletter, which concludes, "if Ulster desires it, I may yet be able to say so in the House of Commons;" and, do the Irish Executive still consider that the Order in Council has not been infringed, and what is their decision as to the charge that Mr. Johnston's recent speeches is a breach of his written engagement to abstain from political discussions?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: In answer to the hon. and learned Member, I have to say that, in consequence of the language lately publicly used by Mr. Johnston, Lord Spencer has been obliged to intimate to him that His Excellency considers his further retention of his office inconsistent with the interests of the Public Service.
MR. SEXTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman state what was the language referred to, and what was the date of the communication?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think it unnecessary now to go into that.

THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MR. HAMILTON, R.M., ARMAGH.
MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Why Mr. Hamilton, resident magistrate, Armagh, receives £125 a-year more than the maximum fixed allowance for a resident magistrate of the first class in Ireland?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNEEMAN: In 1881 it was found necessary to increase the staff of the Crime Department in the Castle, and Mr. Hamilton, who was then a Resident Magistrate, was brought in on a salary of £800 a-year, the Treasury stipulating that, should his services at any time cease to be required in the Chief Secretary's office, he would not be entitled to compensation, provided he were offered another appointment imposing duties analogous to those which he previously discharged, and were allowed to hold it with a salary of not less than £800 a-year. Consequent on a general reorganization of the staff of the office at the latter end of 1882, the appointment held by Mr. Hamilton was abolished, and he was re-appointed a Resident Magistrate with a personal salary of £800 a-year under the stipulation referred to.

"THE SYNOD OF THE CHURCH OF IRELAND."
MR. HEALYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Did he officially authorise the letter, published on the 22nd inst., signed by his secretary, apologising for having addressed the Protestant Synod as "the Synod of the Protestant Episcopal Church of Ireland," and consenting to address that body as "the Synod of the Church of Ireland," if so can he state under what circumstances the latter title has been officially given, is he aware that the Government have always hitherto refused to the Disestablished Church the title it claims, that in the draft charter which the Government was asked to

135
sanction they struck out the words "Church of Ireland," inserted by the representative body, that as in the Marriage Act of 1870, members and clergymen of this church, are designated "Protestant Episcopalians," the Irish Registrar General, acting under the advice of the Law Adviser, Dublin Castle, directed clergymen of the disestablished religion to enter their church in the marriage register as the "Protestant Episcopal Church of Ireland;" that the Lord Lieutenant, in the recent order as to precedence, published in The Dublin Gazette of April 3rd, styles its bishops "Protestant Episcopalians;" that at the last census members of this denomination numbered only 639,574 as against 3,960,891 Catholics, 470,734 Presbyterians, and 103,107 persons of other persuasions, and do the Home Office intend officially to style the Disestablished Church by a title calculated to give offence to other religious bodies in Ireland, while the Irish Government avoids the title complained of?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am unable to say any more on this subject beyond what I said the other day, when I said I wrote officially to the Irish Government to ask what they considered the proper designation, in order that the same course may be pursued in England and Ireland in this matter. When I get the answer I will inform the bon. Member. I can assure the hon. Member that I will take care that the practice which, so far as I can learn, has not been inconsistent hitherto, will be the same, and that a consistent rule will be laid down.
MR. GIBSON: I have given the right hon. Gentleman private Notice of a Question on this subject as follows:—Whether the name "Church of Ireland" was the name uniformly given by the Irish and Imperial Legislatures to the Church of Ireland, and whether that does not appear in 28 Henry VIII. c. 5; 17 & 18 Charles II. c. 6; 6 Geo. I. c. 3; 14 & 15 Vict. c. 72; the Act of Union, the Irish Church Act, 1869, &c, &c.; whether, on May 1, 1882, he did not himself, in an official letter to the Archbishop of Armagh, use the words in reference to the said Church, "the Archbishops, Bishops, clergy, and laity of the Church of Ireland in Synod assembled;" and, whether Mr. Godfrey Lushington's letter of April, 1885, now ob-
136
jected to, did not merely follow the usual practice of the Department?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: No, Sir; I do not think any settled practice existed, and I think it is very desirable that the matter should be settled. It is clearly a matter in which the same practice should be pursued in the Home Office as by the Irish Government, and therefore I have addressed an official letter, and I have not yet received an answer to it.
MR. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay on the Table a copy of the letter from the Irish Government and his letter, as they are official documents?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am not sure that that would be the most convenient course to pursue.

LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—RIOTOUS BEHAVIOUR—GEORGE NAPIER, OF ROSCREA.
MR. JOHN O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that on the 20th ultimo, a young man named George Napier, of Roscrea, was charged before the magistrates at Nenagh with having, on the 6th of the same month, "presented a revolver at a number of children;" whether several witnesses deposed to his having gone through the streets of Nenagh shouting "for the north," and calling the people "papists and rebels," and saying that be would "put a bullet through a Catholic or a rebel;" whether he was discharged without punishment on the occasion, and on what grounds; whether Major Waring, E.M., in giving the decision of the Bench said—
"The magistrates who gave the defendant license to carry arms did not use discretion in doing so, and that he handled the weapon in a manner he ought not to have done;"
whether it is the custom with the magistrates of Roscrea to grant largely licenses to carry arms to persons of the same class as George Napier; and, whether the Government will make inquiry into the manner in which these licenses have been granted as well as into the decision of the magistrates in this case?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The charge in this case was "riotous behaviour." The evidence was very conflicting, and the magistrates unani-

137
mously decided to dismiss the case. Mr. I Waring informs me that he did not say there had been a want of discretion on the part of any magistrate. He made the remark with regard to the defendant. He also states that he fully concurs in the decision of the Bench, and does not consider any action called for as regards Napier's arms licence. In this view I concur.
MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any inquiry as to the licences granted in this town by the Resident Magistrate?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member would put down a Question to that effect.
MR. O'BRIEN: Is it not a fact that there is not a single Catholic magistrate in this district?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not aware.

OFFICE OF THE CHARITY COMMISSIONERS.
MR. BRYCEasked the Junior Lord of the Treasury, the Member for Leeds, as representing the Office of Works, When the Office of the City of London Parochial Charities Commissioners, established under the Act of 1883, is to be transferred from Craig's Court to Gwydyr House, in pursuance of the undertaking given last Session that this means of accelerating the progress of the inquiry under that Act would be adopted?
MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: The branch of the Charity Commissioners office, at present located in Craig's Court, will vacate those premises as soon as certain minor alterations on the basement of Gwydyr House are completed.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON TRAWLING—THE REPORT—LEGISLATION.
COLONEL STEBLEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If any Bill will be introduced this Session giving effect to the recommendations of the Trawling Commission; and, if so, will such Bill affect the whole of the United Kingdom or only portions?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the hon. and gallant Member must be aware that a Bill on this subject relating to Scotland had been introduced into the House of Lords; but ho feared there would not be time this Session to deal with the matter except in that manner.

CENTRAL ASIA—THE RUSSO-PERSIAN FRONTIER.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If Her Majesty's Government has information whether the north-east corner of Persia, in the direction of Sarakhs, has been delimited; and, if so, whether Persia has surrendered her claims to any of the cultivated tracts about Sarakhs, or to any portion of the right bank of the Harirud, thence upwards towards Phul-i-Khatum, or of the left bank downwards towards the Tejend swamp?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: According to the information in the possession of Her Majesty's Government, the delimitation of the frontier between Russia and Persia, in the direction mentioned by the hon. Member, has not taken place. The Russians have occupied Old Sarakhs, on the right bank of the Herirud. I do not think it would be advisable for me to make any statement as to the claims of Persia in the districts referred to in the last part of the hon. Member's Question.
MR. E. STANHOPEasked whether the noble Lord proposed to lay on the Table the Correspondence with reference to the subject of delimitation?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he had no present intention of laying it on the Table; but he would communicate with the Foreign Secretary on the subject.

EGYPT (THE WAR IN THE SOUDAN)—THE COOLIES AT SUAKIN.
DR. CAMERONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is true, as reported by the Suakin correspondent of The Times, that the Jumna arrived at Suakin with coolies, was then sent back without disembarking them, then told to come back and disembark them; if so, if he would state the dates and places at which the several orders were given; and, whether the expense of the maintenance and manœuvring of the coolies is a charge upon the Admiralty, the War Office, or the Indian Government?
MR. CAINE (for Sir THOMAS BRASSEY): It is the fact that the Jumna arrived at Suakin with coolies on the 25th of April. She left for Aden on the 28th with the coolies on board. On arriving at Aden on the 1st of May, she

139
was ordered to return to Suakin. All transport charges are borne by the Admiralty.

NAVY—THE RATING OF NAVAL PENSIONERS.
SIR JOHN HAYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, to state, having reference to the notification calling on Naval Pensioners to serve, Whether the C. S. pay of the rating in which they are borne and actually doing duty, means that a man who has been a petty officer, but is now to be employed in a lower grade, will be borne and paid in a lower rank than that which he held when retired on pension, or whether, even if he is employed in a lower rank, he will still receive the pay to which he was formerly entitled; and, is an outfit to be given to pensioners who may return to service?
MR. CAINE (for Sir THOMAS BRASSEY): If a man is employed in a lower rating than that he held at the time he was pensioned, he would receive the pay of the lower rating in addition to his pension. So far as is practicable, these men will occupy ratings not inferior to those they formerly held; but it is, of course, impossible to guarantee such ratings. Naval pensioners will, on re-entry, be granted a gratuity of £2 10s. for clothing and £1 for bedding. This is a new arrangement, and a considerable advantage to the pensioners.

SCOTLAND—REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1884—PRINTING THE REGISTER OF PARLIAMENTARY VOTERS.
MR. PRESTON BRUCEasked the Lord Advocate, Whether the Law existing in the burghs regulating the printing of the register of voters, and the sale to the public of copies of the register, or parts of it, at certain prices, has been applied to and is now in force in the counties, by section 8, subsection 6, of "The Representation of the People Act, 1884?"
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): By Section 8, Sub-section 6, of "The Representation of the People Act, 1884," all enactments of the Registration Acts which relate to the registration of persons "entitled to vote in burghs" are made to extend and apply to counties as well as to burghs. The enactments regulating the printing of
140
the register of voters in burghs, and the sale to the public of copies of the register or parts of it, at certain prices, are portions, and by no means unimportant portions, of the Act 19 & 20 Vict., c. 58, which deals exclusively with the registration of voters in burghs. I think, therefore, that these enactments will now apply to counties. If I had thought that doubtful, I should willingly have accepted a clause in the Registration Bill such as my hon. Friend put upon the Paper. But if the necessity for such a clause were admitted, it would obviously throw doubt upon the universality of the application of the Burgh Registration Act, and any doubt on that subject would be unfortunate.

THE CONSULAR SERVICE—THE CONSULATE AT TIFLIS.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can state the date at which Her Majesty's Consulate at Tiflis was created, and the date at which it was abolished?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The post was created on the 24th of April, 1876, and abolished on the 31st of December, 1881.
LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Would the noble Lord say why the post was abolished?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: It was not found that the objects for which it was established were accomplished—namely, that information was not obtained with ease. It was found that the establishment of a Consular officer at Batoum as a port of observation would be much more useful.

WAYS AND MEANS—THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT—THE SPIRIT DUTY.
MR. ORR-EWINGasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his estimate of £900,000, being the yearly increased revenue from spirits by the increased Duty of two shillings per gallon, is accurate, as the estimated reduced consumption of 32,000,000 of gallons will yield an increase of £3,200,000?
MR. HIBBERT (for Mr. CHILDERS): The hon. Member has misunderstood the basis of my right hon. Friend's Estimate. The comparison was between the yield of the Spirit Duty at the old rate on the quantity which would have been consumed at that rate, and

141
the yield of the increased duty on the reduced consumption expected to occur under the new rate. The figure of £900,000 was arrived at by setting the gain due to the increased duty against the loss arising from the reduction of the quantity paying duty, allowance being made for the fact that the change did not come into force until May 1.

NAVY—ARMAMENT OF SHIPS—H.M.S. "DRYAD."
SIR DONALD CURRIEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is the case that in 1883, when H.M.S. Dryad was stationed at Tamatave, and when difficulties arose between the British Consul, Captain Johnstone of H.M.S. Dryad, and Admiral Pierre in command of the French Fleet, all practice with the whole of the nine guns on board of the Dryad had been suspended in accordance with telegraphic orders from the Admiralty consequent upon the bursting previously of a gun of the same type on board of H.M.S. Daring; whether the Dryad's guns were mounted on the old truck carriages; whether it is the case that there were at that time guns of the same description on board of several of Her Majesty's ships on the North American, China, Mediterranean, Pacific, and Australian stations; and whether similar telegraphic orders were issued to them; whether it is the case that all these guns, or the greater part of them, were ordered to be returned to England, and were altered and improved, and to be used with reduced powder charges; whether it is the case that the Dryad was brought to England with her nine guns and carriages in the same state as when at Tamatave; and, whether this vessel has been since condemned as unfit for Her Majesty's service?
SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: I have to answer all the Questions put by the hon. Member in the affirmative. With reference to the armaments, I may explain that the guns with which the Dryad was armed in 1883 were lined with iron tubes. All guns so constructed have been withdrawn and replaced with guns lined with steel tubes. The Dryad being an old ship the new guns which had been supplied have been landed at Bombay, and the ship has been brought home. It is not likely that she will again be brought forward for commission.

POST OFFICE-TELEGRAMS—INSUFFICIENT ADDRESSES.
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWERNCEasked the Postmaster General, Whether, in the event of a telegram being unable to be delivered in consequence of insufficient or inaccurate address, the sender would be informed of the same by telegram or by post; and, what time would elapse before the sender would receive the information?
MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to say that there is no intention to alter the present practice, which is that, when a message cannot be delivered owing to the insufficiency or inaccuracy of the address, the office of destination sends an official telegram to the office of origin, and that office forwards a written intimation to the sender of the message. If the sender resides within the free delivery of the office of origin the notice of non-delivery is sent to him by special messenger, and if he does not reside within the free delivery the notice is sent to him by the earliest post.

NAVY—THE DOCKYARDS-PEMBROKE DOCK—THE CLERICAL STAFF.
MR. H. G. ALLENasked the Civil-Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he will recommend that the mechanic writers of Pembroke Dockyard should be placed on the same footing, as to leave and overtime, as the draughtsmen; and that their work should be lessened by increasing their number, or, at least, that they should be paid for the overtime which they have worked, especially during the latter weeks of last year?
MR. CAINE: The leave of absence granted annually to mechanic writers is the same in amount as is granted to the draughtsmen on day pay. By the terms under which they serve writers are not entitled to additional pay for casual overtime work. I may add that no application for an addition to the staff at Pembroke Dock has been received from the Captain Superintendent, and under the circumstances I am unable to recommend that any change be made in the present arrangements.

ARMY—THE 5TH DRAGOON GUARDS.
MR. LEAHYasked the Secretary of State for War, If he has inquired about the danger of introducing small-pox into

143
Ireland by the proposed move of the 5th Dragoon Guards from Manchester, where the disease is prevalent and on the increase, to the Curragh Camp; and what is the result?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: According to the last Report the regiment is free from small-pox. There is, therefore, no reason on that account why it should not be moved. It does not appear that during the last 19 weeks there has been any case among either officers or men.

THE WINDWARD ISLANDS—THE PROPOSED CONFEDERATION.
SIR HENEY HOLLANDasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he will present to the House the Papers relating to the proposed Confederation of the "Windward Islands?
MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Yes, Sir, I will give the Papers referred to. I may say that the proposal for a Confederation of the Windward Islands is for the moment in abeyance owing to the general objection to it expressed in all the Islands.

EGYPT—SEIZURE OF THE "BOSPHORE EGYPTIEN."
MR. J.W. LOWTHERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the payment of a sum of £4,000, or of any such sum, forms any part of the reparation made, or to be made, by the Egyptian Government to the proprietor or editor of The Bosphore Egyptien; and, whether Her Majesty's Government have associated themselves with or concurred in the said payment?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The answer to both the hon. Member's Questions is in the negative.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (IRELAND) ACT—INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERKS OF UNIONS AND POOR RATE COLLECTORS.
MR. HARRINGTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any instructions have been issued by the Local Government Board for the guidance of clerks of unions and rate collectors in reference to their duties under the Representation of the People Act?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Local Government Board consider that it does not devolve upon them to
144
advise on questions which arise as to the construction of the Acts relating to the representation of the people, or to give general instructions as to their administration. They have, however, communicated to Boards of Guardians a letter which I thought it advisable to address to them with the view of removing a very general uncertainty which was found to exist among Clerks of Unions as to the date when they should serve the notices required of them by the Act of 1884. The Board have also addressed a Circular to Boards of Guardians calling attention to the duties of Poor Rate collectors under Sub-section 7 of the 9th section of that Act, and forwarding the form of notice which they are advised should be used.
MR. HARRINGTONasked whether it was not the fact that the letter to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred promised that "further instructions on the subject would be given in a few days;" whether a month had since elapsed, and the officials of the Poor Law were waiting for these "further instructions;" and, whether the Local Government Board did not hold themselves responsible for the issue of proper instructions?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that the instructions had been issued in the form originally intended, and the officials otherwise had the Act before them.
MR. HARRINGTONasked if any instructions had followed the promise given a month ago, and if no instructions had followed, whether he would take an immediate opportunity of undeceiving them and recommending them to take action themselves; or if Poor Law officials took instructions from the National League; and whether he would take steps to protect such officials as took such instructions and acted upon them?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNRRMAN: Final instructions cannot be issued until after the passing of the Seats Bill. Meanwhile, I will see whether there is any misunderstanding.
MR. HARRINGTONsaid, that as this was a very important matter, perhaps the House would allow him to make an explanation. [Cries of No!" "Oh!" and "Order!"] Then he would ask whether, as the Clerks of Poor Law Unions in Ireland believed that they might not issue

145
these notices to persons under £10 rating, I whether in other districts requisition forms had not been issued at all; whether in other cases requisition forms were issued by the Guardians or Clerks of Unions intended sometimes to omit the £10 ratings, and for want of requisition forms there was no specification as to whether some of these ratings applied to new and different ratings; and whether the right hon. Gentleman would apply a remedy to this state of confusion?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot go any further than to say that I think the position is this—that the Local Government Board is quite ready-to give any instructions of a general kind that are absolutely necessary. They would, however, be instructions of a very general kind, for it would at once be an improper and a dangerous thing for the Local Government Board to decide upon matters of doubt for the Local Authorities, or assist them in the interpretation of the Act. They have the Act before them, and can apply to the Act for instructions.
MR. HEALY: Might I ask is it not not the business of the Local Government Board to issue proper instructions, and also it is not a fact that they have a legal adviser, who can answer any questions as to the legal interpretation of the Act?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN'Sreply was inaudible.

PUBLIC BUSINESS—THE CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—DEVOLUTION.
MR. BAXTERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, looking to the great amount of time spent every Session in discussing Civil Service Estimates and the very small and wholly inadequate and disproportionate result of those discussions, it would be desirable or at all events well worthy of consideration to apply to these Estimates the principle of devolution, by referring them at least in the first instance to a strong Financial Committee, which could examine them in a much more satisfactory manner than a Committee of the whole House?
MR. ONSLOWrose to Order. He submitted that the Question of the hon. Member was full of the deepest argument, the subject of which might give rise to several nights' debate. He de-
146
sired particularly to draw attention to the preamble and to the latter part of the Question. He begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair whether the Question was not out of Order?
MR. SPEAKER: The Question, as I read it, certainly does contain statements which are liable to be disputed. I am always glad, with the sanction of the House, to take every opportunity of eliminating from Questions all matters of a contentious nature. However, the substance of the Question when, such disputatious matter has been eliminated, can be put.
MR. ONSLOWsaid, that after the ruling of the Speaker, he presumed that the Question could not be put?
MR. SPEAKER: The Question will remain—to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether any devolution will take place in the case of the Civil Service Estimates?
MR. GLADSTONE: No doubt this is a Question of a kind coming very much into favour, it being in the nature of a scrutiny into the minds and intentions of Her Majesty's Ministers for the time being. Undoubtedly I have great sympathy with the views of my right hon. Friend, and I hope that a time may come when the House will consider what can be done in this direction. I do not think that anything can be done by going the whole length that my right hon. Friend indicated; but still I think progress may be made with great advantage in that direction. I think, however, the House and my right hon. Friend will agree with me that no steps can be taken of that nature during the present Session.

THE LICENSING LAWS—CLUBS.
MR. O'SULLIVANasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he is aware of the many complaints which have been made in several towns in the United Kingdom regarding the practice of gambling, drinking, and betting carried on at different clubs during th9 last four or five years; and, if so, whether he intends taking any steps to bring those clubs under the jurisdiction of the Licensing Laws?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have been requested to answer this Question. As I stated a few days ago in reply to a Question upon this subject, we have come to the conclusion after very careful

147
inquiry that sufficient ground has not been shown at present for interfering with the clubs.

PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT—LEGISLATION.
MR. LEWISasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government has yet decided as to the renewal of the Crimes Act this Session?
MR. GLADSTONE: Not later than Friday next I will make a statement with regard to the Bills that the Government propose to introduce, and that will include a statement of their intentions with respect to the Act now about to expire.

CENTRAL ASIA—ENGLAND AND RUSSIA—THE PROPOSED ARBITRATION.
BASON HENRY DE WORMSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the following statement in the semi-official Moscow Gazette, with regard to the proposed arbitration between England and Russia:—
"There was only one thing to do, and that was to permit the correctness of our action to he certified to by a third party. This is not an arbitration in the proper sense of the term, which, would he accompanied by some kind of practical result;"
whether the basis of the proposed arbitration is correctly described in the above paragraph; whether the arbitration includes a reference to the counter statements, as well as to counter contentions, with regard to the alleged breach of the covenant of 16th March; and, whether it is agreed that the Power which the arbitrator may decide to have been at fault shall make an amende?
MR. GLADSTONE: It would be very difficult to explain comments in newspapers, even though they are semiofficial, about proceedings going on between two Governments as to matters of importance not yet made known. Therefore, I must be excused from referring to other matters in the Question, and also in that of the hon. Member for Derry (Mr. Lewis), which follows, because I shall have something to say on the subject to-day, and because the time is now close at hand when the hon. Gentleman will have all the documents in his hands, and therefore will be able to form a judgment for himself upon a much better and surer basis than an
148
answer from me upon this subject would afford him.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR EDWARD J. REEDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will now name a day upon which the Motion expressive of anxiety respecting the state of the Navy, standing in his name, can be made?
MR. GLADSTONE: I am not prepared to name a day for the discussion of my hon. Friend's Motion after what I have already stated with reference to the other Business before the House, including the Vote of Censure with reference to the Budget Resolutions.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Will the right hon. Gentleman state when the Budget proposals are likely to be taken? This is the first time I ever heard an Amendment to the Budget proposals described as a Vote of Censure.
MR. GLADSTONE: Perhaps I ought not to have said that the Motion is a Vote of Censure, but to have called it a Vote of Confidence. It is a Motion of very great importance, involving several wide and complex questions of taxation, and requiring considerable time in order to dispose of them. As the Budget proposals cannot come on until next week, which would be immediately on the verge of the Whitsuntide Holidays, the Government have concluded that, on the whole, it would be more fair to the House and more advantageous to postpone, at any rate, the Committee on the Budget proposals till after the Recess. I should think, therefore, that the best place for the Motion will be in the Committee after Whitsuntide.
In reply to Mr. BOURSE,
MR. GLADSTONEsaid: The Papers in regard to Afghanistan and the negotiations with Russia will, I hope, be laid upon the Table on Friday next, with the view of their being circulated on Saturday.

THE SUEZ CANAL COMMISSION.
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the English Representatives at the Suez Canal Commission have been instructed to limit their assent to Propositions falling within the basis laid down

149
in Lord Granville's Despatch, and to abstain from taking part in the discussion of any Proposition which does not fall within such basis?
MR. GLADSTONE: There has been no such direction as is implied in this Question. It would be extremely difficult to say what regulations are beyond the basis that is laid down. The state of the case is this. Proposals may, of course, be made by the Representatives of the Powers at Paris. Nothing will be assented to by the British Representative if it appears to be, what I think the right hon. Gentleman means, beyond that basis. In no case will that be assented to without reference home, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that this question is really deprived of all difficulty in present circumstances by the engagement into which the Government has freely entered, that the House shall have full opportunity of considering the provisions of any arrangement which may be made before it becomes binding.

THE PAPAL SEE—DIPLOMATIC COMMUNICATION WITH THE VATICAN—MR. ERRINGTON.
MR. JOSEPH COWEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a Question of which I have given him private Notice, Whether Her Majesty's Government had caused any representations to be made at Rome against the appointment of the Rev. Dr. Walsh to the vacant Catholic see of Dublin?
MR. SEXTON: I would also wish to ask the Prime Minister as to whether the statement which appeared in one of the newspapers with regard to Mr. Errington's visit to Rome was correct. The correspondent said—
"I had shown to me Mr. Errington's credentials for the mission which he had undertaken. They are signed by Lord Granville, and are in the form of letters recommending him to the secretary to His Holiness. The recommendation reads like a letter of introduction from a State Department to the Pope, and has been so acted upon by Mr. Errington?"
MR. GLADSTONE: I gather that the nature of the paragraph to which the hon. Member refers is much more to express the colour which the writer of that paragraph puts upon some particular communication from Lord Granville than any matter of fact contained in it. When Mr. Errington went to Rome he
150
was regarded as a gentleman who was very well acquainted with the views generally of Her Majesty's Government, and qualified to give information with respect to Irish affairs. That is all I can undertake to say at present. I cannot give any information of my own knowledge beyond the recollection of what I have said.
MR. SEXTON: I will repeat my Question to-morrow.
MR. GLADSTONE: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen), I refer him to the reply which I gave some short time ago on this subject, to the effect that—
"The Cabinet have never, as far as I am aware, had any cognizance of any communication between Mr. Errington and His Holiness the Pope, and certainly not upon the occasion to which the Question refers. If I am asked whether any individual Member of the Government has used any such representations, as distinct from the Cabinet, my reply is that I am not aware of it."—(3 Hansard, [297] 823.)
For myself, I have nothing to add to that answer. I have referred to Lord Granville, who refers me to a statement previously made by himself, and says he has nothing to add to the statement made two years ago as to the position of Mr. Errington at Rome. I can easily obtain from Lord Granville a reference to that statement. Lord Granville added that he could not go beyond the answers lately given by his noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for War with respect to Mr. Errington's position at Rome. He says he was spontaneously informed a few days ago by Mr. Errington that he should resume his Parliamentary attendance this week.
MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, that after the very elaborate but not very very explicit answer of the Prime Minister, the meaning of which the House however, would have no difficulty in divining, he begged to say that on the first available occasion, either on going into Committee of Supply or in Committee of Supply, he would call attention to the very unsatisfactory relations that the Foreign Office kept up with the Vatican, and move that the interference of the Government of this country in the selection of Bishops of the Catholic Church was inconvenient and injudicious.
MR. HEALYasked whether, when Mr. Errington resumed his seat in the House, it would be possible, as he was

151
now the recognized Agent of the Government at the Papal Court, for Members of the House to address to him Questions with regard to his official doings in Rome?
MR. GLADSTONE: I have not said a single word which would lead to or justify the statement that Mr. Errington is the accredited Agent of this country in Rome.
MR. HEALYsaid, that, in order to test the matter, he would place on the Paper a Question addressed to Mr. Errington as the accredited Agent of Her Majesty at the Roman Court.

CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIA AND AFGHANISTAN—THE PENJDEH INCIDENT.
MR. GLADSTONE: I am very desirous to answer a Question put to me some days ago with respect to which I asked for time to refer, and which has not been revived or put on the Paper. It referred to a matter of some importance. The hon. Member who put the Question assumed that the Viceroy of India had described the proceedings near Penjdeh in terms different from those used by us in this House. We described it as an apparent act of unprovoked aggression, and the hon. Gentleman assumed that Lord Dufferin had undertaken to decide the fact. I have now before me a report—which I presume is accurate, as it is given in inverted commas in The Times of India—of the speech made by the Viceroy at the Lahore Railway Station in reference to the Penjdeh incident, and in reply to an address from the Lahore Municipality. The Viceroy is reported to have said—
"Coming as I do from an important interview with a neighbouring and friendly Ruler whose frontiers have been assailed by what seems to have been a most unprovoked attack."
Lord Dufferin, therefore, adopts substantially the same form of speech as was adopted by us in this House.

CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIA AND AFGHANISTAN—THE ARRANGEMENT OF APRIL 27.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, that to give the Prime Minister an opportunity of making an explanation in view of the coming debate, he would ask him whether on March 16 he de-
152
scribed the "sacred covenant with Russia" as follows:—
"The word 'agreement' is a little fallacious; arrangement we might call it, perhaps, and one which will only last so long as there is occasion for it;"
and whether on April 27 he described the same agreement as—
"A binding covenant, a very solemn covenant, one of the most sacred covenants ever made between two nations;"
and whether, in view of the debate that night, he would inform Parliament what communications with Russia in the interval had led him to form so different an estimate?
MR. GLADSTONE: I have no intention of making any statement of the kind suggested by the hon. Member.

EGYPT—THE SOUDAN.

  MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, I said on Thursday last that I would endeavour to-day to make a statement to the House, such as has been on several occasions asked for, with regard to the decisions which have been arrived at by Her Majesty's Government, and the orders which have been given to our officers in the Soudan, in consequence of statements recently made in this House. I will endeavour to do so as shortly as I can. I need scarcely say, Sir, before any decision was arrived at by Her Majesty's Government, or before any announcement was made to the House, confidential communications passed between us and Lord Wolseley as to the possibility in any circumstances, having regard to the safety of our troops, of withdrawing the Nile Force, or any portion of that Force, from the positions which they at present occupy. We satisfied ourselves before any statement was made to the House that such an operation would be possible with due consideration for the health and safety of our troops. On April 20, the day previous to the announcement made in the House, the substance of that announcement was communicated to Lord Wolseley, with instructions that he should prepare at once to act in conformity with that announcement. The House will recollect the nature of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and it is unnecessary on this occasion for me to

  153
  repeat it. I may, however, say what, in our opinion, the instructions then given involved. They did not, in my opinion, at that time involve the absolute abandonment of the intention to advance on Khartoum. What they did involve was a cessation of active preparations for such an advance, the cessation of offensive operations upon any considerable scale, and the adoption of measures which would enable us, on as short notice as possible, to concentrate the troops now in the Soudan for service in any part of the world where they might be required. Since that time a good deal of communication has taken place between the Government and Lord Wolseley. Several courses appeared to be open to us, which I will shortly state. The troops might either remain in their present positions, which extend from Merawi, the most advanced position up the Nile, including Korti and other places, whose names I need not mention, to Dongola, where the head-quarters of the Army are now established. This disposition of the troops would also have required the maintenance of a considerable number of posts between Assouan and Dongola for keeping up communication and supplying the troops. There are at present along that line, extending from Merawi to Dongola, about 9,000 British troops, and the result of our communications is that, if we decided to continue the occupation of those positions, the number of troops could not be materially reduced. Another alternative would have been to withdraw the troops from the most advanced positions up the Nile and to concentrate them at other positions, such as Dongola and places below Dongola, there to wait for the course of events in the Soudan, and in Asia and Europe. The third alternative was to revert to the line of Wady Halfa or Assouan as the actual frontier of Egypt, and to withdraw the troops as soon as possible from the positions which they now occupy, holding those positions which I have named as the most advanced permanent positions for the defence of Egypt. The last is the course which the Government has in substance decided to adopt. I say in substance, because there are at present reasons, both of a military and political character, which, while it would be pos-
  154
  sible, make it undesirable that such a course should be very rapidly adopted. At the present time the River Nile is at its very lowest, and there are a considerable number of stores which have been accumulated at the various positions now occupied by our troops which ought to be removed; and arrangements will also have to be made for bringing down the Native officials and troops, and possibly a certain number of Natives who might not wish to remain after the positions have been evacuated. There are strong objections of a military and sanitary character against any attempt at concentration at Dongola and Abu Fatmeh, or other similar positions. The troops are now, in the position which they now occupy, for the most part under some temporary protection or cover, such as huts, and I am happy to take this opportunity of stating that although the heat is very great, and the inconvenience and even suffering which in some cases they have to undergo are very considerable, yet neither the official nor the private reports which I have received tend to show that the condition of the troops is nearly so bad, or their sufferings so great, as might be inferred from some of the statements which have appeared in the newspapers. But what I have to point out is that in the stations which they now occupy some accommodation, perhaps not of the very best description, but some shelter from the heat, has been provided; and any temporary concentration, such as has been suggested, at Dongola or other places, would involve the encampment of a considerable part of the Force, there being no means of providing shelter at these places, and it is considered that the health of the troops would materially suffer. It is, therefore, considered best for the troops that they should remain where they are at present until the river rises, which it will begin to do at the end of this month, and then withdraw from their most advanced positions, with their stores and with such Natives as it may be necessary to bring away. They will be withdrawn first from the most advanced positions, with their stores, straight down the Nile by successive detachments. That decision, I need hardly say, involves the practical abandonment of any intention to advance on Khartoum; but by the process which I am describing a considerable time will elapse before the

  155
  troops can be withdrawn from such positions as Dongola and the stations which are lower down the Nile than Dongola. In the meantime, Sir Evelyn Baring has been instructed to consult the Egyptian Government as to the possibility or the desirability of establishing any administration at Dongola, or in the Province of Dongola, or a portion of that Province, and whether any assistance can be given to the establishment of such administration. He has also been instructed to consult the Egyptian Government as to whether it would be desirable to endeavour to complete the whole or any portion of the prolongation of the Nile Railway, which has been commenced, and whether it may be possible to find any means by which that railway may be completed and worked, as has often been suggested, as a commercial undertaking. Lord Wolseley has given it as his opinion that if Her Majesty's Government decide that Assouan is to be practically the frontier of Upper Egypt which is to be defended, it will be necessary to maintain there for some considerable time a strong brigade of all arms, with small bodies of troops holding Wady Haifa and Korosko as outposts. He also attaches considerable importance to the sending out of some armed boats, which have been prepared in view of an Expedition up the Nile, so that the river above and below the Second Cataract should be patrolled by some of these boats. That is, briefly, the decision which has been arrived at as regards the Force now upon the Nile. As to Suakin, I am afraid I am at present unable to give the House positive and definite information. Lord Wolseley has only been there a little more than a week. Of course, it is possible to communicate with him only by means of the telegraph. Much communication of that character has taken place between us, but there has scarcely yet been sufficient time for an exhaustive exchange of views between him and Her Majesty's Government. I may say that a long and important telegram from him has been received only this morning. As to the position at Suakin I can, however, say this much. General Graham's Forces were sent to Suakin to co-operate with Lord Wolseley in an advance upon Khartoum, and the railway to Berber was undertaken as a military work in support of that operation, and, indeed,
  156
  at the time it was considered a necessary part of it. With the relinquishment of the intention to advance upon Khartoum neither of these objects will be prosecuted. There is, however, no intention of evacuating Suakin until an arrangement can be made for holding it by some other civilized Power.[ A laugh.] I do not know whether the hon. Member wishes us to hold it permanently. At present Suakin cannot be held without fighting. The position of Osman Digna is not, and has not been for a long time past, that of a Chief fighting for his independence of or against aggression upon his own country. He has for many months past been besieging Suakin. He has openly announced his intention of driving the garrison of Suakin, whether Egyptians or English, into the sea. So long, therefore, as we continue to hold Suakin, the questions of the Forces by which it is to be held and of the positions in the neighbourhood which are to be held are rather military than political questions. It is a military rather than a political question whether the posts already occupied by our troops should be retained or whether there are other positions in the neighbourhood which it is desirable to occupy for the protection of Suakin and to prevent its being besieged in the manner it has been during the last few months. On this subject, therefore, we require some further experience, and, at all events, we require a further expression of the views of the General on the spot than we have yet been able to receive. Such further operations, however, as may be taking place, or as may be hereafter undertaken, will be undertaken with no other view than the defence and protection of Suakin itself. There remains, then, the question of the railway. Under the decision I have announced the railway is not required, and there is no intention of pushing it on as a military work. But a very large expenditure has been already incurred. A very general opinion among many of the best authorities on the Soudan Question is that, both as a civilizing influence and as a means of checking the Slave Trade, and further for the defence of Egypt itself, the construction of a line of railway would be a substantial benefit to the country. We have, therefore, been unwilling to abandon the hope that this railway, which has been com-

  157
  menced as a military work, may ultimately be prosecuted as a pacific and civilizing work. We are unable to say at present whether it will or will not be possible that this hope may be realized. Although the railway has been attacked by certain portions of the tribes inhabiting that part of the country, there are others which have shown more confidence in what we are doing, and, in fact, they have shown perfect readiness to work upon the railway and to assist in its protection. We do not think that it is possible or that it is desirable to come to a hasty decision upon this subject, but it is probable that within a short time we shall be able to state more definitely to the House what our intentions with regard to this railway are. I am bound, how-over, to say that Lord Wolseley's opinion, so far as we have yet received it, does not give at all a hopeful prospect of a possibility of either holding the portion of the railway which has been already constructed, or of completing it without the retention of a very considerable portion of the Force which is now there under his command. He also states that he anticipates that if that Force is retained there for a considerable time during the hot weather it may materially suffer in health. In these circumstances, we still desire to take some short time to consider what shall be done as to the railway which has been partly constructed and the materials that have been sent there. We do not pledge ourselves to the opinion that there are at present any means by which the railway can be prosecuted except as a military work, which it is not our intention to do. It is not our desire or intention to continue a railway which can only be continued at the cost of severe fighting, and which we could defend only by a large Military Force. We, however, desire to suspend our judgment whether the expenditure which has already been incurred upon it is to be entirely abandoned, or whether some other course is to be taken with the material which has been accumulated, and which there is some reason to hope may ultimately, if not immediately, be made use of in the continuance of a work which has been long contemplated, and which, in the opinion of many authorities, will still be of great value to the country. I do not think there is any-
  158
  thing I need add to the statement I have made. I have endeavoured to confine myself to a bare statement of fact, and I have not attempted to enter into a defence of the course taken by Her Majesty's Government. I do not consider this to be the proper time for such a defence; but, having on several occasions been asked what were the instructions that have been issued to our officers, we have taken the earliest opportunity in our power to give a bare recital of them and to place the House as fully as possible in possession of the views of the Government.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: There is one question which will occur to every Member of the House, although I am not quite sure that I am in Order in putting it to the noble Marquess—it might, perhaps, arise more appropriately in debate—and that is, why in the world they have incurred all this vast expenditure in the Soudan?
  MR. SPEAKER: It is my duty to remind the House that there is no Question before it, and that any argument or debate should be deferred until we have reached the Orders of the Day.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Then I will merely ask the noble Marquess a question on the statement he has made. It is, whether he is able to give the House any information as to the views which may have been expressed by Lord Wolseley on the policy Her Majesty's Government have adopted with respect to the Nile Valley, and whether the Egyptian Government have been informed that in the event of their recommending the continuation of the railway in the Nile Valley south of Wady Haifa Her Majesty's Government intend still to recommend that the taxpayers of this country shall pay for the material of that railway, which is, I understand, to be abandoned to those who may live in the country after we have withdrawn from it?
  MR. O'KELLYinquired at what period of the year the Nile would commence to rise so as to enable the troops to withdraw, and whether the suffering of the troops would not be greater if they remained until the Nile rose than if they came away now?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I believe the period at which the Nile rises varies, but it is expected it will begin to rise at Merawi and Khorti,

  159
  where are the advanced positions of the troops, about the end of this month. The military opinion distinctly is that for the health of the troops it is best that they should remain in their present position until the river begins to rise. They are not suffering materially in their present position, and to withdraw them now, in the present low state of the Nile, would entail a great amount of hard work and probable suffering among the troops. The withdrawal of the troops from these positions will be conducted slowly, and will be regulated solely with reference to the considerations to which I have referred. The right hon. Gentleman asks me whether there is any information to give as to Lord Wolseley's opinion on the political effects of the withdrawal from Dongola. I think it is possible that very shortly I will be able to lay Papers on the Table, and amongst them will be found some despatches from Lord Wolseley bearing on the question. However, I need hardly remind the right hon. Gentleman that it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to make themselves responsible for political considerations, and that whilst Lord Wolseley's opinion naturally carries weight on all questions of military consideration, it is not supposed to dictate the political decisions of the Government. With reference to the Nile Railway, we do not yet know what is the result of the negotiations which have passed between Sir Evelyn Baring and the Egyptian Government on the subject of that railway. Until we hear what, or any, proposals may be made, I do not know that I can give any further information.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Will the noble Marquess be able to lay before the House the evidence upon which the Government have come to the conclusion that there is no more danger to be apprehended from the progress of the Mahdi's Army?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: As I have said, if the House desires it, the Papers can very speedily be laid on the Table, and those Papers may, to a certain extent, touch on the question raised by the hon. Member; but the point as to the conclusion we have arrived at will, I submit, be best discussed in the debate.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: I beg to ask the noble Marquess whether the
  160
  Government have decided to maintain at Assouan or Wady Haifa the whole Force at present about Dongola, or whether they consider themselves free to withdraw any of the soldiers altogether from that part of the Nile for service elsewhere, and, if so, which?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The strength of the Force which is required at Suakin and the frontier posts will be a strongbrigade—probably about 2,500 men. It may be necessary or desirable to retain, for a time at all events, a larger portion of the Force on the Nile or in Egypt itself, in ease of any excitement or disturbance occurring there; but no doubt a very considerable portion of the Force now on the Nile will be available for service elsewhere.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: Will the noble Marquess at least remove the corps from Korti, which is the most unhealthy station upon the Nile?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I think I stated the other day all the information we have received from the Nile, and I do not know that Korti is more unhealthy than other places. There is no intention of making a concentration at Korti or any other point. When we consider the time has arrived when they may be removed, they will be withdrawn down the Nile in detachments; but there is no intention to concentrate the troops at any given point.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I wish to ask the noble Marquess a question of some importance. The noble Marquess on a previous occasion described the policy which he has just explained to the House as a new departure, a new step of the most momentous and most disgraceful character. I wish to ask the noble Marquess whether he now wishes to withdraw that statement? ["Oh, oh!" and cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that the question he has put is rather in the nature of argument, and may be used in debate.
  MR. RITCHIE: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether the Government are in negotiation with any Foreign Power for the purpose of taking over Suakin; and, if so, what Foreign Power?
  MR. FINCH-HATTON: May I ask the noble Marquess whether it would not be possible, instead of waiting for high

  161
  Nile, to remove a portion of the troops by land?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I have not stated that the troops will remain where they are till high Nile. What I did say was that the withdrawal will be very much facilitated when the Nile begins to rise, which is in about three weeks time. The removal of the most advanced stations will then commence. Questions about negotiations hardly come within the sphere of my Department to answer; these should be addressed to my right hon. Friend, or the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
  MR. CHAPLIN: As both the Nile Expeditions are to be practically abandoned, I wish to ask whether it is the intention of the Government still to propose the Vote of £4,500,000 which only a fortnight ago the right hon. Gentleman asked for, on the ground that it would be necessary to be spent on the Nile?
  MR. RITCHIE: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, when he rises, will be good enough to answer the Question I put to the Secretary of State for War a few minutes ago.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not able to state more than this—that the question of the ultimate disposition of Suakin and all the proceedings there is under careful consideration; but there are no negotiations as to which I can at the present moment give any account. With regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Mid Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin), the Bill relating to the Vote of £4,500,000 for the proceedings in the Soudan stands for second reading to-night, and the hon. Member will hardly ask me at this stage whether it is the intention to abandon that Bill. The best reply which I can give to his Question is to say that a very considerable charge has been incurred, and will have to be met in the Soudan; and, consequently, I am not able to assure the House that there can be any relief from that charge. The question whether there can be any relief from that charge can only be decided when we approach the stage of Committee on the Bill. It is highly probable that there will be no necessity for pressing forward the stages of that Bill at the present moment; but when we come to Committee on the Bill we may be in a position to give further infor-
  162
  mation bearing on the question which may assist the House in discussing the matter.
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any idea as to how much of that money has been spent?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I hope we may be able to have an Estimate prepared before we go into Committee.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: Will the safety of the troops of the Mudir of Dongola, which have been of such loyal assistance to us, be assured before the evacuation of the country by the British troops takes place?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Arrangements will be made simultaneously with, or previous to, the withdrawal of our own troops for the withdrawal at the same time of any troops who may think they would be in any danger from our evacuation.
  MR. PULESTON: I think it was understood that a statement about Russia would be included in the statement of the noble Lord.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: There was no understanding whatever of that kind.

  CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIA AND AFGHANISTAN—THE RUSSO-AFGHAN BOUNDARY.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: From expressions used by the Prime Minister, and from what we hear has happened in "another place," I would venture to ask whether it would be convenient, or whether he intended, to make any statement to the House with regard to the Afghan Frontier question before we proceed to the Orders of the Day?
  MR. GLADSTONE: What I had to say was not of such importance as to lead me to have asked the House to allow me to make a separate statement; but I will say what I intended to say, as it may be for the convenience of the House, and I assume that I am allowed by their indulgence to proceed. My noble Friend has already told the House the exact condition of affairs as regards the troops in the Soudan and the instructions sent to them, and the intentions of the Government as far as these have been formed. He has told the House what has been decided and what has been reserved. With regard to the important question of the frontier of

  163
  Afghanistan and the negotiations with Russia, the case stands in a somewhat different position as regards military matters, because there are no military operations in progress. Happily, matters have not reached that stage, and all that is going on, and has been going on, is in the nature of preparations. The House will not expect me to enter into detail at this time on the subject of those preparations; if it did I should have to refer to the Representatives of the Army and Navy Departments. But what I understand the Question of the right hon. Gentleman to refer to is this—what can be said with regard to the political position as respects the Afghan Frontier and the progress of the negotiations with Russia. The main thing that I have to say, I am afraid, must still be to point to the Papers which are coming, and give the House reasons to believe that by the end of this week the Papers will be in their hands. When the Papers are in their hands my expectation and opinion are, although I cannot yet speak absolutely with regard to every point, that the House will find itself in a condition fully to pass a judgment on the proceedings of Her Majesty's Government. I need not, however, confine myself absolutely to the reference to these Papers. I am able, with Lord Granville's authority, to say as much as this—the reference to the judgment of the Sovereign of a friendly State having been agreed to, as already stated in the House, and no apprehension being felt as to the settlement of the details of this point, several meetings have been held on the subject of fixing the principal points of the frontier. These meetings have been attended by Lord Granville and Lord Kimberley on the part of the British Government, and by M. de Staal and M. Lessar on the part of the Russian Government. The effect of these proceedings has been that they have arrived substantially at an agreement which is satisfactory to Her Majesty's British Government, and, let me add, which is satisfactory also to Lord Dufferin and the Council of India. There has been no time to receive the final ratification of these proceedings on the part of the Russian Government; but that is expected certainly from day to day. The time, the House will observe, has not been very long since the communications
  164
  were commenced, and I may add with regard to the forms of proceeding that there is no difficulty. We anticipate the formation of a Convention with Russia at the close of the proceedings; but it may be an open question whether a convenient time for forming that Convention will not be when we have concluded, not only the main proceedings between the two Governments, but likewise the proceedings in detail for the delimitation of the frontier. I am not in a position to state at the present moment that the name of the arbitrator has been fixed. I do not speak of that as intending to convey that it is a subject of controversy, but simply because it comes in order after the proceedings with regard to the frontier, and with reference to the proceedings of the arbitration itself. We have not yet reached the point, but we have no reason to believe that there will be any long delay. I am not sure that there is anything else that it might be in the disposition of hon. Gentlemen opposite to ask, or that it may be in my power to reply to. What I have said, I believe, touches the main and essential points of the question. I will not go further—it would be abusing the Forms of the House were I to do so—and make any observations as to the Order of the Day and the intended Motion of the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) founded upon it. So far as I am aware, there is really no matter whatever in contest between ourselves and any other portion of the House at the present moment. Of course, I speak now of the production of information, and I do not speak of any question connected with the merits of the proceedings of Her Majesty's Government.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in any form, directly or indirectly, the Ameer has been, is being, or will be consulted with regard to these negotiations?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think I gave a sufficient answer to this Question a few days ago. I have considered carefully the terms of that answer, and I think it gave satisfaction to the House. I do not like to recite them, and I do not wish to vary from them; but, undoubtedly, I think I may say in general terms now that the Ameer has been sufficiently consulted to give us full

  165
  assurance that we are acting in harmony with him and for his interest.

  EGYPT (WAR IN THE SOUDAN)—SUAKIN.
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAM: I should like to ask the Prime Minister, Whether Suakin does not constitute a portion of the Dominions of the Sultan of Turkey; and, if that is so, whether it would not, in his opinion, be a gross breach of public law to invite any other Foreign Power?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is clearly entering upon matter of debate.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The external lines of the Egyptian Dominions are not always very nicely formed; but I think there is no doubt that Suakin is conceived to be within the Dominions of the Sultan.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: With reference to the answer given by the Prime Minister just now, might I ask him whether any single one of those causes of anxiety which existed at the time when he asked the House to vote £11,000,000 of money is still in existence?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It appears to me that that is also a question for debate. Suppose I were able to answer my hon. Friend that none of these causes were in existence—suppose, for argument's sake, I was able to make that answer, and certainly I think it would be highly imprudent for me to go so far—he would still have to face the question that a considerable part of the charge has been spent.
  MR. LEWIS: Would the right hon. Gentleman pardon me for asking whether the Papers would contain the exact terms of the reference?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I do not doubt at all that they will contain the exact terms of the reference.
  MR. GREGORY: I beg to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War, whether the retention of Suakin and district involves the protection of the friendly Natives?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Of course, the same instructions as I referred to with regard to the friendly Natives on the Nile will hold with regard to those at Suakin.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANasked as to where the friendly Natives would be brought to?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I am afraid I am not in a position yet to say.
  MR. ONSLOW: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether Russia has given to Her Majesty's Government any guarantee that when the boundary is once fixed, she will not overstep that boundary? [Cries of "No, no!"]
  [No reply.]
  MR. HENEAGEwished to know whether the noble Lord could give any information as to the disposition of the troops under General Graham; and whether the whole or part would be withdrawn, and when?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I thought I said that I was not able at present to state exactly what would be done at Suakin, what positions would have to be occupied, and whether any position outside Suakin would have to be occupied. I am unable to say how far it will be possible.
  MR. O'KELLY: Can the noble Lord undertake to issue instructions to General Graham not to make any more raids in defence of this railway which is now to be abandoned until such times as the Government shall come to a final decision?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I stated the other day the view which I took of the operations of General Graham. I have nothing further to say as to what operations may be considered necessary for the purpose of adequately defending Suakin.

ORDERS OF THE BAY.
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 3) BILL.
  (Sir Arthur Otway, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Hibbert.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I wish to say a few words in moving the second reading of this Bill. This is a Bill to give effect to the decision of the House to vote a sum of money amounting to £ 11,000,000 on the request of the Government. The decision which the House came to became complete for all practical purposes when that sum had been voted in Committee and had been reported to the House. The question of the time for proceeding with the several stages of

  167
  the Bill then became a question of secondary importance; because it was within the power of the Government, with perfect regularity and conformity to practice, to do whatever under their responsibility might seem to them to be necessary in the way of military preparations or of meeting charges which had been already incurred. But I wish to observe to-night that the position of affairs has been changed, and has been changed in a manner which I do not altogether understand. We unfortunately had several divisions in the House in the beginning of last week on the subject of proceeding with the Report of the Vote of Credit on a particular evening. I felt at that time that the effect of those divisions could not but be mischievous abroad. I stated that feeling, and I do not now mean to beg the question in any way as to who was responsible for these consequences. But in order that they might not be enlarged, we suggested a mode of proceeding which was generally acceptable to the House. That mode was that we should postpone the stage of the second reading of the Bill in order to give an opportunity to those Gentlemen who desired to express their views to enter on an expression of them with greater facility and convenience than they could by prolonging the debate that evening. The only point in this matter that I now feel anxious about is that our proceedings should be so regulated that they should not be misunderstood. It will be generally felt that it is more or less to be regretted that we should have had occasion to divide several times upon the Report of the Resolution to the House. It will further be regretted, I think, if we are to have differences of opinion, debate, and division to-night upon another matter that is not a matter of reality and substance. Now, I am entirely at a loss to know what point there is at issue at the present moment between the Government and the Opposition. When the arrangement was made last week for the purpose of postponing the Bill to a convenient opportunity, I stated that I understood that you did not oppose the proposal to vote the money. Nothing could be more distinct than the indications of assent that were given me from the opposite Bench. I admit that a voice from below the Gangway cried "No," and indicated contradiction; but
  168
  as regards the indications given by Gentlemen opposite they were as clear as possible, and we were under the impression that the proceedings were governed by Gentlemen on the opposite Bench, and not by a voice below the Gangway. We, I think, on Monday last virtually, and on Thursday last finally, appointed this day for proceeding with the second reading of this Bill, and we did so in the full belief that while Gentlemen were to raise any question with regard to further information, or, if they thought fit, with reference to the conduct of the Government upon the Bill, yet that the Bill was not to be contested. [Mr. CHAPLIN: No.] Again, a voice from below the Gangway says "No." [Mr. CHAPLIN: I do not sit below the Gangway.] Now, Sir, in dealing with this question I have contended that the usual practice of the House of Commons, except when a distinct issue of policy was raised, is to pass Votes of Credit demanded under military necessity, and to take other opportunities for questioning the proceedings of the Government with regard to those Votes. I still wish to raise my voice in behalf of that old Parliamentary practice. If at this moment there is a disposition to make a Motion to the effect that this country ought to conquer and occupy the Soudan, or that an expedition to Khartoum ought to go forward, provided that the military necessities of the Empire elsewhere will permit it, I perfectly admit it is within the competence of Gentlemen opposite to make such a Motion. But we have no Motion of policy raised. We have a Motion of opposition raised to the progress of the Bill, in the form of the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex. But what is that Motion? It is to the effect that this House, while perfectly willing to grant such Supplies as may be required for the defence of the Empire, is of opinion that, before proceeding with this Bill, it is entitled to receive adequate information as to the present policy of Her Majesty's Government in respect of the purposes to which the money granted by the recent Vote of Credit is to be applied. There is nothing that we contest in that. We have never said that it was essential to our views to proceed with this Bill to-night. The Bill was fixed for to-night, in order to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and to give

  169
  them an opportunity of delivering their sentiments upon it as far as they thought fit. It was never fixed by us; as we said upon the Report, we are determined to join issue with you; and, whether you wish it or not, we have determined to challenge the judgment of the House in immediately pressing this Bill. We say that it is most inexpedient and injurious to the public interest to mix up the two questions—one of them the goodness or badness of the proceedings of Her Majesty's Government, the other the willingness of the House of Commons to vote Supply. It is inexpedient to mix up these two questions; but I have this feeling also. Hon. Gentlemen have demanded information. I contend that the House of Commons was proceeding liberally in passing the Vote of Credit without demanding information; but, at the same time, while I think that to be a wise and salutary practice on the part of Parliament, I must say that it is a question upon which I am very loth to join issue with hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is our duty as a Government to avoid any issues except the real issues, and I am aware of no real issue which is before us at this time. As to information, the Papers with respect to Russia and the Afghan Frontier will raise matters of the utmost importance and delicacy, and it will be the duty of the House to exercise a free and unbiassed judgment upon the conduct of the Government. The same thing is to be said with regard to the Soudan; and why in the world are we to have this Bill put into conflict with an Amendment which has, in the first place, an appearance of indicating opposition on the part of a portion of the House of Commons to Supplies demanded by the Government for military necessities, and which, in the second place, does not raise any proposition which we are in the slightest degree obliged to contest? I move the second reading of this Bill in fulfilment of the pledge I gave last week to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and not because I have the slightest disposition to force upon them the progress of the Committee stage, or even the progress of the present stage of the Bill. If they desire that it should be postponed until the Afghan and Russian Papers are in their hands, let that be perfectly understood, because upon it appears to me depend the question whether the House of
  170
  Commons is, during the course of this evening, to exhibit itself in a reasonable or an unreasonable attitude. I hope I have spoken with perfect clearness. If not, I beg that Gentlemen will signify any feeling they may still have as to a lack of clearness on my part. My object is that we should not raise any false or unreal issue. We cannot tell you what we do not know ourselves; but what we do know in respect of the policy in the Soudan and the measures to be taken as to the Soudan has been told you by my noble Friend. What we have to say with respect to Russia I have given very inadequately, I quite admit, in the few words I have said to-night. But we are placing the information as rapidly as we can in your hands for your consideration. It is part of the same group of considerations which have led us to postpone the Budget. The Budget contains important financial proposals; but what we feel is, that it is hardly fair to ask the House to commit itself upon those proposals until we are further advanced in the knowledge of affairs now rapidly progressing, which will enable the House to form a far better judgment than at present. We shall, as rapidly as we can, clear the situation, and bring matters before you in a state in which, without being embarrassed as to the method in which the Vote of Credit has been drawn, or in any other way, you may raise any question you like of policy or of censure, each of which undoubtedly affords to the House of Commons ample cause for the exercise of its high Constitutional jurisdiction. That being so, I shall move the second reading of the Bill without troubling the House further, except with one word as to what was mentioned in regard to the amount for which we asked. In our opinion, on the one hand, the Forms of the House will not permit any question of that kind to be raised with perfect advantage on the present stage of the Bill; but, on the other hand, before we go to the Committee stage, and with regard to the time of taking that stage, we are disposed to enter into a friendly consideration with various portions of the House. Before the time of taking the Committee we will endeavour to give the best view we can of the degree and extent to which the credit of the Government and the country are already committed under the Vote of Credit. I now

  171
  move the second reading of the Bill, and if matters of contest should arise, of course we shall be permitted to have the opportunity of saying something upon the Amendment; but I have endeavoured to keep clear of polemical matters, because I wish that our proceedings should be conducted with reference to sound general rules.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON,in rising to move the following Amendment:—
  "That this House, having shown its readiness to grant such supplies as may be required for the defence of the Empire, is of opinion that, before proceeding with this Bill, it is entitled to receive adequate information as to the present policy of Her Majesty's Government in respect of the purposes to which the money granted by the recent Vote of Credit is to be applied,"
  said: Of course, in any question of procedure in this House the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister is a very great authority; but if the House will consider for a moment the alternative course which the right hon. Gentleman proposes, they will at once perceive that it will in no sense whatever meet the objections which the Prime Minister himself states. He says that it is an inconvenient practice to mix up a question of public policy with the discussion of a more Money Bill; and he proposes, in order to get over that difficulty, that this discussion should practically be postponed for a week, to a subsequent stage of this Bill, in which case exactly the same difficulty will arise with which we are now confronted. If it is unwise to raise a question of policy on the second reading of the Bill, it would be equally unwise to do so on the Committee stage.
  MR. GLADSTONE: That is not my proposal. My proposal is to leave Gentlemen opposite their liberty of choice, when they have all the facts before them, as to raising the question of the policy of the Government.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I quite admit that would be a convenient course if we were dealing with an ordinary Government. But the Prime Minister asks us to wait until we are in possession of all the facts. When will that be? We have had three distinct
  172
  policies enunciated in this House on the last three successive Mondays. The Prime Minister made a bellicose speech a fortnight ago, and swallowed the whole of it on the next Monday. Tonight the noble Marquess gets up and makes the most extraordinary statement which, I will undertake to say, ever fell from the mouth of any English. Minister. I quite agree that it is inconvenient to raise this question of policy on a Money Bill; but we have no alternative. We do not wish to refuse any Supplies which may be necessary for the defence of the Empire. But we accompany that with the expression of our opinion that no Supplies which this House can vote will be sufficient for the defence of the Empire so long as the present Government have the handling of its affairs. The Prime Minister thinks the Resolution is not strong enough. I agree with him. I say that no Resolution is strong enough to censure the conduct of the Government during the last five months. ["Oh!"] Hon. Members who interrupt me may, perhaps, forget what occurred during the last three months. There was a Vote of Censure moved in this House some two months and a-half ago. In order to secure a victory, and to pander to the belligerent feeling of a certain section of the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister got up and announced the intention of the Government to take Khartoum and smash the Mahdi. You got a majority of 14; it has served its purpose; and to-night, because there was a Vote on the Paper which you might interpret, if you chose, as a Vote of Censure, you retract that policy, and announce the intention of withdrawing those troops and abandoning that enter-prize. In the meantime, you have murdered some 6,000 or 10,000 men by the British soldiers under your orders. Now that sufficient people have been killed to give a little reality to the fancy policy you announce, you withdraw your troops, and expect us to acquiesce in silence. It is quite true that we are now in a great maze of difficulty and danger; but in our humble judgment the greatest danger to this country is the incompetence of the men who happen to be in Office. The Prime Minister says there is no point of controversy between us; but I think there is a strong point of controversy. Nobody could have anticipated the startling and

  173
  astonishing statement which the noble Marquess made. If we could have anticipated such a statement we should have put stronger language into the Resolution. But you know perfectly well the purpose for which it is moved. We want information from you because we cannot trust you. You have given us full but very unsatisfactory information with regard to the Soudan; you have given us the most inadequate information as regards the Central Asian question; and that being so, it seems to me we have no alternative but to proceed with the Motion that stands in my name, with a view, if possible, of pressing and extracting from the Government some further information with reference to the objects of the policy on behalf of which this money is wanted. Now, Sir, the expenditure which we are asked to sanction is the largest expenditure which has ever yet been asked by any Government from any House of Commons; it amounts to upwards of £101,000,000 sterling; it is an expenditure many millions in excess of that required in the worst days of the Crimean War, and it is an expenditure asked for at the commencement of a financial year. The expenditure at the close of a financial year is very usually much in excess of that estimated for at the commencement. For what purpose is this money now wanted? So far as we can understand, you are facilitating the transfer of territory, which our officers say belongs to our Afghan allies, to the Russian Government. So far as the Soudan is concerned, you admit yourselves that every single farthing you have spent there has been utterly wasted, and you have in addition sown there a crop of hatred to the English name, which for generations will bear evil fruit. As I said before, we have had a succession of policies from Her Majesty's Government. We had the great speech of a fortnight back from the Prime Minister, and since then we have had the statement of the Agreement which has been entered into between Russia and this country. We have since had the advantage of studying the opinion of the Press on the Agreement, and of studying the Agreement itself so far as we can get at it. The closer we study that Agreement the clearer it becomes that the Government have surrendered every single one of the questions that were in dispute between
  174
  them and Russia, and that the Prime Minister has altogether abandoned the attitude by which alone this Vote of £11,000,000 was obtained. And not only have they abandoned all the questions at issue, but they have practically withdrawn from their protest against the so-called unprovoked aggression of which they believed the Russian Generals to have been guilty. I want the House to understand what will be the effect of that withdrawal. I will ask the House to consider what we believe must be the consequence of ignoring the infraction of the solemn covenant entered into between this country and Russia, in order that Her Majesty's Government may enter into a new and fresh arrangement with Russia, any infraction of which means war. Why, it means surrounding the new arrangement with conditions which are a positive encouragement to any adventurous Russian General hereafter to treat the arrangement about to be entered into as the previous solemn covenant baa been treated. So far from the arrangement which the Government are making tending, in our opinion, in any way to produce a durable and peaceable settlement of this question, it militates very much against the chances of a peaceable solution hereafter being possible. When the Prime Minister made his great speech a fortnight back there were certain things which he brought out very clearly. He will, perhaps, allow me to say that of living Parliamentary speakers there is no man who has to a like extent the same power of speech. There is no man who can state facts so lucidly when he wishes to do so as the Prime Minister; there is no man who can clothe the course of action he proposes to take with an appearance of such moral motives; there is no man who can appeal with such a strident voice to the conscience of the world. In all these ways the Prime Minister excelled himself the other night. He made it as clear as daylight to the whole world that there was a covenant of the simplest and most unmistakable character entered into between England and Russia, and that there had been a gross infraction of that covenant; and he demanded in the name of the English nation reparation for the infraction of that covenant. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] If ho did not demand repara-

  175
  tion tbere was no meaning in the greater part of his speech. It appears now that the Prime Minister has altogether abandoned that position, for that is the agreement when stripped of the pretentious verbiage in which it is wrapped up—it means a sham arbitration. Every Russian newspaper and the official record of the Russian Government give that account of the arbitration. What is the question to be referred to arbitration? Whether the agreement that was entered into between the English and the Russian Governments that the troops of both were not to advance means that the Russians were to advance. That is the question which the Prime Minister proposes to refer to the arbitration of a friendly Sovereign. The point subjected to arbitration is as clear as daylight, though the Government have deliberately wrapped up the reference in as ambiguous language as possible. The probable result will be that that reference will be the subject of numerous diplomatic notes and probably misapprehension, with the ultimate consequence that the decision will be given after so long a time that we shall be told it is no good taking any further notice of the matter. I ask the Prime Minister whether the course he proposes to take will not do what he said we could not do—close the book? If he says it does not, I shall be obliged if any Member of the Government will explain in what sense it does not. The Prime Minister has made a point of the fact that no officers on either side are to be placed on their trial. Let us consider what that means. There are two sets of officers in Central Asia. One set are alleged to have committed a violation of a solemn understanding, and the other set have reported the offence. The officers who committed the offence remain victorious and decorated, while the officers who reported the offence are recalled. The Prime Minister positively made a point of the fact that the Russian Government had not asked that Sir Peter Lumsden should be put on his trial for reporting the misconduct of the Russian General. What can be the effect of the recall of General Lumsden on the susceptible and quick-witted populations of Central Asia? All they know is that one officer has been recalled and the other promoted and decorated by his superiors. To-night the
  176
  Prime Minister made one statement which is of some little importance. He stated that the Russian Ambassador and M. Lessar had met Lord Kimberley and Lord Granville, and they had arrived at a satisfactory conclusion. We should like to know whether the conclusion is in accordance with M. Lessar's suggestions, or with those of the officers of our Mission? M. Lessar is at present the only man in this country who possesses the necessary topographical knowledge of the country where the do-limitation is to take place. Sir Peter Lumsden and his suite had information of the same character, yet the Prime Minister has agreed to settle this question before our officers who have the necessary local knowledge can come home, while the Russian Ambassador has with him the only man at present in this country who, so far as we know, has full knowledge of the country. There had been a long struggle between the English and Russian Governments as to where the delimitation was to take place, whether in London or on the spot. Now, the English Government have agreed that the delimitation should take place in London. In fact, every single point at issue between the Russian and the English Governments has been con-coded by the English Government. No doubt it may be well for a strong nation sometimes to make concessions; but it is different when experience shows that you are now entering into a fresh Treaty or arrangement exactly on the same conditions as you entered into the Treaty with the Boers. There is an extraordinary analogy between the two. On both occasions the Government have made great military preparations, and on both occasions they stopped their military preparations, stating that they had gained all they wanted. The President of the Board of Trade and other Members of the Government maintained that the Convention made with the Boers secured for this country and for the Natives everything the Government wished to secure; but every single detail of that Convention has been broken. The Natives have been pillaged and maltreated; and when the attention of the British Government was called to the infraction of the Treaty, Lord Derby's reply was that the land of the people who were being despoiled was so poor that the fee simple of it would not pay the costs of

  177
  an expedition. You are now entering into negotiations under conditions which make it almost certain that the terms which will be the result of those negotiations will not be kept. My noble Friend the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) the other night did great service by citing all the different occasions on which the Russian Government had given assurances. No firm reliance can be placed upon any engagement or promise made by the Russian Government. But has any assurance been given on the present occasion '? The reason is pretty obvious. The Emperor of Russia, autocrat as he is, is entirely dependent on the goodwill of the Services. There is no real public opinion in Russia, and if it is a tradition of those Services that they were to advance, there is nothing to oppose to that tradition, except the personal will of the Sovereign, who, I believe, is not a very strong man. Russia cannot be stopped by natural boundaries, for she has surmounted them all She has passed the mountains of the Caucasus, she has traversed the Caspian, and she has passed over the deserts between the Caspian and Afghanistan. Lord Lawrence always held that the Russian advance could only be stopped by negotiations, or by war. I believe that a threat of war in the hands of a resolute man is the most effective means of maintaining peace with Russia; but the Prime Minister, by using a weapon which he does not understand, has blunted its edge for future use. Any Prime Minister, speaking in earnest, and saying "We shall go to war," will not for many years to come be believed in consequence of the events of the last fortnight. In dealing with the Russian Government, the one thing essential for an English Minister is to make people believe that ho means what he says. But the present Prime Minister never means what he says, and ho can always explain afterwards that ho did not exactly intend what was the natural inference from his language. ["Hear!" and murmurs on the Ministerial side.] Can hon. Members opposite tell me of one single question of policy on which the Prime Minister's action has in any way been in accord with his election speeches? [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] The Prime Minister cheers. The right hon. Gentleman has had so long an experience
  178
  of swallowing his own words that he positively cheers me when I remind him of that fact. As long as he thus acts on questions affecting merely internal affairs he can, comparatively, do little harm; but when he appeals, in the name of the English people, to the civilized world, and makes use of language which leads everybody to think he meant war, and when, a week afterwards, he recants his views, he does irreparable harm to the national character for integrity of speech and the national honour. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: Hear, hear!] Honesty of speech may be a matter which has no fascination for the Home Secretary—[Cries of "Order!" and "Withdraw!"]—but it is a natural heritage of his countrymen. Hitherto it has been supposed that, in dealing with foreign nations, although sometimes slow to act, we carried out our announced intentions. As I perceive that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade is going to answer me, I wish to ask him one or two questions. If our position is to be retrieved, and if we are to obtain a peaceable settlement, one thing is essential. We must have some guarantee from the Russian Government that they mean to respect the territory left to the Ameer. Can any Member of the Government say that Russia has given any indication whatever of her willingness so to bind herself? And not only will it be necessary to obtain such an announcement from Russia, but it will also be necessary to take other measures of precaution. What is going to be done with all this money? The Government have already made two railways in Africa, which they admit to be perfectly useless. They are to be worked as commercial enterprizes. All the inhabitants in the neighbourhood are to be driven away by our troops, and then some enterprizing speculator is to be found who will take these railways off the hands of Her Majesty's Government. There was one railway which the Government spent money to destroy—I mean the railway towards Quetta. Are the Government going to apply any money to the reconstruction of the railway to Quetta, or, if necessary, to Candahar? The Prime Minister says that this money is to be devoted to warlike preparations, and he is quite right; but he formerly insisted on the railway

  179
  being included in the Afghan War Charges.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not aware of it.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: When the right hon. Gentleman was Chancellor of the Exchequer he, in an interesting speech, included in the expenses of the Afghan War all the money which had been applied to the railways. What I want to know is, whether any portion of this money is to be applied to the more rapid extension of those railways? Perhaps it might be found necessary to go further, and to extend the railway to the fortifications of the Helmund. Unless we now back up our intentions by resolute action, war will ensue in a short time. I daresay I shall be told that in making observations such as these we show that we are in favour of war. ["Hear, hear!"] The Home Secretary says "Hear, hear!" but I do not know from what source the right hon. Gentleman derived his information. If any man supplied the right hon. Gentleman with that information, he supplied him with an unadulterated falsehood.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The noble Lord has himself supplied the information.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The right hon. Gentleman used to write under the name of "Historicus;" and I shall be glad to know whether he can give us one single instance in the history of this country where a plain speech has produced war between England and Russia? Twice only in the last 30 years have the relations between the two countries been seriously strained—in 1854 and in 1878. In the latter year Lord Beaconsfield secured "peace with honour," and every single act of precaution by means of which he secured peace was opposed by the Peace Party in this House. In 1854 we drifted into war, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite was most responsible for that. Every pacific speech and Motion which landed us in war at that time was supported by the Peace Party in this House. I sympathize very much with the objects which the Peace Party have in view; but it seems that they do not quite understand the character of the nation with which we have to deal. There is a War Party in Russia and there is a Peace Party. The object of those persons in this country who desire to prevent war
  180
  ought to be to strengthen the hands of the Peace Party in Russia. But the Radical Party here always use language and take action so as to render the Peace Party in Russia powerless for good and the Military Party omnipotent, by removing from the latter the only restraint upon them—namely, a fear of the consequences. I believe there is no political Party in the state which can suffer so much from war as the Conservative Party. The Radical is discontented with the existing state of things, while the Conservative is a man who is more or less contented with things as they are. The Conservative is never so strong as when the country is prosperous, while the Radical is never so weak as when the country is at rest. War must necessarily produce much depression of trade and much distress, which strikes at the very foundation of that prosperity which is the basis on which the Conservative Party rests. I must apologize for having used strong language towards the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary; but he will excuse my saying that it is a little annoying to be constantly interrupted when speaking, and that I think I have given the House good reason to show that I am not actuated by any factious motives, or by any desire to stop Supplies. On the contrary, I am ready to grant any Supplies that may be necessary for the purposes of the Empire; but I have no confidence in the policy of Her Majesty's Government as to the manner in which they will be applied. Just let me say a word with regard to our action in the Soudan. Is there anyone in this House who is not ashamed of our policy in the Soudan? The Prime Minister is very fond of resorting to arbitration when he gets into difficulties with a strong Foreign Power; but I ask him whether he would like the question between the Soudanese and ourselves to be referred to arbitration? In such a case, what could the Soudanese not say for themselves? They could point out that the Prime Minister had deliberately allowed his Representative, General Gordon, to be besieged in Khartoum, and, in spite of the most earnest protests from all parts of the House, had delayed to send out an Expedition for his relief until it was too late. To allay the feeling of indignation produced by that line of conduct the Prime Minister came down to this House and made such a

  181
  speech as that which he made a fortnight ago, announcing his intention to take Khartoum and to demolish the prestige of the Mahdi; while only a few days before that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, speaking at Liverpool, said that having drawn the sword we could not put up with failure. What I protest against is the new principle which the Prime Minister has introduced into the English Constitution for the regulation of our wars. Wars are not now regulated by the national exigencies, but simply by the vagaries of cliques of hon. Members in this House. If it is necessary to purchase the Whig vote, then a forward policy is announced; while if it is necessary to purchase the Radical vote the orders are countermanded and the troops are withdrawn. And what is the result? The result is that all confidence in our policy has gone, because these wretched Natives find that the only result of being friendly to the English Government and of assisting us is that their homos are burnt and that their children and wives are massacred. War is a brutal pastime. One of the greatest of our English Kings, on being reproached with the brutality with which he made war, said that war had throe handmaids ever waiting upon her—fire, famine, and the sword, but that he only used the least terrible of those three. I charge the Prime Minister, however, with having let loose all three of these calamities. Well, we are now going to retire from the Soudan, and what is to happen to our friendlies? They, in their turn, will be subjected to fire, famine, and the sword. The fact is that this wretched, impotent Egyptian Government in its very worst days could do what we cannot do—namely, march any number of men they chose from Suakin to Berber, because the people knew that if they helped them the Egyptian Government would stand by them, while they know that the English Government will not. Another great objection which I feel to the policy of the Prime Minister is that from the day he assumed Office until now he has shown a disposition to sacrifice everybody and everything to save himself. I say that such a policy to us, who have a great Colonial and Indian Empire, means ruin. It does not matter whether it is a Colleague that is to be thrown over, like the right hon. Gentleman the Mem-
  182
  ber for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), or a great soldier to be betrayed, like General Gordon, or a Commissioner to be recalled, like Sir Peter Lumsden, or a distinguished General, like General Wolseley, who is to swallow the promises that he has been induced to make, and on the faith of which we secured the co-operation of the friendly Natives in the Soudan. Each and all have been thrown over by the Prime Minister. This action of the Government has been followed, not only with regard to individuals, but also with regard to communities. The Native tribes of Bechuana-land, those poor friendlies in the Soudan, and the unfortunate Egyptian garrisons have been mercilessly left to be massacred, and the Afghans—each and all in their turn have been thrown over by the Prime Minister. The Liberal Party are quite as responsible as the Prime Minister for this general abandonment of Allies. Speaking at Manchester in August, 1879, the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War then the Leader of the Opposition, said that the Liberal Party of the present time had much to gain and nothing to lose; and he pointed out the great differences of opinion which existed in the Party, but said that any hon. Member would show a want of patriotism if he shut his eyes to the serious and injurious consequences to the country which must result from him allowing his personal opinion to prevail over his Party allegiance. It is a matter of notoriety that in the past Liberals have acted upon that principle, and have time after time voted contrary to their consciences, and that they have suppressed speeches which they would have made for fear of giving offence to the Prime Minister. ["Hear, hear!" and cries of "Oh!"] Can hon. Members opposite deny the truth of that statement? Why, one of the most capable Members of the Government, the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), after resigning Office, described the Liberal Party as sitting like dumb dogs, and doing nothing but respond to the whip that was applied to them. Now, does anybody suppose that if the different sections of the Liberal Party had freely expressed their opinion, not only in reference to the Soudan, but other questions, there would have been this enormous amount of expenditure and bloodshed—that so many

  183
  thousands of these Natives would have been massacred in the Soudan—that thousands of English soldiers would have died or returned home wounded or sick—that £10,000,000 would have been swallowed up—or that the honour of England might not have been saved? All this might have been stopped if the Liberal Party had had the courage of their opinions, and not allowed themselves to be overruled by the Prime Minister. This is a policy the strain of which the resources of the country cannot possibly stand. The result of the Government policy is that in every trumpery frontier war English soldiers have to do the whole of the work themselves; and they find that the Natives, who would otherwise have been disposed to assist them, are opposed to them. In Egypt the population is the most easily governed people on the face of the earth; but you have not a single friend in the country, and you know that if you withdraw the 30,000 English troops any Government you may set up would tumble to pieces in a moment. And in India, if you adopted the Prime Minister's policy, how many hundred thousands of soldiers would be necessary? My noble Friend, I think, has done great service in calling attention to the nature of our tenure of India, and showing how frail it is on the one hand and how strong it is on the other. I believe that the interior difficulties of India have been increased by the policy of Her Majesty's Government. I believe that no internal policy, however sound, can retain for us India, unless it is accompanied by an external policy which conveys to the Natives that we are capable of protecting them against Russian aggression. A great change is now about to take place between the relations of this House and the Government of India. The Government of India is probably the most complicated piece of political mechanism which was ever devised, because we have established on Acts of Parliament an Empire at the other end of the world every iota of authority over which in the Viceroy and Government is derived from an English Act of Parliament. From the necessity of the conditions surrounding the House of Commons this Assembly must necessarily be affected by every change and gust of public feeling. It is as unstable in its opinions as the sands of the sea. On the other hand, you wish
  184
  to infuse into the Indian policy all that is stable and durable. It has been a task of great difficulty to reconcile those two conflicting elements, and by consent the House has always treated Indian questions as beyond Party. Owing to the advance of Russia in Central Asia the whole control of the foreign relations of India must necessarily be transferred from the Indian Foreign Office to the English Foreign Office, and they must form part of the policy of the Government of the day, subject to all the currents and eddies to which any question of Party is liable. It is a great misfortune that on the very eve of this great change in the relations between this House and India the Government should have adopted a policy which unquestionably seems to be regulated more with a view to the General Election than to the interests of India. If the Government were, in the first instance, of opinion that the points at issue between them and the Russian Government were minor matters upon which it was not necessary to do more than protest, the Prime Minister ought never to have made the speech he did make on this day fortnight. It is because he has abandoned that position that he has struck a blow at the foundation upon which our dominion in India rests. It is awkward, no doubt, that my Resolution is not couched in stronger words; but that is not my fault. I could not anticipate that we should have had the astounding statement of to-day. We did not expect such a declaration of policy, or unquestionably we would have adapted our Resolution to meet it. If we postponed that to this day week we should still be in the same, position. I would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite whether they are satisfied with the results of the foreign policy of the last four years? Have the Government in one instance fulfilled the expectations on which alone they received the assent of the House? Has it brought about peace? Has it brought about honour? Has it not promoted dishonour? Has it not been murderous in its operation—merciless to the weak and cowardly to the strong? Is it not a policy which has readily consigned our Native Allies and their families to massacre and their homos to pillage; and has it not squandered the vital resources of this country in useless enterprizes? It is a policy

  185
  which has alienated from us every single Ally in Europe—a policy which in Africa has produced, anarchy, chaos, and hatred of the English name. And now for the first time this hateful system is to be transferred to the neighbouring Continent of Asia, where it will find a fifty-fold larger field for its baneful operations, and where its withering influences will be applied to our myriad interests, and where it will sap the source of our strength and dry up the origin of our great Indian Empire. An appeal to the country must take place within a few months. I believe if there is one spark of manhood in the people, one glimmer of a sense of justice left, they will put a summary end to this shameful condition of things. But pending that, during the interval irreparable harm may be done; and it is because we are conscious of the imminence, as well as of the magnitude, of the danger which now awaits us, that we ask the House of Commons to intervene before it is too late.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House, having shown its readiness to grant such supplies as may he required for the defence of the Empire, is of opinion that, before proceeding with this Bill, it is entitled to receive adequate information as to the present policy of Her Majesty's Government in respect of the purposes to which the money granted by the recent Vote of Credit is to he applied,"—(Lord George Hamilton,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the House will agree that, at all events, the speech we have just listened to is an extremely characteristic one. It has been full of very violent language; but it has not always been so easy to gather from it any intelligible conclusion. In the course of the earlier remarks which the noble Lord made, he used an expression towards the Prime Minister which I think was hardly in accordance with the ordinary courtesy which Members of this House, and especially Members young in age, are wont to treat the Prime Minister of this country. The noble Lord said the Prime Minister never means what he says. Well, I confess that not only do I object to that expression as applied to the Prime Minister, but I object to it as coming from
  186
  the noble Lord. He, at all events, is the last person to twit us with not meaning what we say, and not knowing how to say what we mean. I should like to call the attention of the House to the Amendment of the noble Lord, of which we have heard nothing whatever. In the course of the speech which he has delivered with so much vehemence and with such admirably simulated indignation the noble Lord says that he cannot find words strong enough to condemn the policy of the Government. He is burning with indignation, and his indignation finds expression in a mild and moderate demand for information. And from whom does he ask this information? He says the Government is absolutely incompetent, and, moreover, that it is absolutely untrustworthy. Then, why do you not treat us as incompetent and untrustworthy? Why do you ask an untrustworthy Government to give you information which you would not believe if you received it because you cannot place any faith in us? Why, if you think us incompetent, do you not refuse the Supplies? That would be consistent. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: We are going to.] Not a bit of it. The noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) does not intend to refuse Supplies; he said so again and again. He made a speech which, from beginning to end, goes to show that the Government are totally unworthy to get Supplies; but he dare not put on the Paper a Motion for refusing Supplies, because, forsooth, while he taunts us with making our policy to catch votes, the noble Lord makes his Motion and speech to the electors in order to catch votes at the General Election. The noble Lord does not like to go before the country refusing Supplies to the Government when engaged in serious negotiations; but he does not mind embarrassing the Government, although he knows that the Government is engaged in critical negotiations, and that serious evil to the public interest may result from any attempt to discredit it at this moment. He has been challenged by the Prime Minister if he has any definite issue to bring it to book in this House, and he and his Friends have been asked if they have no such issue or purpose to postpone it in the meantime, not to discredit the Government by showing division in the presence of the

  187
  complications which have recently arisen. All that the noble Lord puts aside and takes us to task. He is mild in his Resolution, but he takes it out in his speech; and in the course of his réchauffé he has gone over every Vote of Censure that has been moved; he goes from the retirement from the Transvaal and brings up the Boers and our conduct towards them and from Bechuanaland he travels to Afghanistan, and from Egypt back to South Africa—he has recapitulated every grievance which he could rake up against the Government. It would be all very well if this were a Vote of Censure. Then, indeed, he would be justified in the course he has pursued. But
  "Pleased with the sound, the King grew vain,
  Fought all his battles o'er again;
  And thrice he routed all his foes,
  And thrice he slew the slain."
  That is a line of conduct of which we make absolutely no complaint in its proper place. All we say is that it is not in its place when, as a result of condemning the Government root and branch, and smiting them hip and thigh, you only ask in conclusion for adequate information. The noble Lord went on to deal with the policy of the Government at considerable length—the policy of the Government in connection with Russia. Let me point out in what position it places the House and the Government. The Papers are not yet presented; but they are promised in four or five days. We cannot anticipate what you will find in these Papers. The noble Lord proceeds to construct out of his imagination a series of incidents and circumstances of which I venture to say generally he will find a complete contradiction when the Papers come out, but to which it is impossible that the Government should reply at the present time. The noble Lord complained in particular of the change of policy on the part of the Government with regard to Russia, and especially on the part of the Prime Minister, who, he says, made a very bellicose speech this day fortnight, and subsequently came to the House and swallowed every word he had said. Let us see how far that is the case. What was the central point of my right hon. Friend's speech this day fortnight? It was that a point of honour of great importance and delicacy had arisen between two great countries, and that
  188
  until that point of honour was settled, it was impossible that we should continue the negotiations which had already been commenced with regard to the delimitation of the frontier, and that in our view what had occurred required explanation, and that the book could not be closed. These were the words of the Prime Minister. The noble Lord most—I was going to say most grossly, but perhaps that is too strong a word—but greatly misrepresented my right hon. Friend. The noble Lord said that the Prime Minister had declared that we should require reparation. There was no such word in my right hon. Friend's speech from beginning to end; and it was a monstrous thing of the noble Lord, who had every opportunity of preparing his speech and for making his attack upon the Government, to make a charge of that character, for which there is no foundation. My right hon. Friend distinctly said that, considering what was then in the knowledge of the Government, he would not pronounce one way or the other. We thought we had a case which required explanation. We had demanded explanation; but we did not presume to say what the result of that explanation would be. I go further, and say the central point of my right hon. Friend's speech was that "the book could not be closed." Has the book been closed—[Cries of "Yes!" and "No!"]—by a referen to arbitration? Suppose, when the Papers come out, you find that at that moment the offer of arbitration had been made, and we were waiting for the reply, and had reason to fear that the reply would be unsatisfactory? Was not that a state of things which justified us in saying that the book would, not be closed? and does it not justify us now if it be concluded, as we hope it may be, by a reference to a great and friendly Power as to what should be done in the matter? And then the book will not have been closed without a satisfactory explanation by which we shall have obtained all that one great country has a right to demand from another. But then the noble Lord says—"Oh, but the arbitration which you refer to is a sham arbitration." How does he know that? Is it a creditable thing to the Opposition—which, after all, ought to have some sense of responsibility as well as the Government—that he should

  189
  prejudice the matter and declare this to be a sham arbitration before he knows what it is? Let me ask the noble Lord, when he next speaks, to give some consideration to this point. If it be a sham arbitration, if it be such a triumph for Russia, if everything has been conceded by this country, why does he suppose that so long a time has been allowed to pass, that there has been so much hesitation on the part of those with whom we had to deal? At all events, it was an open question on both sides. There was a concession, if you like the term, on both sides when the settlement was finally made. Then the noble Lord complains that since the prospect of a settlement has improved, the Government have recalled—as he prefers to put it—Sir Peter Lumsden. Now, as has been already stated by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War, it is not a recall in any sense injurious to the reputation of Sir Peter Lumsden. But we have thought that the object of his Mission has been, to a considerable extent, accomplished—[Opposition laughter]—has been, I say, to a considerable extent accomplished, in the sense that no further advantage can be derived from his continued presence on the spot. The House, perhaps, does not know that when this difficult question was first raised the amount of information in possession of the Government, or of the Departments of the Government, was, unfortunately, very small indeed. I doubt if anyone, either in England or Russia, until within the last few months, knew anything about the country in which we have undertaken to find a frontier. I doubt whether the Afghans themselves knew anything more than the English or Russian Governments. It was an unknown country until M. Lessar, on the part of the Russian Government, and Sir Peter Lumsden, on the part of this country, were sent to survey it. But since Sir Peter Lumsden has been there we have received the very fullest information about the country, its geographical features, its strategical features—all information which has come into our possession recently, and which alone, in my opinion, would justify the Mission of which Sir Peter Lumsden has been the head. But now, having obtained that information, and in the present position of the negotiations, it is desirable that the settlement
  190
  should be sought for rather in London than on the spot, because Sir Peter Lumsden, after all, has only the information which he has himself obtained, and we have not merely that information, but the criticism furnished us by the Indian Government to check it after the information which has been communicated to it by the Ameer. We are, therefore, in a better position than Sir Peter Lumsden even when he was on the spot, not to speak of the fact that in the position which the matter is now assuming important political considerations can only be weighed by the responsible Members of the two Governments, or by their Representatives, and not by an agent, who, with all respect to Sir Peter Lumsden, is a subordinate. I would first call the attention of the noble Lord in reference to this matter to an observation which I read recently in that very interesting article of Sir Lepel Griffin in The Fortnightly Review. I quote him because everyone knows that he does not belong to the backward school of Indian politics. But in this article he argues and urges that Sir Peter Lumsden should now be brought home, as in present circumstances it is quite impossible that his presence on the spot could do anything to secure the solution of the question. I want to ask the House not to be led away by the noble Lord into any unfavourable anticipation as to the final result of the negotiation. It is not for Ministers, until the negotiations are actually completed, to lay before the House any final and detailed information. But I would put the question, what would you have thought if at the outset, before any of the complications which have subsequently arisen had taken place, if at the moment the difference arose between the Russian Government and ourselves on the question, we had come to the House and said—"The policy of England is this—this is a matter of life and death to us, and we intend to stand or fall by it. The frontier conceded by Russia to our demands must be a frontier thoroughly satisfactory to the Indian Government and to the Ameer of Afghanistan—our ally." If we had done that, and had said that that conclusion we were prepared to support by the whole strength of the Empire, I do not believe there is a single man on either side of the House who would not

  191
  have thought that that was a tremendous and probably even an unwarrantable declaration for us to make. But if, when the Papers come into your hands, you find that the declaration might have been safely made, and that the result I have indicated has been obtained, then I think that neither the House nor the country will have any cause to consider that we have lost anything, either in honour or in interest, in the course of the difficult negotiations which we have been carrying on. I have asked myself, during the whole of the noble Lord's speech, what policy would you have pursued? We, forsooth, have humbled and humiliated you! There never was a Party in this world so ready to be humiliated as the present Conservative Opposition. You say we have humiliated the country. Well, what would you have done? The noble Lord does not say what he would have done; he says he is a friend of peace. We have an indication in the language which he has uttered to-night of what he and his Friends would have done in our place. He repeats again the old story of the conduct of Russia in times past. He leads us to infer that, in his opinion, at all events, Russia is a Power with which no trustworthy agreement can be made. [Lord GEORGE HAMILTON: Hear, hear!] "Hear, hear!" says the noble Lord. Very well. Then, what is the good of making Treaties and Conventions? What is the good of negotiating with a Power of which the noble Lord says in advance you can have no faith, and that it is entirely untrustworthy?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: As regards its advance in Central Asia.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: We are only talking about Central Asia. Whenever there is any question between Russia and this country do not treat with her, do not negotiate with her, do not make any Convention with her; but withdraw your Ambassador and go to war. I defy the noble Lord to point to any other alternative. He has spoken in the plainest terms. I am glad to have elicited this from him. He looks upon Russia as a Power in whom no trust is to be reposed. In these circumstances, what is the use of talking about negotiations? The only alternative is to formulate your demands and at once go to war. That is a policy which I am glad to find that the noble Lord advo-
  192
  cates in this House. I hope we shall understand how far it is the policy of the Opposition, so that when we go to the General Election, of which the noble Lord reminded us, we may remind him and his Friends of the statements which he has made to-night. We shall see whether the country, as the noble Lord says, has become tired of our foreign policy, which has, at all events, managed, so far as this greatest and latest difficulty is concerned, to preserve the peace—we shall see whether the noble Lord will be able to recommend a policy which would bring war all over the world. The noble Lord said very little with reference to the Egyptian part of the Vote; but he, in pathetic language, compassionated these poor Soudanese, whom, according to him, the British soldiers have been murdering in the Egyptian deserts. I do not quite understand this newfangled compassion of the noble Lord. Here, again, I ask myself, what is the policy he would have the House of Commons to substitute? As to that, fortunately, we have the most definite information. A Motion was made by the right hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) on the 23rd of February this year, in which he called upon the House to declare that the course pursued in the Soudan—
  "Has rendered it imperatively necessary, in the interests of the British Empire and of the Egyptian people, that Her Majesty's Government should distinctly recognize, and take decided measures to fulfil, the special responsibility now incumbent on them to assure a good and stable Government to Egypt and to those portions of the Soudan which are necessary to its security."
  [Opposition cheers.] I am glad to find that the Opposition have not changed their policy in the Soudan; it is to occupy it permanently, and to insure a steady and stable Government. In order to do so, I fancy they must slaughter a still greater number of those poor Natives for whom the noble Lord has suddenly developed so great a compassion. How does he suppose a stable Government is to be assured in the Soudan? Is it to be done without fighting?
  Does he think that an Expedition to Khartoum, which we have abandoned, and a railway to Berber, which we have abandoned, can be carried through without an expenditure of blood and treasure to which the expenditure which has hitherto taken

  193
  place would be as nothing? If he does not, what does he mean by talking about sparing the effusion of blood? The policy ho proposes is one that would lead to an infinitely greater offusion of blood than any we have hitherto had. The noble Lord went on to say that the policy of the Government had been changed, and he was kind enough to add that it was changed in order to purchase votes. He said the declaration that we were going to Khartoum was made in order to secure the majority of 14 on the occasion of one of the numerous Votes of Censure that have proceeded from the Front Bench opposite. But the noble Lord was as inaccurate as usual, which is saying a good deal; because, as a matter of fact, the declaration of the policy of the Government with regard to Khartoum had been made a long time before any Vote of Censure was contemplated, and was made without the slightest reference to the debate in this House to which the noble Lord refers. Let the House consider the circumstances under which it was made. Khartoum had just fallen, and a great blow had been struck, as we thought, at English prestige in Egypt. It was feared at that time by all authorities on the subject that the Mahdi, flushed with his success, would be almost certain to make a movement towards Lower Egypt, which we had undertaken to defend. It was impossible to put any limit at that time upon the extent to which the insurrection or movement of the Mahdi might spread. At the same time, there was reason to believe that anything like a sudden or abrupt retirement of the British troops might be attended with great military difficulty, perhaps even with danger. ["No!"] I say yes. There was great reason at that time to anticipate such a result; and it would have been running a most improper risk if the Government had at once declared their intention of abandoning their Expedition to Khartoum. What we did was that, in the light of the circumstances as we then knew them, we said it would be necessary to go to Khartoum, and to destroy the authority of the Mahdi. At that time it was not clear to us that what we proposed to do might not be done immediately. There was no certainty at that time that Lord Wolseloy would be unable, with the
  194
  troops at his disposal, to carry out the Expedition successfully. Now, consider what has happened since then. Every day that has passed has impressed upon us an increasing sense of the magnitude of the Expedition. It has become at last a perfectly gigantic task—a task, indeed, to be undertaken by the country for a sufficient reason; but not to be contemplated for a moment unless we can come to the House with an absolutely clear and convincing statement of the advantages to be obtained by it. Not only has the magnitude of the task increased upon us, but the necessity for undertaking it at all has, at any rate for a time, disappeared. The Mahdi, whom we had expected to be coming down the Nile and to be a danger to Lower Egypt, has had enough to do to take care of himself. He is no longer at Khartoum. We can, if we choose, still continue to carry through the Expedition; but we cannot destroy the authority of the Mahdi at Khartoum, because we should not find him there. Where he is we do not know. He is somewhere in the recesses of the Kordofan, where no man in his senses has proposed that a British Army should follow him. Not only so, but the difficulty contemplated in the withdrawal of the Army has entirely disappeared. It has been brought so near as to be entirely under control, and there is not the least ground for saying that any danger attends its further withdrawal. You accuse us of changing our policy. I admit it; but I say the circumstances have changed first. The change in the circumstances justifies the change in the policy. No Government would escape censure—and, indeed, it would properly deserve blame—if it was to carry through obstinately a policy which circumstances had shown to be entirely inappropriate. The noble Lord made a great point of our supposed intention to abandon the friendly Natives. I do not know whether he is quite clear in his mind as to who the friendly Natives are. There is a good deal of obscurity on that point. I think, in the peroration of his speech, he declared we had no friends anywhere; and, so far as the Egyptian Desert is concerned, I am not certain that he is not quite right. But, at all events, while we are willing to make every arrangement for the withdrawal of any

  195
  Egyptian soldiers or officers who may wish to come away, and who would be in danger if they were left, I do not think we are bound to maintain an expenditure both of blood and treasure, which would be called for by a great Expedition, merely in order that we may find somewhere or other friendly Natives whose friendship has not hitherto been of any particular advantage to us. I ask, in conclusion, what do you say is wrong? What is it you wish the House to condemn? In effect, if not in form, this is another Vote of Censure. Do you condemn what we are doing, or the method in which we have done it? If you condemn the method in which we have done it, I admit that is a fair subject for argument, on which we are perfectly prepared to meet you, but which, after all, is not a matter of great interest to the country. What the country really wishes to know is whether what we are doing now is right or wrong; and I do not think the noble Lord will find that the country will care very much for the kind of recrimination in which it is his pleasure to engage us. I ask the noble Lord if he thinks our present policy is wrong? Will he tell us what it is he would do? Is his alternative policy now the policy of his Party in February, 1885? Is he prepared—if we give place to right hon. Gentlemen opposite—are they prepared to continue an Expedition to Khartoum? It is fair to ask the question of the noble Lord.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I never was in favour of going.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The noble Lord says he was never in favour of going; but he and his Friends have never been sparing of Votes of Censure; and why did he not propose a Vote of Censure when we declared our intention of going? The moment, however, we declare our intention of going away, the noble Lord is ready with a Vote of Censure in his pocket. The only point upon which right hon. Gentlemen opposite did differ from us was as to the length of our stay when we got there; and the noble Lord now complains of us that we are coming away again without establishing some elaborate form of Government at Khartoum. The noble Lord cannot have the advantage of blowing hot and cold in this way. He must stand or fall by his Party. As a Party, the only
  196
  alternative they propose is that they are either going to censure us for something which they really in their hearts approve of, or else in their hearts they believe that the right policy would be to continue the Expedition to Khartoum—a policy about which I will only say I am quite convinced the noble Lord will not find it a very popular one at the General Election, to which he has invited our early consideration.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, he thought that no one could have listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) without being thoroughly impressed, first of all with the difficulty of the task which he had undertaken, and, secondly, by the unreality of the defence which he was prepared to offer on the part of Her Majesty's Government. He had listened very attentively to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman; and he was of opinion that they might be summed up in two phrases—a suggestion that the Papers to be produced at some future date would satisfy hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House, and that hon. Members should put implicit trust in Her Majesty's Government. The right hon. Gentleman began his observations by expressing his astonishment that the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) should ask an untrustworthy Government for information. The answer to that remark, he thought, was a simple one—namely, that the noble Lord asked the only Government which existed, a Government, in the opinion of those who sat on the Opposition side of the House, which was untrustworthy. The right hon. Gentleman went on to deduce from that argument that because the Government, in their opinion, was an untrustworthy one, therefore it was extremely illogical on their part to frame a Resolution asking them for information and for a definition of their policy, because he argued if the Opposition did not believe in the Government, what was the use of asking them to define their policy? That argument might have sounded extremely well on a platform—and he thought it was successful in eliciting a feeble cheer from the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings)—but he did not think it was sufficiently cogent or logical to commend itself to the more critical common sense of the House of Commons. It was because

  197
  they did not trust the Government, and because they had every reason to distrust it, that the Opposition were exercising their privilege of demanding, before they ratified this large and important Vote, that they should be satisfied, at all events, on some points of the Government policy for which this Vote was intended. He thought that that was a very logical and fair question to put before the House. The right hon. Gentleman had said that this was a Vote of Censure. He differed in that respect; it was not a Vote of Censure, it was a Vote of Want of Confidence. They did not censure the policy of the Government, because up to the present time the Government had had no policy to censure; but they did express a Vote of Want of Confidence, because up to the present time the Government had not vouchsafed any statement to the House. They were inclined to disbelieve the empty promises which were from time to time made by the Government; and, therefore, they had come to the conclusion that the Government had no policy before them. The right hon. Gentleman then said that it was extremely difficult for the House of Commons to form an opinion without being in possession of the Papers. No one, he imagined, was prepared to dispute that proposition; but it seemed to him that the Government took advantage, at every possible turn, of the fact that the House had not those Papers before it. Was the House, therefore, not entitled to ask by whose fault it was they had not those Papers before them? He maintained that it was simply the fault of the Government themselves; and the House ought to refuse to be blinded by simple protests that those Papers, when hon. Members saw them, would contain such an admirable account of the excellent policy of the Government that they would no longer censure, but praise the policy which the Government had pursued. The right hon. Gentleman went on to defend the policy of the Prime Minister. He must say, however, that if the Prime Minister had been present he would have been inclined to say—"Save me from my friends;" because it appeared to him that the argument which the right hon. Gentleman used in defence of the Prime Minister presented, in every sense of the word, the strongest condemnation of the Prime Minister's conduct. He
  198
  said that the Prime Minister's words were—"A point of honour had arisen, and until that point of honour was settled he could not continue the negotiations." He asked the House whether, as a matter of fact, that point of honour had been settled, and, if it had not been settled, whether it was not a fact that the negotiations had been continued? It appeared to him that the point of honour which the Prime Minister was so jealous of had not been settled, or, if settled at all, it had been given against this country, and in favour of Russia; and, notwithstanding that this point of honour had been so settled, the negotiations were still going on. It appeared to him, therefore, that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman was a particularly unfortunate one to bring forward in defence of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said that "the book was not yet closed." What interpretation was to be put on that? Was it that while the Prime Minister was anxious to protect the honour of the country the hand of peace was still being held out to Russia; or was it that the Russian Government was willing not to proceed to extremities if England was willing to give up every point? The latter interpretation was, undoubtedly, that one which tallied with the recent action of the Government. The Prime Minister also stated that the recall of Sir Peter Lumsden ought not to be considered in the light of a recall in the ordinary sense of the word, and that he had only been invited to repair to the Metropolis. But the presence of Sir Peter Lumsden in London could only be desired for the purpose of his assisting in the delimitation negotiations; and, as the Prime Minister had told them that those were already substantially settled, there would be nothing for Sir Peter Lumsden to do when he got here. The same observation applied to the recall of Mr. Condie Stephen, who had been directed to come to London with certain maps, but who would arrive long after the negotiations with regard to the frontier were at an end. It was a remarkable coincidence that the arbitration scheme was agreed to by Russia on the 3rd of May, and that Sir Peter Lumsden was recalled on the 4th. He was inclined to think that the common sense of the country would believe that the recall of Sir Peter Lumsden was a condition precedent to the Russian

  199
  acquiescence to the arbitration scheme. The Opposition had been taunted with not really meaning this Resolution, and not wishing to convey a Vote of Censure on the Government. But, supposing that to be the case, it was the duty of the Opposition to lay before the country the faults and mistakes of the Government. It was all very well for the Prime Minister to say that it was unpatriotic to stop Supply. The Opposition were not doing that. When the Prime Minister a fortnight ago, in eloquent terms, urged the House to present the spectacle of an united Assembly, there was not a sound of controversy heard, and the £11,000,000 were voted with unanimity. But that was because, for once, the whole House believed in the reality of the Prime Minister's words. The right hon. Gentleman was deeply offended because the noble Lord to-night said that he never meant what he said. But, contrasting his speech of a fortnight ago with that of to-night, that was the natural inference to be drawn. The right hon. Gentleman, on a former occasion, spoke of the unprovoked attack of the Russians; but he now endeavoured to whittle away what he then said. Russia hesitated a short time ago, because she believed that England was in earnest; but that belief had been completely modified, and every point for which Russia struggled had been conceded. Peace had, no doubt, been brought about; but it was a peace with dishonour, a peace with disgrace, a peace at any price, which would inevitably bring about the results of a policy of vacillation and of cowardice. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) showed the other night how the diplomacy of Russia for the past 20 years had been mainly made up of duplicity; and it was to be regretted that Her Majesty's Government should not have been able to draw the inference from the past and from the present conduct of Russia that they were being deceived, as they had been deceived in the past, and would be deceived in the future. In 1881 many Members on that side of the House put Questions to the then Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, now the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke), in regard to Merv, and some of the answers which he gave were strikingly dis-
  200
  proved by subsequent events. To a Question on the 8th of February, put by himself, the right hon. Baronet said—
  "It is not a 'fact that Russia has declined to give any positive assurance that she will not advance to Merv.' We have reason to think that it is not her intention to do so."—(3 Hansard, [258] 343.)
  And on the 21st of February the right hon. Baronet practically repeated that answer. Were they to blame the Government now for its crass ignorance shown in those answers, or for not having more carefully looked into the facts before coming to these erroneous conclusions? These Questions were based on facts which were at the time denied by the Government; but the Russians went to Merv, and step by step they had followed up their encroachments, until at the present moment they found themselves at Penjdeh. The Prime Minister was asked whether any representations were made to the Russian Government relative to the advance of troops to Sarakhs: and he answered that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had made a demand for the withdrawal of the troops, upon which a correspondence ensued, and the Russian Government declined to withdraw their troops, founding their refusal upon the belief which they entertained that the territory was theirs. The Prime Minister added that the demand was made on the supposition that the territory occupied was Afghan territory. The right hon. Gentleman was then asked further, by the Leader of the Opposition, whether that demand was withdrawn, to which the Prime Minister replied that the demand was made in the belief that the territory was Afghan territory, but that the Government found that was a matter of contest, which he hoped might be decided on friendly inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that there was no formal withdrawal of the demand; but it was substantially withdrawn. He never knew before that there was a Statute of Limitations in politics; but that claim appeared to have lapsed. But the question was, what was the result of all this? Did the Russians stay at Sarakhs? No; it was the starting-point from which they advanced to the positions which they now occupied; and it appeared to him that if the Mi-

  201
  nisters of the Crown had exerted a little more energy and firmness, and had shown a little less trust in the protests of the civilizing influence of Holy Russia, it was probable that the crisis of the last two weeks might have been avoided, and they might have been nearer a pacific solution of the Afghan Question. But this same policy had been repeated over and over again. Step by step the Russians had advanced. The protests of the Government amounted to nothing; and their inroads were fraught with the greatest possible danger to the Indian Empire. Was it possible to believe that the Russians entered Penjdeh simply for the purpose of acquiring a few hundred miles of sandy soil? He was sure that if there wore one man on the Treasury Bench who believed that, ho was not fit to sit there. The object of the Russian advance was to come within measurable distance of India, and to impress the Afghans with a sense of the power of the great White Czar. The speech of the Viceroy at Rawul Pindi was hardly printed before the news of the Russian defeat of the Afghans was spread all over Afghanistan and India. Naturally the Afghans thought that the great civilizing Power which was governing India would come to their rescue; but nothing of the sort. A great speech, an empty protest, a Vote of £11,000,000, and a disgraceful surrender. If such a policy only reflected disgrace on the Treasury Bench he would care nothing about it; but the impression it would produce in India was a fatal one. He did not wish to excite angry feelings, for he was not any more in favour of war than any hon. Member who sat on the opposite side of the House; but he was in favour of an honourable and lasting peace, and not a disgraceful peace, which, when the time came, and the strife arrived, would place the country in a very dangerous and critical position. He was not against arbitration, which should submit to some friendly Power the whole case; but ho declared that the arbitration in the present case was a mockery and a sham. It meant simply nothing. There was no reality in it, and it was simply an excuse to save the honour of General Komaroff by sacrificing the reputation of General Lumsden. That was the position the Government asked the House of Commons to
  202
  accept, and for that reason he conceived this Motion was particularly opportune. The object of the Motion was not to refuse the Vote of Credit, though, over and over again, that was thrown in the teeth of the Opposition. No case could be cited of a Conservative Opposition refusing a Vote of Credit for patriotic purposes. He wished he could say the same of hon. Gentlemen opposite. They attacked the Vote of Credit of 1878 on all sides, though that was a real and genuine Vote of Credit. The Government had only asked the House for this Vote of £11,000,000 in order to give the Prime Minister an opportunity of making a speech full of empty bluster, and of taking up a position which he had almost immediately abandoned. He considered the Amendment of the noble Lord singularly appropriate to the occasion, and he should, therefore, feel great pleasure in supporting it.
  MR. FRANCIS BUXTONsaid, that he would heartily support the Government. As to Afghanistan, he trusted that its boundary would be carefully settled and properly guarded when fixed. Of the policy announced that evening with reference to the Soudan he cordially approved. He had on former occasions voted with his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr John Morley) against the Government. Now that the Soudan was to be evacuated he could vote with him. It had been said that operations ought to be continued in order that the Slave Trade might be put a stop to. To mitigate the evils of that dreadful trade was a most noble object; but it was scarcely the duty of this nation to undertake hostile operations, which must involve great sacrifices in men and money, in order to prosecute even so honourable an object as that in a foreign country. He hoped that every Englishman at present in the Soudan would be withdrawn. Ho did not approve the suggestion of establishing a Government at Dongola; but if such a Government were established, he trusted that its only connection with this country would be the receipt of a grant of money. No Native Government in any part of the Soudan ought to receive either moral or material support from Her Majesty's Government; for they could not be responsible for the conduct of the unruly people who inhabited that region of the world.
  MR. FINCH-HATTONsaid, he thought that upon the question of the Soudan they had had that evening ample information, and information of a character as startling as it was unexpected. In fact, they had information which that side of the House, at any rate, might have been spared to their entire satisfaction; and if he might venture with great humility to give a little advice to the Conservative Front Bench, he would say that he hoped they would not be afraid on any occasion of making their Resolution too strong, because they might be certain that in the interval which would necessarily elapse after they gave Notice of their Amendment before the time of discussion arrived the Government would have amply succeeded in levelling up their folly to any language which might be used. In reply to the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) the President of the Board of Trade had used language of a somewhat familiar kind. He asked what would have been the policy of the noble Lord in regard to the Soudan? He seemed to think that the whole matter was disposed of when he asked the noble Lord whether he would have gone to Khartoum, whether he would or would not have decided to withdraw from the Soudan? But he must take the matter further back. If the Opposition had undertaken the government of Egypt they would have fulfilled their obligations. If they had thought it necessary to withdraw the Egyptian garrisons from the Soudan they would have taken pains not to have proclaimed it to the whole world beforehand. If they had sent General Gordon, they would have supported him before it was too late, and they would not have had to choose at the last moment between forcing on an Expedition, the object of which had been practically sacrificed by the Government, or of withdrawing, at an enormous sacrifice of money and the blood of hundreds and thousands of men, from an Expedition which never ought to have been undertaken. That disposed of the somewhat stale argument of the President of the Board of Trade. But to pass from the question of the Soudan to that which was really occupying the attention of both sides of the House—namely, the crucial point of the stage at which their negotiations had now arrived with Russia. The
  204
  justification for the Amendment of the noble Lord was, he thought, to be found in the simple fact that there was, rightly or wrongly, not only in the House, but throughout the country and the civilized world, a feeling that the interests of England had been in some way or other betrayed in their negotiations. It was felt that there had been a distinct departure in point of public policy between the course now pursued by the Government and that laid down by the Prime Minister a fortnight ago. The unanimity with which the House of Commons at once, and without a word of contrariety, voted the £11,000,000 for the Public Service was due to the conviction, which forced itself upon the minds of all who listened to the First Lord of the Treasury, that the Government really meant to make a stand. The President of the Board of Trade fell foul of his noble Friend because ho used the word "reparation;" but if the concluding words of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman a fortnight ago meant anything they meant reparation. His concluding words were that it was a very solemn covenant, and those who had caused such a covenant to fail ought to be known to their own Government, and he added—"We cannot close this book and say we will look no more into it." If that did not mean reparation it meant nothing at all. If the right hon. Gentleman, as was shrewdly believed in India and in this country, knew when he made the statement that the incident in question was to be withdrawn from arbitration altogether, then the £11,000,000 which were granted were obtained by a gross breach of faith. But what was the real point at issue? It was whether in this matter they were to have a real arbitration or a sham one; whether the arbitration was to go over the whole historical field, or merely to deal with trivial matters about which neither country eared anything. But, as the right hon. Gentleman has changed his attitude, so the Opposition might be said to have changed theirs, in the same way as a house might be said to have changed its attitude with respect to the weathercock. It was not the house that changed, but the weathercock. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had endeavoured to pin his noble Friend to the statement that no reliance must be placed on the

  205
  good faith of Russia. But what his noble Friend had done was this—he had pointed out that circumstances might be too strong for Russia, and that it was unsafe to rely upon a Minister or a Czar. The change of attitude on the part of the Goverment amply jusfied the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex in bringing forward the Amendment. The Government asked for £11,000,000, and received them by an almost unanimous vote; but it did not follow that the Opposition were to honour the cheque which they gave them under circumstances which were now entirely changed. Now, on the matter of the Soudan the House had more information than it bargained for, and certainly a great deal more than it liked; yet upon the great point at issue, whether, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman, the honour of the country was to be safely maintained in the negotiations, they had no information whatever. The speech of the Prime Minister a fortnight ago was a memorable one; because then they had the right hon. Gentleman, for the first time, defending the cause of his own country, instead of the cause of another country. The right hon. Gentleman seemed at the time to be galvanized into a spirit of patriotic fervour. It also seemed as if the spirit of Viscount Palmerston had visited the opposite Benches; but, after the change of attitude of Her Majesty's Government, he thought it would be a long time before that spirit revisited them again. The Opposition had a plain duty to perform. As long as they wore satisfied that the honour of England was safe in the hands of Her Majesty's Government, it was their duty to deny no Vote, however largo, no Supplies, however enormous; but the moment they saw the compass deviating from the true north then it was time for their suspicions to be aroused. They had a right to ask whether the Government were going to demand any substantial guarantee that Herat should not pass into the hands of Russia, and that if Russia took it the Government should make it a casus belli. They had voted £11,000,000 to the Government at a time when the individual taxpayer could ill afford it. Were the Government going to obtain a solitary advantage for the country in return for that money?
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, that if he could look at the great question involved in the debate of that evening simply from the standpoint of a political partizan, he should rejoice in the speeches of the Opposition, who had unconsciously made themselves the mouthpiece of those noisy and not uninfluential persons to whom brightening hopes of the maintenance of peace had brought trouble and disappointment. Those persons were not Englishmen only, they were of every nation under Heaven, including Russians. They were persons who fed, some upon the glory and the honours, others upon the losses, the fears, the corruptions, the extravagance of war. On every Exchange in Europe there were men smarting with the bitterness of failure. They had been led to expect war, and now what would they not give for one more day of panic, one more day of gain, at the cost of the timid, the needy, and the improvident. He thought he heard their cries passing through the unsuspicious mouths of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. Terrible was the rage of the Army contractors of St. Petersburg, Moscow, and Odessa. Bitter was the complaint of the brave officers who longed to earn fresh distinction at the cannon's mouth. It appeared to him that there was a certain identity of sentiment, a sameness of origin, in the telegrams and speeches he had lately read as coming from St. Petersburg and India, and as made in London. He was sure that if the expression of opinion were as free in St. Petersburg as it was here, the Czar and M. de Giers would be roundly abused for their pusillanimity in consenting to admit a doubt as to the propriety of any military action of Russia. In England, as in Russia, the great mass of the people were inarticulate. Of both countries ho knew something, and he was confident that in both those telegrams and speeches of exasperation found no echo in the hearts and minds of the people at large. He wished they knew a little more of the manufacturers of those taunts and reproaches, gibes, and incitements. When time should have placed recent events in a light undisturbed by the envy of rival politicians, by the cries of gentlemen of the Bourse, of disappointed contractors, and of ambitious soldiers, then would be duly appreciated the firmness of the great Minister who had declined to overlook the

  207
  action of the Russian General, and the firmness of the powerful Sovereign who, in an Empire of force and of feeble civilization, consented upon the demand of England to acknowledge that the conduct of his Imperial Government should be a question open to the arbitrament of a third Power. He congratulated the Prime Minister and the Russian Government upon that concession. It was pregnant with a promise extending far beyond the limits of the present question. It was a signal triumph for the principle of arbitration gained in a quarter where allegiance to that policy was most difficult. As to the defence of India, they did not differ in that House. If the safety of India were in question, he believed that all sections of the House would vie with each other only in the vigour of defence. They were at one in policy; they differed only as to the place at which resistance was to be offered. He marked, however, a notable increase in the sense of responsibility. Translations of Persian poetry, such as Professor Vambéry had given, were no longer accepted as matter of fact. The Missionary efforts of that single-minded gentleman had fallen very flat. The common sense of the people had taught them that now they wore at close quarters with Russia, they must look, not at Persian poetry, but upon the real intrinsic value of what they were called upon to fight for. As to Afghanistan, there had been errors undoubtedly. In entering Central Asia Russia advanced into an unknown and ill-defined land. Afghanistan had never in our time had a fixed boundary between the Oxus and Persia. When Russia obtained by conquest the country of the Turkomans—and he, for one, agreed with Mr. Disraeli, who did "not see why Russia should not conquer Tartary, as England had India"—no one know its limits. They were, in fact, as variable as the ebb and flow of the tide. He read with amusement the other day that the policy of the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) was to drive Russia to the Caspian. He should not envy the Minister who was committed to such a rash undertaking. If it could be done it would not be worth doing, for Russia would assuredly return to be the near neighbour of British power in India. The presence of Russia on the other side of Afghanistan was one of the most immovable of political facts. Earl Gran-
  208
  ville was standing that day upon the policy which he urged in 1874, in stating that—
  "The independence of Afghanistan is regarded by Her Majesty's Government as matter of great importance to the welfare and security of British India, and to the tranquillity of Asia."
  Recent errors had been due in great part to the fact that two European Powers had been dealing with the rights of semi-barbarian peoples in an unknown quarter of the world. The Czar had the case of the Turkomans, we that of the Afghans, in hand. If both had known all that they knew now, each would have acted more wisely. We should not have wished to press the Afghan boundary into the Turkoman country, for nothing could be so much opposed to our interests as to fix a quarrelsome frontier; and, on the other hand, M. de Giers, if ho had known all that we now knew of the views of the Ameer of Afghanistan, would not have suggested, as he did in April, 1882, that the boundary of Afghanistan passed from Khoja Salah to the Persian Frontier near Sarakhs. He regretted that the meeting between the Viceroy and the Ameer did not take place a year ago, so that when the Boundary Commission set out they might have known more of the Ameer's views as to his claim to the north of Herat. That want of foreknowledge had obscured the policy of the Government. He did not regret that the Vote of Credit was presented in one sum, because there was a natural connection between the policy in the Soudan and the naval and military preparations. When Khartoum fell into the hands of the Mahdi, and the Government received Lord Wolseley's most admirable despatch of February 9, declaring the impossibility of a siege of Khartoum, with the force then under his command, it could not be supposed that Ministers of so much sagacity, experience, and common sense as those who composed the present Administration could have felt any real hesitation as to the course which ought to be pursued. They had before them their own resolve, and the advice on which it was founded, to abandon the Soudan; they had Gordon's opinion that the Soudan was, and would ever be, a worthless possession; more than that, they had his last reported words of the 14th of December advising that if the town foil it would not be worth while to

  209
  continue the Expedition. They must have known that if it should be necessary for the security of Egypt to overthrow the power of the Mahdi—and he had never been able to agree with those who declared that, under no circumstances, could it be needful—the operation would be much more easily performed in the neighbourhood of the Egyptian Frontier than at Khartoum. It was, he thought, impossible to suppose in February that Her Majesty's Ministers were resolved to go in quest of the Mahdi at Khartoum; and ho felt, no doubt, that their military decision was made and communicated to Lord Wolseley in deference to public opinion at home, and perhaps in some degree to incitement by Lord Wolseley himself, who might well feel moved by his great disappointment to urge the Government to undertake another autumn campaign under conditions which would not admit of failure. He believed that the present policy of the Government was entirely in accord with the present public opinion of the country. By that policy he understood one which was prepared to overthrow the power of the Mahdi if it should threaten the safety of Egypt, and which would relax no efforts to establish the security and the solvency of Egypt. That was the policy due to their engagements and to their interests. He believed it to have been throughout the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and that it was abandoned in the instructions to Lord Wolseley in obedience to a more powerful but less well-informed opinion, which would probably at the time have governed a heterogeneous majority in that House. He bad made those remarks because he thought it was well to bear in mind that the gusty sentiment which dictated the military decision of the Cabinet in February had involved the waste of nearly £2,000,000. It was, however, likely that the pledge as to Khartoum was a valuable aid to Lord Wolseley's retirement, and it might be that a display of force at Suakin was useful in the same direction. But lie declined to believe that the unnecessary pledge to go to Khartoum was the independent judgment of the Government; because such a belief would too severely strain his confidence in Her Majesty's Ministers, who in all their great difficulties as to Egypt had had
  210
  nothing to complain of from the popular quarter of the House in which he sat, where there had been a handful of Members possessing very high abilities who had consistently—for the last two years, at all events—advocated the policy of an absolute non-intervention in Egypt. Their action must have been of great assistance to the Government, because it had aided by its talents and by the rejection it had met with to display by how great a majority the country desired a firm and vigorous policy in Egypt. He trusted that they had now done with what he might call adventure in Egypt. They had paid £5,000,000 as an ineffectual ransom for General Gordon, whose deathless greatness had been secured by his own noble character, by their efforts, and by their failure. The policy now adopted was just as surely that of common sense in February as it was in April. They had only, it seemed to him, to occupy the strongest position, and to wait. If the Mahdi continued his career as a Mahdi he must advance upon Egypt; if not, he might possibly become the acceptable Chief of some independent Government at Khartoum. He dared say, if they continued in that rational path, that the time was not very far distant when the passage to Khartoum might be, in Gordon's phrase, a "picnic." He should be very glad, indeed, to see a railway made from Suakin to Berber. Ho had no doubt of its civilizing and commercial advantages. But he was not prepared to advocate the construction as a commercial undertaking, nor did he wish to carry it through a hostile population by military force. Some day, he could not doubt, that railway would be made with the cheerful aid of Native labour; but the trade and traffic to and from Central Africa would then be very different from that of the present time. In passing away from the question of the Soudan and of Khartoum, he wished respectfully to warn their masters, the present and the new electors, against giving way to their impulses. Was it not likely that, if this matter had been left to the calm judgment of the Ministers, they would have saved £2,000,000—say, 1d. of the Income Tax—or more than enough to construct the Suakin-Berber Railroad? That gush of sentiment which, on the fall of Khartoum, wished to carry their victorious arms thither with no definite

  211
  ulterior object was an impulse which must now stand charged with a sad waste of wealth.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he must congratulate the hon. Member who had just sat down on his allegiance to the Government; because he gathered from it that whether the Government smashed the Mahdi, or whether they did not, nothing would induce him to swerve from supporting them. The President of the Board of Trade complained of the demand made for information; but if ever information was needed it was now, when they learned that the negotiations relative to the Afghan Frontier were to be conducted, not on the spot and by experts, but in London, and by Earl Granville, the very last man, as he thought, to whom this country should delegate such a power. But they found a further right to information in the dicta of the Prime Minister in Mid Lothian, whoso speeches he had studied with great interest, as they furnished the House with a complete manual of denunciation against himself. In those speeches the right hon. Gentleman had charged the Earl of Beaconsfield's Government with keeping back intelligence from Parliament. In his 18th Mid Lothian speech the Prime Minister had used these words—
  "Now I have charged at various times what I think an essential count in this indictment—that intelligence had been kept back from Parliament. Intelligence necessary to full understanding and to competent discussion has been withheld from Parliament at the very time of that discussion. I have shown various instances; I might show more. But I will name now only very briefly that remarkable case of the Afghan War. We were carried into that war, gentlemen, as you will recollect, without any previous notice or preparation. No Papers had been laid upon the Table to enable us to judge of the state of our relations with Afghanistan."
  He would now ask the Prime Minister whether he was not falling into the same fault as that with which he had charged the Earl of Beaconsfield's Government? When they had asked for time in order that they might have information the right hon. Gentleman had divided against them again and again, and had insisted that they should go to that Vote without having the information for which they asked. The same reticence had marked the conduct of the Government at every step; they had taken the same course with regard to the bombardment of
  212
  Alexandria and to affairs in the Soudan, and they were doing it at the present moment with respect to the negotiations which were going on as to the Suez Canal. They were much in the same position as they had been in at the end of 1868. They were again on the eve of an arbitration. In 1868 there had been an arbitration which had cost them £3,500,000 and the Island of San Juan, and now they were being hurried into the same diplomatic process—an arbitration the result of which no man could foresee. What he had to complain of was the diplomatic failure which had marked Her Majesty's Government ever since they had come into Office. The first thing that the Prime Minister had done on coming into Office was to show to Russia how entirely he meant to give in to what she asked. What had happened? The whole dramatis personæ of the Alabama Convention had been arrayed to combat Russia. Earl Granville, an unsuccessful Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the Marquess of Ripon, who was sent out to India to pull up the rails of the Quetta Railway, and Sir Edward Thornton, who had not been engaged in diplomatic business in Europe for 40 years, were the three gentlemen selected by the Prime Minister to cope with the astute diplomatists of Russia. What had Russia done in the meanwhile? She had shown every desire to prepare herself in the Caucasus so as to be a standing menace in Central Asia to us as well as to our old Ally, Turkey. We had withdrawn our Representative from Tiflis, while Russia had sent Prince Dondoukoff-Korsakoff, who, while in Eastern Roumelia, had continually occupied himself in thwarting all efforts towards a peaceful settlement, and in endeavouring to counteract the efforts of the Earl of Beaconsfield, and had continually disobeyed the orders of his own Government, until at last he had been dismissed and replaced by General Todleben. When the right hon. Gentleman had come into Office, he had had that dangerous and ridiculous naval demonstration, which had been the foundation, not only of coolness between this country and Turkey, but of bad blood throughout Eastern Europe. When Mr. Goschen had been accredited as Ambassador to Turkey it was done in a most offensive manner by an open telegram, not in cipher, which

  213
  stated that he had been accredited as Ambassador to the Porte. The Porte was nothing; it was the Sultan who was everything. Then, they had given Mr. Goschen a speech to deliver, which the Sultan had declined to receive, and which placed him on bad terms with that Sovereign. Next, the Earl of Dufforin was sent to Constantinople. A Conference was held, and in the middle of it the Earl of Dufferin had been called away to deal with matters in Egypt, without taking Turkey, the Suzerain Power, into consultation. Recently, again, when the Porte had been reluctant to sign the Convention with regard to Egypt, in doing which the Sultan was only following out the recommendations of Her Majesty's Government at the most critical moment, when the friendship of Turkey was of the utmost importance to this country, Earl Granville had told Musurus Pasha and Hassan Fehmy Pasha that if they did not sign it within 48 hours he would send them their passports. What was their position with regard to other European Powers? Russia saw with joy that we had offended nearly all, and that there was hardly any one of them which would assist us. The Prime Minister gave great offence to Austria, and one of his first official acts was to make a most humble apology to her. We had betrayed Germany at the Conference on Egypt, and since then Earl Granville had further offended Germany by refusing her a place on the Conseil de la Caisse, at Cairo. We had also excited the jealousy of France, and had again made a degrading apology to that Power. The only Ally we possessed was Italy, whose alliance we had gained by our disinterested conduct in conferring upon her a slice of Turkish territory. In consequence of the proceedings of the Government the alliance of the three Emperors had been resumed, and one of the greatest difficulties of an invasion of Russia on our part would be that Austria and Germany had pressed so strongly on the Porte the necessity of neutrality. How did those difficulties between this country and Russia arise? Who proposed the Boundary Commission, and why was the insult placed upon a Representative of this country, having to beat about from pillar to post as Sir Peter Lumsden had been compelled to do? The recent proceedings of Her
  214
  Majesty's Government had read some severe lessons to the public servants of the country. They had seen in the case of General Gordon that fidelity to his trust meant his death; and they now found in Sir Peter Lumsden that obedience to his instructions meant dishonour. Ho wished to know whether it was a fact that when the Government sent Sir Peter Lumsden to delimitate the frontiers of Afghanistan they did not know the wishes of the Ameer on the point? He believed that they did not know the Ameer's views until after the Conference at Rawul Pindi, an event which the Russians had resented by the incident of Penjdeh. It was then found we had been claiming frontier the Ameer did not want, and that the Ameer did not care for certain points upon which we had insisted. The boasted friendship of the Ameer was such that ho would not allow British troops to enter his territory? For what purpose did the Government now require the Vote of £11,000,000? It was not required for arbitration; but was it wanted because it had been spent without the authority of Parliament? Who was going to be the arbitrator? Was the Prince of Monaco intended to be named as the arbitrator? But even if the arbitration were carried out, how could they depend on Russia observing the new frontier any more than she had observed her previous engagements with regard to Central Asia? A new frontier delimitated by the Prince of Monaco would have no value whatever; its value would depend entirely on the good faith of the parties, and everyone knew the value of Russia's good faith. A new frontier settled in this way would be entirely different to a frontier arrived at by a Congress of Europe, and dependent on International Law. What further-steps did the Government intend to take in India? Would they fortify the frontier? They knew that Russia was close upon them, and that at any moment she might persuade the Afghans to take part against us. Were the Government going to spend the money in making impregnable the frontiers of India? Her Majesty's Government, no doubt, now heartily wished for the scientific frontier they so much derided and laughed at some years ago—they doubtless regretted having abandoned Candahar in such haste, and wished that they had not

  215
  taken up the rails to Quetta, selling; them I for old iron. In 1875 the Prime Minister wrote a letter to Earl Granville, in which he said—
  "I see no public advantage in my continuing to act as the Leader of the Liberal Party, as at the age of 65, and after 42 years of a laborious public life, I think myself entitled to retire on the present opportunity. This retirement is dictated to me by my personal views as to the best method of spending the closing years of my life."
  He would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman thought he had added to the public welfare, or to his own credit, by not adhering to the determination he then expressed? Of the 10 years that had passed since that declaration the right hon. Gentleman had spent five years in agitation, and five in endeavouring to upset the policy of the Earl of Beaconsfield; and he would ask whether now, at the end of that period, there was less anxiety, less bloodshed, less responsibility, less expenditure, less outrage, or less coercion than there was before he commenced? Was there more tranquillity now than then, more active trade, greater alliances with Foreign Powers, more prosperity, or more peace; or was it not a fact that Ireland was at this time coerced more than ever, was not the question of Ireland seriously dividing the councils of the Government; and did not the Members of the Government come down to that House looking pleasant or melancholy, according as the one section of the Cabinet prevailed or found themselves in a minority? Was it not a fact that we now found foreign countries alienated, our defences weakened, our taxation enormously increased, our trade prostrate, and war imminent? Under those circumstances, he thought they were entitled to ask for some information and some explanation from Her Majesty's Government before they parted with control over this money.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: The hon. Member (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) will hardly expect anyone on this side of the House to follow him in the miscellaneous observations with which he has concluded, or to take much notice of the very unworthy remarks that he has thought proper to make on the Prime Minister. For my own part, I have never been an adulator of the Prime Minister. But I must say that I believe there has never been a time in his career when the country was better pleased to
  216
  see him in control of our affairs than it is at this moment. The hon. Member talks about the right hon. Gentleman beginning his reign with an apology. I should like to ask him whether his own Leader, if he came into power to-morrow, would not have to begin with an apology to Russia? ["No!"] What, do you think it possible that a statesman could be entrusted with the reins of Office who has just given to a great Power the alternative choice between being a swindler and a bankrupt? My hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) has told us to-night that some of us who sit near him have seen our policy rejected.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, that he stated that the policy of non-intervention in Egypt was rejected.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Why, Sir, if there ever was a time when those sitting in this part of the House had a right to congratulate themselves on the line which we adopted, it is to-night. We have to-night heard Ministers using the self-same arguments for abandoning a policy, which we pressed on them two months ago against ever taking that policy up. We have constantly been taunted with the twofold course that we have taken; with protesting against the action of Ministers while refusing to displace them. We have been reproached, in the phrase of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke), with giving one vote for conscience and another for Party. I submit that events have amply justified us. If we look back on the line that we followed when we gave one vote as a protest against the Soudan policy and another against turning out the Minister, we must come to the conclusion that we pursued the only course open to men of sense and judgment. Infallibility is not the secret of any Ministry. It is not even the gift of all Oppositions. But the present Government, though they are fallible, have, at any rate, the grace not to be impenitent. I am bound to say that I much more admire the moral courage with which the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War has to-day admitted that the policy the Government had hitherto pursued in the Soudan was not wise, than I appreciate what I must call the moral cowardice of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton), who got up and said

  217
  that he had never been in favour of going to Khartoum. That statement filled me with amazement. On the occasion of the last Vote of Censure, a humble individual sitting in this region made a Motion condemnatory of the policy of going to Khartoum. That Motion was opposed, and by whom was the opposition to the Motion led? Why, by the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex. It was an Amendment moved by the noble Lord that caused my proposition to be rejected. ["No!"] Yes, Sir; I am speaking of the Vote of Censure at the end of February, on which occasion 455 Gentlemen went into the Lobby on the proposition of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex and defeated our Motion against going to Khartoum. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), a few night ago, made a very statesmanlike speech in favour of giving up the Soudan policy. But then, while the noble Lord was absent, his vicegerents on the Front Bench had usurped full powers. The right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) made a very definite statement of policy, which, I think, we must assume to be the policy of the Tory Party. What did the right hon. Baronet say? I will take the liberty of reading his words—
  "I think it will now be admitted that if we gave up the Soudan to the Mahdi, either anarchy or a slave-trading despotism would he the future of the country; and I do not think the people of England will agree to that…;
  You must retain the control of the Nile Valley, as far south as Khartoum; and you must see that there is established at Khartoum a Government, subject to your influence, in close connection with the Government of Egypt.… That appears to me a policy which is at least definite, and, if followed, would not impose on this country any such terrible burden as appears to be supposed."—(3 Hansard, [294] 1637.)
  That, I say, was and is the policy of the Conservative Party, and it is impossible to reconcile the speech of the noble Lord with the declarations made by the Leaders of his Party during his absence. The only misgiving that I feel myself, after what the Government has said tonight, is that they do not go quite so far as I could wish. A year ago I said that if yon hold Suakin then you are committed to hold the entire Soudan. It is extremely difficult to hold that place without making a railway, or
  218
  pushing forward in some way. If you made a railway 10 or 20 miles long, it would only be a railway into the desert, producing nothing and developing nothing. It could not stop there. If you have your little finger in Suakin, you will inevitably be tempted some day or other to push the railway on to Berber. Making the railway to Berber is all very well; but it means a Government at Berber—an English or a European Government. I deprecate anything like any entanglement of that sort. What I should wish, therefore, is that the Government would announce their intention of giving up Suakin, as well as the rest of the Soudan. I regret that the Government should suppose that the time has not yet come for an announcement of that kind; because a year ago, on the 6th of March, 1884, the Prime Minister said that they would have to consider what would be the best form of providing ultimately for the security of Suakin on the withdrawal of the British Forces, "which was an object they desired and would use every possible endeavour speedily to attain." No doubt the Secretary of State gave two reasons why we should retain Suakin. One was that we should stop one of the great vents of the Slave Trade. If we may trust the Reports of official agents, I believe that we have every possible reason to doubt any such statement. It is clear that the Slave Trade is carried on by dhows, which can run up at any point on the shore. Possession of one particular port would, therefore, be of uncommonly little use in stopping the Slave Trade. The other argument used by the noble Marquess in defending the retention of Suakin was that it was of importance to us that no other European Power should have a hold on the Bed Sea. At the time I thought this was a good argument, and that there would be many inconveniences in having another European Power between the Suez Canal and our Indian Possessions. But we now understand that a European Power is already placed in a port on the Bed Sea—that the Italians are at Massowah, I presume with the acquiescence and approval of Her Majesty's Government. This particular argument, therefore, has now lost all its force. Next, it was urged that we should remain at Suakin in order to exercise a civilizing influence, and so

  219
  forth. I regret, by the way, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) is not in his place; I should like to have heard his views on the new policy of Her Majesty's Government in the Soudan, where he was so anxious that we should exercise our civilizing influence, even at the risk of indefinite extension of risks and responsibilities. Well, we have loft Khartoum, on the ground, or with the excuse, as the Prime Minister expressly said, that the government at Khartoum was not any worse than it was four or five years ago. Might not exactly as much be said of Suakin? If we leave Suakin, like Khartoum, it would be no worse than it was four or five years ago. I will say no more on the one point on which I differ from the Government. I feel too strongly how much cause for congratulation we have, and the country has, that the Government, having recognized that they have taken a false step, has had the courage to retrace it. I will not trespass on the time of the House by speaking of the affairs of Afghanistan. I believe that the constituencies, and especially the new constituencies, would not readily have forgiven Her Majesty's Government if they had committed us to so tremendous an undertaking as a war with Russia for so infinitesimal a point as that for which we were contending. I do not mean to say that the question of our Indian Frontier, and the ultimate settlement of that frontier with Russia, is a small question. On the contrary, I believe that it is one of the most important questions of the time, and will pretty certainly engage the attention of both political Parties for the next 10 or 15 years to come. But what I will say is this—that the war, which hon. Gentlemen opposite seem so anxious to precipitate, would not have advanced the settlement of that question in the smallest degree. If we had any chance of reducing Russia to the position of a third or fourth-rate Power, then I could have understood how, by the war, we should have attained our end. But there is no one who believes, or makes a pretence of believing, that such a feat is within our power. We know that we have to deal with Russia, and if any Gentleman can point out to me how a war with Russia, waged, as it would now have to be, under the most difficult circumstances, is to be won, I will admit
  220
  that the policy of the Government in seeking peace under the present circumstances is an unwise policy. I feel that until the Papers which have been promised have been laid upon the Table the House will not be in a position to form a ripened judgment upon this subject. I feel, too, that the announcement that has been made to-night of the intention of the Government to retire from that miserable scene, the Soudan, will be received with satisfaction throughout the country; while the pacification with Russia, even though it should prove to be merely a temporary pacification, which has been the result of the diplomacy of Her Majesty's Government, is an object of which the great bulk of the people of this nation will most heartily approve.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Sir, the hon. Member opposite has again imputed to Gentlemen on this side of the House a charge that he brought against the Opposition on a former occasion—namely, that we are anxious to bring about a war between this country and Russia. ["Hear, hear!"] As hon. Gentlemen opposite cheer that insinuation, I must once again repudiate the charge with all the force and energy in my power. I will, however, go as far with the hon. Member as this—that I am not ashamed to admit that, in my opinion, a just and an honourable war is infinitely to be preferred to a sham and a dishonourable peace, and a peace, moreover, which would only leave the situation of affairs in this position—that war, in all probability, sooner or later, would be inevitable; and a war to be waged under such circumstances would be infinitely more disadvantageous to this country than it would be at the present moment. Passing, however, for a moment, from the insinuation of the hon. Member, although I shall have to make some further observations upon his speech before I conclude my own, and before I address myself to the question immediately before us, and the previous speeches which have been delivered in the course of this debate, I desire, so far as I am concerned, to clear up the position in which the House is placed with regard to the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton). I understood the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to say, at the commencement of these proceedings, that he was under

  221
  the impression that a distinct understanding existed not to contest the second reading of this Bill. I desire to gnard myself most distinctly against any adhesion—against the slightest adhesion whatsoever—to that proposition on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman, indeed, admitted that a voice from below the Gangway was heard in which the assertion was repudiated; and he was kind enough to tell me this afternoon, when I interjected an observation across the floor of the House, that I had taken no part in the proceedings on the previous occasion when this subject was under discussion. As a matter of fact, the part I took in that proceeding was to move the adjournment of the debate—a Motion which has led, as far as I can see, to the present proceedings; and I wish to say distinctly that I regard the debate to-night as nothing more nor less than the continuation of the debate on the Vote of Credit the other night, and as an occasion which affords us an opportunity, if we think it right and desirable to do so, after all we have heard and shall hear, I presume, from the Government to-night, of giving a hostile vote against this Bill, in order to refuse the Supplies which have been demanded by the Government. What else could be the object of our proceeding the other night? We held then that there was not sufficient information to justify us in coming to a conclusion on the questions submitted to us by the Government, and precisely because we required further information we took the course I have described. The right hon. Gentleman also took exception to the Amendment, and to the proceedings of the Opposition, on the ground that they are inconvenient as a matter of procedure. Now, I do not regard them by any means as a matter of procedure only, and I confess that I rejoiced greatly when I heard the Amendment read the other night by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on the part of the noble Lord, and my views on that occasion have been confirmed by the proceedings of this evening, because it appeared to me then, and it appears to me still more now, that the Opposition had no alternative except to take the course which they have taken on this occasion, without being liable to the charge of a most distinct failure of duty. What is it that
  222
  we have heard to-night? The hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley) has congratulated Her Majesty's Government upon a magnificent exhibition of moral courage upon this occasion. He regards the attitude of Her Majesty's Government, and the policy they have pursued, as an exhibition of moral courage. Well, Sir, I take rather a different view of their proceedings. I have not been an excessive number of years in the House myself; but I question very much whether the oldest Member of the House of Commons ever heard a statement from a Minister of the Crown in this House which enveloped his Colleagues and himself in a blacker pall of shame, discredit, and disgrace, of imbecility, of ignominy, and I am afraid that I must add of infamy as well, than that which fell upon them here to-night, as he unfolded step by step his piteous avowal of their latest inconsistency in regard to the Soudan—with all its vast expenditure of men and money, blood and lives, for no purpose whatever—with all this cruel and this useless slaughter, these hecatombs of victims. The homes almost without number—the countless homes ruined and destroyed in the Soudan; and all for no object and no purpose whatsoever under the sun, except to save the seats of an imbecile and incapable Government. I venture to claim that the question of their Soudan policy is a subject which in itself deserves and merits a Vote of Censure on the part of the House of Commons, if it stood alone. But there are some other questions in connection with the Soudan policy to which I should like, for a moment, to direct the attention of the House. The hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley) just now asked this question of the Government. He said—"I am pretty well satisfied with your proceedings on the whole; but I feel that I should have liked you to have gone further. Why do not you give up Suakin altogether?" I am, of course, only speaking of the proceedings of tonight, because we know that the hon. Member has throughout objected to the policy of the Government in the Soudan. To-night, however, pleased with their policy of retirement, he says—"Why not go a little further and give up Suakin altogether?" I think I can supply the hon. Member with an an-

  223
  swer out of the lips of the Prime Minister himself. Not long ago—on the 19th of February last—the Prime Minister made use of these words. He said—"A contrary decision would have at once involved the abandonment of these all-important objects:—Firstly, the rescue of General Gordon's friends at Khartoum; secondly, the establishment of a stable Government there; thirdly, the checking of the Slave Trade; and, fourthly, the rescue of the garrisons." Now, this statement on the part of the Prime Minister was some answer, I admit, to the inquiry of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley) as to why he does not go further and give up Suakin; but it entails this upon the Government—that it is absolutely necessary for some Minister to rise in his place to-night and reconcile the statement of the Prime Minister on the 19th of February with the announcement we heard from the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War at the commencement of the evening. Well, Sir, the Prime Minister said something more, because, on the 23rd of February, he made this assertion. He said—
  "The representation of the necessity of an Expedition to Suakin, and of making from Suakin provision that the route to Berber shall be rendered safe against Osman Digna and his Forces—that demand, that necessity, does not depend upon our adoption of the policy of destroying the Mahdi's power at Khartoum, but is inherent in the nature of the case as it stands."—(3 Hansard, [294] 1099.)
  If that policy did not depend on the necessity of destroying the Mahdi's power at Khartoum, in Heaven's name what did it depend upon? Will the Government be good enough to give us an explanation in the course of the debate this evening? The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade complained of my noble Friend—and the complaint was in the nature of a retort—that he did not say what he meant because of the form of the Amendment. He said we only ask for information. Well, we did begin by asking for information. That is quite true. We have been desirous of information all through; but we have not got it; and, as far as I can see, we never shall get it. As we do not get the information, we have only one resource to fall back upon, and it is to refuse the Supplies asked for by Her Majesty's Government. I doubt very much if ever
  224
  there was a precedent in the annals of Parliament before for the position in which the Opposition have been placed by Her Majesty's Government. The Government have come forward and made enormous demands on the House of Commons. At the same time, they have laid no Papers upon the Table of the House with regard to the frontier of India, and for months and months we have had no information whatsoever, or hardly any, from the Government. I will not say that we have had none; but certainly it has been the most meagre information possible. The right hon. Gentleman the other night, in a moment of great candour, bluntly blurted this out to the. House—that the Government had never presented their policy to the House at all, and that, too, although he must have known that his noble Friend and Colleague sitting by his side—the Secretary of State for War—had laid it down as a high and cardinal principle, when he was Leader of the Opposition and placed in almost similar circumstances, that Votes of Credit and Supplies beyond the ordinary Estimates of the year ought not to be granted except on questions of policy which had been distinctly formed and publicly declared. I need not say that this has been an almost intolerable tax upon the patience of the House—a severe trial of endurance to hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. We have gone on in this way for many months, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that many of us on this side have had grave doubts how far we were justified in continuing to maintain this attitude of silence and reserve. [A laugh.] I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman opposite should laugh. If the Home Secretary is able to extend his recollection back a little longer than 48 hours he must remember that it is not many days since the right hon. Gentleman his Leader—the Prime Minister—paid the Opposition a most unwonted, but a most marked, compliment, for the attitude they had observed throughout these proceedings. What I was saying when the hilarity of the right hon. Gentleman interrupted me was this—that we put aside all these considerations, that we shrunk from anything and everything that could, by any human probability, have embarrassed the action of the Government, we granted

  225
  you the Vote of Credit without a word and without a syllable, although we were opposed in principle to your policy, and to all your foreign policy in particular. And why did we do this? Why, Sir, we did it because we hoped and honestly believed, after the speech of the Prime Minister in moving for the Vote of Credit, that the spirit, even of this Government, had been roused at last, and that they were determined it should be used in order to maintain the dignity and the safety of the Empire and the honour of our name. Well, Sir, I contend that we had good grounds for that opinion. I will tell the House two or three of them. It is quite true that Gentlemen sitting opposite on that Bench have earned for themselves, and fitly earned, I think, the title of the Cabinet of Recantation and Surrender, in almost all parts of the world. But here we had not only the speech of the Prime Minister to which I have alluded, but the statements and recorded opinions of many of his Colleagues besides. And what did those statements come to? In the first place, I suppose no Gentleman opposite will deny—for it is universally admitted—that we are pledged to the Ameer to resist and repel all foreign interference in his Dominions. There is no doubt, I presume, and no question on that point. Well, what do those Dominions include? On the 3rd of March the Secretary of State for India, in "another place," and on the same day the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in the House of Commons, declared, on the part of the Government, that in their opinion the positions of Zulficar and Penjdeh were distinctly within the Dominions of the Ameer. That being so, what is it that we have seen? Surely these things must, in common fairness, by hon. Gentlemen opposite be held to account for some change of attitude on our part. They have never been explained, and we are totally in ignorance of the negotiations of the Government with regard to them. That being so, and this being the declaration of the Government, what is it that we have seen? The positions named have been taken by a Foreign Power. They are occupied at this moment by a Foreign Power, with the acquiescence, as far as we know—at all events, the Government have not insisted on the withdrawal of that Foreign
  226
  Power—and therefore, as far as we know, with the complete acquiescence of Her Majesty's Government. What is the next point? On the 1st of April—and I must say a very appropriate day I think it was under all the circumstances—the Earl of Rosebery, the latest ornament of the Cabinet, whoso addition to that Body was publicly welcomed as the herald of a new and a more courageous and a more thorough English policy on the part of the Government, delivered a speech at Manchester. What did he say there? Why, he ridiculed the idea of arbitration, on the ground that any arbitration in this case would be a foregone conclusion, and because all arbitrations of this nature had invariably been given against us. Thirdly, there were the statements deliberately made by the Prime Minister on the 9th, of April in this House, and by the Earl of Dufferin, the Viceroy of India, at Lahore, on the 15th of April. The latter statement may not be absolutely without qualification, as the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister pointed out to-night; but I do not accept the accuracy of his description of the Earl of Dufferin's words, because I have read them from another source myself, and what the Earl of Dufferin said was this, as far as my information goes—that the aggression was unprovoked upon the Ameer's Dominions as far as he had been able to ascertain. I certainly imagine that the sources of information open to the Viceroy of India must be pretty good, and that he would not have made so grave a statement, coming fresh, as he did, from a conference with the Ameer, unless he had been pretty well satisfied of the facts. Yet he stated that the Dominions of the Ameer had been the scene of an unprovoked aggression by a Foreign Power. Sir, I say that was a statement the gravity of which it is impossible to over-estimate. When an English Minister comes down to the House of Commons, addresses us in measured tones, and tells us that an unprovoked aggression has been committed by a Foreign Power either upon ourselves or upon one of our Allies in a quarter which is vital to the interests of England, the least that the English Parliament and the least that the English people expect is that reparation and a full explanation shall be made by that Foreign Power, and made without de-

  227
  lay. What has happened in this case? Has Her Majesty's Government asked for reparation? The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, to-night, as far as I understood him, said that they have not. I do not care whether you have or not; but what is the position in which you are placed? If there has been unprovoked aggression, and if you have asked for reparation, your demand has been contemptuously refused. If there has not, and if you have not done so, then you are even more guilty than I thought you were; because you had no business to come down to this House and make a statement such as this. "Well, have you asked for explanation? You have, I believe, asked for explanation; and what is the result? Why, the result is this—that in spite of the forecasts of your own Colleague, the latest addition to the Cabinet, you have deliberately relegated this question of unprovoked aggression to what, in all the circumstances, I am bound, to believe, on the Earl of Rosebery's authority, can lead to nothing but a humiliating and a foregone conclusion. You have relegated that question not in reality, but, in my opinion, only in form. Why do I say this? I say it because, while you have recalled Sir Peter Lumsden, the conduct of the only person—General Komaroff—besides Sir Peter Lumsden who can really be responsible for that unprovoked aggression is excluded altogether from the arbitration. Now, I should like to ask a question upon that point, and it is a question, I think, which the Government ought to answer. I do not wish to impute anything to them until I know how the position stands. What I want to ask is this. Has that recall of Sir Peter Lumsden, or his direction to repair to the Metropolis—whatever you please to call it—been demanded, or has it been made, either directly or indirectly, a condition of arbitration, by Russia? The Government must pardon me for even asking of an English Government a question of that nature; but they must remember that in the official and semi-official organs in Russia the recall of Sir Peter Lumsden has been clamoured for for some considerable time; and when I remember how Her Majesty's Government sacrificed the life and how they betrayed General Gordon at Khartoum, how they refused to send
  228
  an expedition to save him in time for fear of their Radical supporters below the Gangway, they must forgive me if I am not very confident of the chivalry they are likely to show towards other English officers who are in their employ. All these matters to which I have referred unquestionably indicate, in my opinion, a marked change in the attitude of the Government since the Prime Minister came down to the House of Commons and made his celebrated speech. And that change of attitude it is which, in my opinion, not only justifies but absolutely calls for and demands the course which is being pursued by the Opposition this evening. We are bound to consider—it is one of the most important points the Government and Parliament should have in view—the effect of all this in India upon the subjects of the Queen in that country. Taken in connection with another point, when you demanded of the Russian Government that their Forces should be recalled from Sarakhs months ago, and on their flat refusal to do anything of the kind you allowed your demand to lapse—all these things, taken together, must have a most injurious effect on the people of India and upon that loyalty which they have been so ready to show when the Empire appeared, not long ago, to be in danger. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade took great credit to the Government for having, at all events, whatever else they might have done, succeeded in preserving peace. I want to know what are your guarantees that you have preserved peace, and for how long you are going to preserve it? You tell us something about a Convention about to be made with Russia. We have heard of Conventions made with Russia before; and I want to know what reliance is to be placed on this Convention? The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) the other night gave us a history of the advances of Russia towards the frontier of India. Not one single Gentleman on that side of the House attempted for one moment to impugn that history. If the statement is true—and, as far as I know, it is true—it is a grave statement in all respects. Then what possible reliance can be placed in future upon any Convention we can make with Russia? Then we want to know, and we must

  229
  know, unless we are to refuse this Bill to-night, what is to be your policy in India in future. Have you made up your own minds about it? Will the Government tell us, at all events, what are their views about Herat? Surely upon that point the Government might condescend to give some information to the House of Commons. Among many of the great military experts Herat has been regarded for years, and by some is still regarded, as what is called the key of India. I should like to know if the Government consider that the retention of Herat within the Dominions of the Ameer is essential to the safety of India and part of their policy, or do they not? Have you got any guarantee with regard to Herat? The Government must remember this—that all the present difficulty has arisen from the policy they pursued immediately after the overthrow of the Earl of Beaconsfield's Government. In abandoning Candahar they reversed his policy and broke up his railway, which we are now told they are beginning to make afresh. And what have we heard to-night? Not very long ago we began another railway. It was only a month ago that we began the railway from Suakin to Berber, and that railway, we are told to-night, will not be required, and there is no disposition to push it on for any military purpose. When the Government were asking for Supplementary Estimates about six weeks ago they told us that this railway was absolutely essential to the safety of the Forces of Lord Wolseley and the policy of Her Majesty's Government. All past experience, therefore, teaches us that in all human probability, if they get their Bill and Vote to-night, they will come down in six weeks' time and tell us with regard to the railway to Candahar, as they did with regard to the railway to Berber, that it is not required and that there is no intention of pushing it on for any military purpose. That is precisely the reason why the Opposition have taken this course, and why they have moved the Amendment of which the Government have so much complained to-night. It is because it is impossible for us to rely upon the policy of the Government from one month to another. What is it that w were asked by the President of the Board of Trade? He asked us what it is that we condemn? I will tell the right hon. Gentleman in a single sen-
  230
  tence. We condemn the whole policy of the Government from first to last. He complains of the form of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord. He says—"The Amendment means one thing, but your speeches mean another." I think he will find they both mean the same. I care nothing for the form of an Amendment, so long as the result is the same; and, unless I am mistaken, the result of this Amendment, if it be carried, will be the overthrow and downfall of Her Majesty's Government. Sir, I hope that may be its result; for, in my opinion, every hour which prolongs the rule-of the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues in this country is an hour of added danger and peril to the fortunes of the Empire. I shall give my vote in hearty support of the Amendment, because I am persuaded that neither contentment nor prosperity at home, nor peace or tranquillity abroad, is possible until this Government, with its evil records and ill-aimed policy in all parts of the world, shall have perished and been, swept away.
  MR. LAINGsaid, he hoped the House would indulge him for a few moments while he explained his views upon this matter. At any rate, he could claim to be impartial, because, when he had disapproved of the policy of Her Majesty's Government in reference to Egypt, he had not hesitated to express his disapproval I both by his speech and by his vote. As, however, in the present instance he approved the policy of the Government, he thought it could not be said that he was animated by any other motive than an honest desire to give expression to sentiments that were genuinely entertained, and a desire to do the best he could in the interests of the country in a grave crisis like this. He was far from saying that, if this were a mere question of retrospective criticism, he could approve all the steps which had led to the present difficulty. But he felt that the position in which the House was now placed was one which was far too grave for retrospective criticism. They must look the facts in the face, and take them as they were. What was the real meaning of this Amendment? The meaning of it was to turn out the present Government, and to install in their places a Government that would go to war with Russia. It was all very well for the hon. Mem,-

  231
  ber for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) to make a strong disclaimer about wishing to go to war with Russia; but it was impossible for any man of common sense to arrive at any other conclusion after hearing the speech of the hon. Gentleman. In the event of the Amendment being carried, and a new Ministry being placed in power, they would have at the head of the Government a noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), who the other day delivered a speech which most of them had read with deep regret to find that anybody pretending to the position of an English statesman could use such language. The noble Marquess went so far as to speak of the Russian Government as bankrupts and swindlers. In the House of Commons the real Leader of the Opposition—because he who led the Leaders was himself the Leader—the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) spoke of peace with Russia as "terrible news." Moreover, the present Amendment had been made by the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord Goorge Hamilton) in a speech which breathed fire and fury against Russia in every sentence, and which expressed indignation at the prospect of peace. He, therefore, doubted whether the policy inaugurated by the Amendment was either a sound, a right, or a moral policy, or whether it would be a reasonable and practicable one. So far as the morality of that policy was concerned, what did it really amount to? It meant that Russia was the one Power in Europe from whom they had anything to fear, and that accordingly it ought to be their business to thwart and oppose her in every part of the globe. So far as Central Asia was concerned, it was contended that they ought to maintain as large an extent of desert between them and Russia as was possible—a tract of desert and sterile land as large as France or Germany; once the site of populous cities, but now the abode of the wild boar and the wild ass. And why was it a desert? He would not quote from any Russian authority, but from one of our own English newspaper correspondents. According to Mr. O'Donovan, whose journey to Merv was well known, and according to other newspaper correspondents who had been with Sir Peter Lumsden's Mission, the sole reason why
  232
  this was an extensive desert was that it had been so overrun by slave-hunting Turcomans that it had been found impossible for peaceable citizens to live in it. It had once been populous and prosperous; but when the people were called upon to cultivate their fields they found themselves compelled to hold the plough in one hand and the musket in the other, and they could not venture outside the walls of the towns lest they should be pounced upon and carried off to slavery. The consequence was that the land had been allowed to become sterile and unprofitable, and virtually a desert. Was it to remain a desert, because they were afraid of Russia? Why were they afraid of Russia? What was their natural frontier in India? He asked the House to consider that question for a moment. What was their natural frontier on the North-West of India? It was, thank Providence, one of the strongest frontiers in the whole world. Two sides of their Indian Empire were surrounded by an ocean which was impregnable so long as they commanded the sea. A third portion of it was protected by an impassable desert and the River Indus, and it was only in the North-West, or on what was called the North-Western Frontier, that India could by any possibility be subjected to invasion. And what was that North-West Frontier? It consisted of a great wall of mountains, high and rugged, accessible only by passes, of which they held the mouths; and beyond that rugged mountain chain for 700 or 800 miles, stood Afghanistan—a country inhabited by tribes accustomed to fight for their independence, very much in the condition of the Highlands of Scotland a century or two ago; united, however, by a common religion and a strong feeling of nationality. Whoever cared to thrust his hand into that hornet's nest would be perfectly certain to get the worst of it. What was the opinion of some of their greatest authorities? The Duke of Wellington said of Afghanistan, that in it a small army would be cut off, and a large army must starve. It would be well if some Members of the Opposition would study the opinions of their greatest Indian statesmen—Lord Dalhousie, Lord Canning, and Lord Lawrence, especially the latter, who was one of the highest authorities they could have upon everything connected with their Indian Em-

  233
  pire. Before Lord Lawrence became Governor General of India he was Lieutenant Governor of the Punjab, a Province in close contact with Afghanistan. He (Mr. Laing) would strongly recommend hon. Members opposite, who were crying out so loudly that their Indian Empire was about to be lost because the Russian outposts were advancing a few miles nearer to Afghanistan, to make a critical investigation of the memoirs of Lord Lawrence, and see what it was that that noble Lord said. Lord Lawrence always steadily urged that they ought to rely upon their natural frontier. This advice was overruled twice—once by Lord Auckland, and again by Lord Lytton, who was the Viceroy of a Government who wished for a spirited foreign policy. Nor must it be forgotten that Lord Auckland, when Governor General of India, sent out an expedition to Afghanistan to counteract the designs of Russia, from which only one solitary survivor returned. Was it contended that they ought to undertake a similar expedition now? As he had pointed out, the country beyond its natural frontier was simply a nest of hornets, and if they thrust their hand into it they would only be too glad to draw it back again, swollen by the stings it would have received. With the position which they occupied on their side of the North-Western Frontier, Russia would never commit the stupidity of marching across Afghanistan, some 700 or 800 miles from her own base of operations, in order to invade their possessions. It would require very little to make the frontier of Afghanistan absolutely impregnable. They had in India already about 00,000 European troops upon the regular establishment, and about double that number of Native troops. Of that Force, in the event of war, they might readily place 30,000 European troops and 50,000 or 60,000 Native troops upon the North-Western Frontier. Even if that were not enough, there ought always to be some 25,000 or 30,000 more available in this country which, at very short notice, would be rendered fit for service in India, or in whatever other part they might be required. With a Corps d' Armée of 25,000 men, ready to be shipped to India at a month's notice, with adequate Field Artillery, he ventured to maintain that the North-West-
  234
  ern Frontier could be rendered absolutely impregnable, and that no attack could possibly be made upon their position. There were, however, two or three points which ought to be considered. For instance, they ought to convert Quetta and Peshawur into strong camps sufficient to protect a considerable number of men. There ought to be a military railway running from Quetta to Peshawur, so that they might be able, with the greatest rapidity, to concentrate a Force at Quetta, or at some other point in that direction. With such precautions, it would be a very easy task to make their frontier in India as nearly impregnable as, humanly speaking, was possible. Of course, India could not stand the strain of the additional burdens that would be entailed, and it would be necessary for this country to provide for the cost; but he did not think the entire expenditure would involve an addition of more than 1d. in the pound to the Income Tax. The contention of hon. Members opposite was that in order to save the possible addition of 1d. to the Income Tax it was necessary to keep a great part of Asia a perpetual desert. Personally, he was not prepared to say that the advance of Russia in Central Asia had not been of considerable advantage to the cause of humanity. In the first place, they had broken up the great Slave Mart at Khiva, and had rescued thousands of unhappy Persians, who had been kidnapped by the Turcomans and sold into slavery. In this respect they had followed the example of Admiral Blake, who was said, by his operations in the North of Africa, to have very signally succeeded in singeing the whiskers of the Bey of Algeria. He failed to see that it was necessary to maintain a perpetual desert between Afghanistan and the possessions of Russia in order to guard them against the constant apprehension of danger. No doubt, that had been their policy from time immemorial; but it had altogether failed to stop the advance of Russia. If there was a further advance, or even an aggressive act on the part of Russia, how did they propose to stop it? What could they do in Central Asia, if that was made the base of their operations? Could they send a large army 800 miles across Afghanistan to fight Russia, with the absolute certainty that if they met with the

  235
  slightest check or mishap, the Afghans themselves would turn upon them and cut off their retreat? If they desired to defend Herat, the only way in which it could be done was to have a clear, intelligible, and defensible frontier, and let Russia know that if she came nearer the walls of Herat with a view of attacking that city, it would mean war with England. No doubt, if Russia did attempt to march through Afghanistan in order to attack Herat, the question would become a very different one. But how many miles north of the natural boundary, supplied by a rugged chain of mountains, was the boundary line of their North-Western Frontier to be drawn? He maintained that they could defend Herat in one way, and in one way only; and it was not by sending an army upon a wild-goose chase across Afghanistan, but by engaging in war with Russia, with all the resources of the country, and with the inevitable result of Russia having in the end to sue for peace, and to give up everything. Was it likely that Russia would attack Herat and invade India? He was not in the secrets of Russian statesmen; but he thought such a proceeding extremely unlikely, because Russia could not un-take an invasion of India without first conquering Afghanistan, and not only conquering, but also assimilating it to its own territory, and making railways through that most difficult country. That was a task which would ruin the finances of Russia, and would necessitate the imposition of a taxation so oppressive as to make the enterprize extremely burdensome to her people. It must also so lock her up in the East, that she would lose all chance of maintaining her influence nearer home in regard to matters which touched her more closely. Roumania, Servia, Bulgaria, and the Christian populations in Turkey, would then look to Austria and not to Russia as their protector, and, in fact, Russia would place herself at the mercy of Austria. Would any Russian statesman consent to sacrifice the influence of Russia in the East, and possibly in Constantinople itself, for the chance of gaining Afghanistan? Perhaps he might be allowed to explain the frontier line. [Cries of "Time!" and interruption.] Probably some hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House did not like to hear these things: but they could not deny
  236
  that he was able to speak with some knowledge of the subject. The line of frontier, which it was understood had now been settled, was a vastly better frontier than the one would have been which extended considerably beyond that mountain range, which they could not possibly have defended, which they would have had to evacuate at the first shot fired in a war with Russia, and which would yet have involved them in constant disputes with that Power, and would have given her a plausible excuse for at any time picking a quarrel with them. The Ameer of Afghanistan was, it appeared to him, the person who, in all these transactions, had shown the most common sense. He knew very well that there could not be war between England and Russia without his country being occupied by the Armies of one or of both of those Powers, and he would not have either of them, because he was aware that if they once got into the country, it would not be easy to get them out again. He was satisfied that the only way in which this country could carry out their policy as to Russia with advantage was by maintaining the frontier he had pointed out. A war with Russia at that moment could not be too strongly deprecated. Not only were we without Allies, but other European Powers were watching us like a cat watched a mouse in order to put forward their own demands as soon as they found we were engaged in hostilities.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I am rather sorry that the House was unable to pay more close attention to the remarks which have fallen from the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, because he is the first hon. Gentleman in the course of this evening who has risen to give a warmhearted and intelligent defence of the policy of Her Majesty's Government. I wish Her Majesty's Government joy of their solitary supporter, because I am quite unable to arrive at a conclusion as to which was more confusing, more bewildering, or more chaotic—the geography or the strategy of the Chairman of the Brighton Railway. There were one or two remarks, however, which the hon. Member made which enable me, more or less, to bring back the attention of the House to the Question immediately before it. The hon. Member said that he was going to support the Government, and

  237
  he declared his intention to support the Government because the meaning of the Amendment was to turn out the Government and to go to war with Russia. I have only to remark on the singular discrepancy between Her Majesty's Government and their one isolated supporter, because the Government declared that the Amendment had no meaning whatever, while the hon. Member for Orkney (Mr. Laing) has placed about as strong a construction on it as any Amendment can bear. The hon. Member is partly right and partly wrong. Undoubtedly, the object of the Amendment is to enable right hon. Gentlemen opposite to vacate their seats with a certain amount of grace and dignity; but the meaning of the Amendment is not that; on the contrary, my firm belief is that if the result of the Amendment was to produce a change in the position of both Parties, that would undoubtedly mean peace with Russia. I know that hon. Members opposite have very freely accused us on this, as on other occasions, of being the War Party; but in this they are really allowing themselves to be carried away by an unhappy and unfortunate amount of violent and blinded partizan prejudice. Observe how they totally misconstrue every expression which falls from Members on this side of the House. The hon. Member for the Islands of Orkney (Mr. Laing) and the Chairman of the Brighton Eailway—["Order!"]—well, he is the Chairman of the Brighton Eailway—the hon. Member has stated that I said the other night that the announcement of peace with Russia was "terrible news." I never said anything of the kind. If the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had come down to the House and announced what was likely to be a lasting and durable peace, I should have hailed it with satisfaction, and should have regarded it as joyful news. What I did say was "terrible news" was the surrender to Russia. That is a totally different tiling, and I said it was "terrible news" because I knew that surrender to Russia was the worst possible means of securing a permanent and a durable peace. That, at any rate, was an intelligible and moderate view to take, and it does not justify the accusation so freely hurled against us that because we do not believe in the policy of Her Majesty's Government
  238
  we are necessarily the War Party in this country. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will receive any remarks that fall from me without incredulity; but I may say that if I thought the policy of the Government, and the step they announced, were likely to produce a permanent and durable peace with Russia, while securing the safety and prosperity of our Indian Empire, no power on earth would induce me to vote against any step they might have taken. It is really amusing that when we come to mere controversial argument hon. Members opposite accuse us, and the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary never omits an occasion if he can fling in the accusation, of being the War Party. It is absurd to style us the War Party in this country. Who is the war Party in this country? Is not the War Party he who comes down to the House of Commons and makes a speech that resounds from one end of Europe to the other, and is reechoed from Kamshatcka to Constantinople, and after that bellicose speech demands a Vote of Credit for £11,000,000? This is the War Party in this country. What is the position of the Conservative Party? We are opposing the Vote of Credit. We say that your policy and your credit together, your vacillation and your speeches—saying one thing one day and another thing another—will load to the waste of the pecuniary and military resources of the Empire, and that there is only one inevitable result, and that is war with Russia. We who oppose all that say that if the Government were changed, then, undoubtedly, there might be some chance of peace. We are the real Peace Party in this country, and I am not at all sure that that argument, whether it is good enough for the House of Commons or not, will not be good enough for the constituencies throughout the country. The Prime Minister, in the course of the remarks which he made—I was not, I greatly regret, present myself, but my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) has informed me—was very severe upon the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and his Colleagues who sit near him, because they have listened to what he styled "Voices below the Gangway." Has the right hon. Gentleman himself never listened to voices below the Gang-

  239
  way? Whose voice are the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for War listening to now? Is it the voice of those hon. Members who sit behind him, or the voice of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley), who spoke so eloquently to-night? Is that not a voice from below the Gangway, and what is it to determine? It is to determine the utter waste of about £6,000,000 of British capital. I do not know in the least whether the Leaders of the Opposition have listened to voices below the Gangway; but even if they did, it does not lie in the mouth of the Prime Minister to cast taunts against them on that account. I should like to make one or two remarks on the singular speech we have heard to-night from the President of the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman has, I imagine, rather misconceived the nature of Parliamentary debate. He has brought into the House a new notion of Parliamentary debate. I always thought that Parliamentary debate was an affair of argument—one side bringing forward arguments, and the other side meeting them with counter-arguments. But the speech of the President of the Board of Trade, like most of the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman, was made up entirely of reckless assertions, fierce contradictions, and violent denunciations. I listened to the right hon. Gentleman, as I always do, with the utmost attention, and I thought him at times extremely ingenious, and at others forcible and eloquent; but I did not hear one single sentence of solid or valuable argument from the beginning to the end of his speech. The right hon. Gentleman spent an immense amount of time, like the Prime Minister, in criticizing the Resolution of the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton), on which the House will shortly divide. It is very difficult for an Opposition to frame Resolutions of this kind in such a way as to please the Government of the day. We have a Prime Minister who has had unparalleled experience of Parliamentary life, and who is without doubt the greatest authority on Parliamentary practice of any man who lives, and with confidence I ask the Prime Minister whether, with all his experience, he has ever known the case of a Resolution which, if carried, would turn out the Government, the wording of which, the phrases of
  240
  which, and the sense of which were agreeable to the Government? The Prime Minister is exceedingly contemptuous as to the wording of this Resolution, and so is the President of the Board of Trade, and so is The Times newspaper, and other ignorant persons. The critics of this Resolution apparently do not seem to understand or know the difference that exists between a Vote of Want of Confidence and a Vote of Censure. A Vote of Censure, which the Government are so dreadfully disappointed at not seeing moved, is a Vote which expresses disapproval of the past conduct of the Government. A Vote of Censure is moved upon Papers when the House is in full possession of everything done by the Government of the day, and everything that is going to be done in the immediate future—in full possession of everything upon which they can formulate a conclusion to be put before the House. The Opposition has not been in a position to bring forward such a Motion. That never has been the position of the Opposition, for the Government, from the day they came into Office, have studiously prevented the Opposition from acquiring at a vital moment that amount of official information which it was absolutely their duty to afford. The Government have continued that process for the five years they have been in Office until we have got tired of it, and therefore we fall back upon an equally Constitutional and an equally Parliamentary method, which is in the nature of a Vote of want of Confidence. Remembering, therefore, all that has passed—not only the past career of the Government since they have been in Office, but in connection with the Russian negotiations—I do not wonder that the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton), and those with whom he consults and those who support him, have come to the conclusion that the only course open to them, under the present circumstances, was to move a Vote of absolute Want of Confidence in Her Majesty's Government, and that Motion, I venture to say, conveys an expression of want of confidence in the plainest and most contemptuous language. Poritsaysthis—thatuntilHerMa-jesty's Government lay before the House every step which they have taken, up to now, with regard to the negotiations with Russia, in full detail, and every

  241
  step which they contemplate taking in the negotiations now on foot, those on this side of the House, as far the noble Lord and those who support him are concerned, utterly refuse to grant them one 6d. of the public money. That is as plain, as clear, as simple, and as decisive in its language and result as it is possible to imagine. Well, now, Sir, what does the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade say? He says how monstrous—that was his word—how monstrous is the attitude of the Opposition. "Here you have a Government," he said, "engaged in the most delicate and critical negotiations, and what are you endeavouring to do? You are endeavouring to discredit and weaken that Government." That was the accusation of the right hon. Gentleman; but I thought—"Good Heavens! he is the very last man in all England who should bring such an accusation against the Opposition." I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what was his political attitude in the year 187G and in the year 1878? What did the right hon. Gentleman or the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Hartington), who will, no doubt, take part in this debate, say when the Government of that day were engaged in negotiations equally or even more critical? The negotiations now going on might result in a war between Russia and England as to Central Asia; but the negotiations the late Government were carrying on at the time I refer to might have involved a European War. May I ask what their attitude was at that time when we were engaged in critical and delicate negotiations? What was the attitude of the Prime Minister himself? Did he not stump England from end to end? Did he not endeavour—and with much success—to raise the whole country and weaken and embarrass the Government of the Queen at a moment of the utmost delicacy? Heaven forbid that I should blame the right hon. Gentleman, or pass any criticism upon him for the course he then pursued. What was he aiming at? He said he was aiming at freedom and liberty and civilization all over the world: and will you not give us credit for sincerity if we are prepared to give you credit for the sincerity of your proceedings in 1870 and in 1878? Will you not give us credit for our attempts
  242
  to do a great work in India, and for our dread of the immeasurable peril to which that great work is now being exposed by the policy you are now pursuing and the pusillanimous surrender to Russia which marks your daily life? Surely there should be a reciprocity in these matters. I say it is not fair for the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade to denounce the Opposition now, because, after having borne a great deal more than right hon. Gentlemen opposite bore when in the same position, they say—"We have no longer any confidence whatever in you, and utterly refuse to grant you Supplies in Parliament." I remember that great speech of the Prime Minister in the Corn Exchange, at Oxford, in which he said he had rested neither night nor day, but had worked for one purpose, and one purpose only, and that was to thwart the policy of his rivals. I confess, openly, the object of this Motion. We do not conceal it, although I do not suppose we are likely to convince the stolid minds of hon. Members opposite; but although we are not likely to get a majority, there is no concealment about it whatever. The object of the Motion is to take the conduct of those delicate and critical negotiations altogether out of the hands of the Prime Minister and the present Advisers of the Crown. There was something extraordinary in the anxiety displayed by the Prime Minister to postpone the debate. I was never more struck with anything in my life. I suppose there is nobody who has a more profound knowledge of, Parliamentary tactics than the Prime Minister, or who has better information, from hour to hour, of the state of the mind of the House. Now, what could be more alluring, more satisfactory, and more strengthening to the right hon. Gentleman than that he should gain a great Party victory in the House of Commons at the present moment? Why, it would give the Government enormous additional strength in their negotiations with Russia, to show that they had the confidence of the House of Commons, and it would strengthen them greatly in the country. But what was the condition of the Prime Minister at that Table? He got up in the most meek and mild manner, and appealed to the Opposition, for Heaven's sake! not to continue this debate to-night. He asked

  243
  us not to do so in our own interests. "The result," he said, "will be disastrous to yourselves, and I earnestly advise you to postpone this discussion to a more convenient season." I am ready to swallow a great deal; but I really cannot believe in the sincerity of the Prime Minister's affection for Her Majesty's Opposition. I cannot help thinking that if the right hon. Gentleman was going to be supported to-night by an overwhelming majority, such as housed to command in the early days of this Administration, he would not be so anxious that we should abandon our position. ["Divide!"] I am not going to detain the House. I feel that the House has often shown me the greatest possible kindness and indulgence, and I will endeavour not to trespass upon that indulgence. But the Prime Minister said, in his opening remarks—"Why should the Opposition continue to go on tonight with this Vote?" He said—"There is absolutely no difference between us." I thought that was the most courageous of all the Prime Minister's assertions. Every single point of difference which any man, with the utmost ingenuity, can imagine to exist between two persons or two Parties exists between ourselves and the Government. We have had occasion, at several separate times during this Parliament, to move Votes of Censure, and although, in no instance, has a Vote of Censure been passed, they have all of them been supported by a very large number of the Members of the House of Commons. They have not been frivolous Votes, repudiated by the general sense of the House. On the contrary, the majorities of the Government against such Motions have steadily decreased, while the minorities in support of them have steadily increased—so much so, that whereas the majority for the Government on the occasion of the Vote of Censure in regard to the evacuation of Candahar was no less than 120, the Ministerial majority on the occasion of the Vote of Censure, after the fall of Khartoum, had sunk to no more than 14. This is a very encouraging history of Votes of Censure, and I think that every such Vote that has been moved in this House has carried with it a very large body of public opinion. Therefore, when the Prime Minister gets up and says that there is no point of difference between us on this side of
  244
  the House and Her Majesty's Government, I think he altogether forgets that an enormous difference has been regularly displayed, not only in the House but in the Lobby. I could not help being amused when I heard of the proposed evacuation of the Soudan today. Never, in the whole history of Parliament, did a Minister in the position of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) make a statement about public policy which excited so much derision in this House. The noble Marquess was, as he always is, dignified and deliberate; but all his dignity and deliberation did not prevent a ripple of laughter from running through the House from end to end. The most remarkable feature of the statement, to my mind, was that the noble Marquess was able to keep his countenance while he made it. However, I thought I might congratulate the Government upon the evacuation of the Soudan, because that was the policy which I endeavoured, in my humble way, to recommend a short time ago. Curiously enough, this morning I was reading a review in The Times of the Home Letters of the Earl of Beaconsfield, and what fell from the noble Marquess this evening reminded me marvellously of what I read in that review. The Prime Minister has evacuated the Soudan, and I and the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley) and some others congratulated him upon it. The Earl of Beaconsfield, it appears, went many years ago to Constantinople, and he has written a description in one of these letters of an interview he had with a very celebrated Minister—Eeschid Pasha. There had recently been a great insurrection in Albania which had been put down by the Turks. This is the Earl of Beacons-field's account of the interview—
  "I bowed with all the nonchalance of St. James's Street to a little, ferocious-looking, shrivelled, careworn man, plainly dressed, with a brow covered with wrinkles and a countenance clouded with anxiety and thought. I seated myself on the divan of the Grand Vizier ('who,' the Austrian Consul observed, 'had destroyed in the course of the last three months in war upwards of 4,000 of my acquaintances ') with the self-possession of a morning call. Our conversation I need not repeat. We congratulated him on the pacification of Albania. He rejoined that the peace of the world was his only object, and the happiness of mankind his only wish."
  I thought to myself when I read those

  245
  words—" There, on the Treasury Bench, in the person of the First Minister of the Crown sits the resuscitated Reschid Pasha." The House will gather from the few remarks which I have ventured to address to it that it is my intention to vote in support of the noble Lord's Re-solution. In conclusion, I will give some reasons why I support that Resolution; and in order that these reasons may be weighty, conclusive, and overpowering with hon. Gentlemen opposite, I will proceed to give them in the words of a great contemporary statesman who went down to Glasgow in 1880 and addressed an enormous audience in the Free Trade Hall on the then state of the country. The right hon. Gentleman to whom I allude said—
  "What is the general upshot? Let us look at it together. I will use the fewest words. We have finance in confusion; we have legislation in intolerable arrear; we have public distress, aggravated by the destruction of confidence; we have Russia aggrandized, and yet estranged; we have Turkey befriended as we say, but mutilated and sinking every day; we have Europe restless and disturbed, agitated from end to end with rumours and alarms; we have the invasion of a free people in the Transvaal; we have, I fear, in one quarter or another, prospects of further disturbance and shedding of blood. We have Afghanistan ruined; we have India not advanced but thrown back in government, subjected to heavy and unjust charges; and with all this we have at home the law broken and the rights of Parliament invaded."
  Well, Sir, then the right hon. Gentleman, who I now inform the House was the First Minister of the Crown, went on to say in most beautiful language—
  "Is this the way or is it not the way in which a free nation wishes to be governed? Will the people in a few months hence ratify the deeds that have been done and assume upon themselves that tremendous responsibility? I cherish the hope that I may be able to bear home with me at least this consolation that I have spared no effort to mark the points at which the roads divide—the one path which plunges into suffering, discredit, and dishonour; the other which slowly, perhaps, but surely, leads a free and a high-minded people towards the blessed ends of prosperity and justice, of liberty and peace."
  Now, that was at the time a statement of fact. It was more than a statement of fact—anyone can make a statement of fact. It was a prophesy I venture to say exceeding in miraculousness anything which can be found in Holy Writ. It describes, word for word, not a syllable of which can you shake, the political
  246
  position of our country at the present day, and it is in testimony of my admiration for the prophetical powers of the First Minister of the Crown that I shall support the noble Lord.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Mr. Speaker—Sir, the speech of the noble Lord reminds us that although there are at the present time subjects for anxiety and great public care, there was a period not very long ago when, according to the noble Lord, the state of public affairs was accurately described by the words of the very competent authority he has cited; and, Sir, when the noble Lord appeals to the judgment which was then, and will now shortly be, passed by the country upon the condition of public affairs and the policy which led to that condition, we shall be content, as we were at that time, to accept the judgment of the people, believing that the judgment will ratify and approve the conduct of this Administration as effectually as it then condemned the conduct of our Predecessors. The noble Lord said at the beginning of his speech that he intended to bring the attention of the House to the Question which is immediately before it. Sir, I felt great satisfaction in listening to that announcement of the noble Lord, because I confess I have failed in the course of the debate in discovering precisely what is the question presented to us in the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) on which we are asked to vote. But I am not certain that the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), in the course of his interesting observations, has contributed very much to the object which he said he had in view. The noble Lord said that the result of carrying this Amendment would be, not war with Russia, but the establishment of peace with Russia. But the noble Lord was absolutely silent upon the means which were to be adopted by himself and his Friends for the accomplishment of that important result. When the noble Lord proved or attempted to prove, as he did the other night, that there was no confidence to be placed in any assurance made by the Russian Government, that there is no use in coming to any agreement with Russia or in making any Convention with Russia; and when the noble Marquess the Leader of the Op-

  247
  position in "another place" gives to the Russian Government the alternative of being considered swindlers or bankrupts—when this sort of language is applied to the policy of the Russian Government and the policy of Her Majesty's Government, then, Sir, I say that it requires something more than the bare assertion of the noble Lord and his Friends to show that the adoption of this Motion and the placing of their Party in power is an infallible means of securing peace. The noble Lord has told us that this is not a Vote of Censure, but a Vote of Want of Confidence, and he says that the Vote of Want of Confidence is eminently justified by the refusal which upon this and other occasions Her Majesty's Government have made to grant to the House adequate or, indeed, any information. The noble Lord says Her Majesty's Government have studiously, during the past five years, abstained from giving to this House at critical moments information to which it was entitled, and that a Vote of Censure can only be pronounced upon information in the possession of the House. But the noble Lord will admit that it is a most remarkable circumstance that, notwithstanding that absence of information, and notwithstanding that state of ignorance and darkness in which the noble Lord says that he and his Friends are kept, they have not abstained from moving Votes of Censure. They have moved no less than seven Votes of Censure during the present Parliament on the conduct of Her Majesty's Government. Well, Sir, I find it rather hard to reconcile the complaint of the noble Lord that the Opposition had suffered from want of information with their conduct in this matter. The noble Lord has compared the conduct of those who were in Opposition in 1878 with the conduct of the present Opposition. Sir, in my opinion, there is a radical difference between the position occupied by the Opposition in 1878 and that in which we now stand. In 1878 we complained of the absence of sufficient information; but we knew enough, or thought we knew enough, to form an opinion entirely adverse to the action of Her Majesty's Government at the time. We did not complain that they wore pursuing ends of which we approved by a course which we thought was wrong; but we took issue, both on the ends
  248
  they were pursuing and on the course they were following in order to attain those ends; and, therefore, we endeavoured and had no alternative but to withhold the means by which alone that policy could be carried into effect. But what is the position taken by the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex when he objects to the policy of Her Majesty's Government? The noble Lord does not disapprove the evacuation of the Soudan; he does not, I imagine, disapprove the endeavour to establish in a more secure and firm manner than has hitherto been possible the definition of the frontiers of Afghanistan that we are bound to respect, and I do not think that he and his Friends disapprove the method by which we are endeavouring-to carry out the operation. But I admit that this does not constitute approval of that policy; in my opinion, it constitutes neither approval nor disapproval on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite. But the disapproval of these methods cannot be fairly and intelligibly brought forward until the noble Lord and his Friends have before them the materials on which to form a judgment and frame a case for the refusal of Supplies for the purpose of carrying out the policy of Her Majesty's Government. Well, Sir, I think we are entitled, before this debate closes, to know what is the actual meaning and object of the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord on the Front Opposition Bench. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock has acknowledged that in his opinion it means a direct refusal of Supplies. I doubt very much whether the right hon. Baronet the Leader of the Opposition, who may perhaps take part in this debate, will support that statement; but certainly, if that be the intention of the Amendment, it is drawn in a most remarkable manner, because it takes particular pains to recite that the House and the Opposition has already shown its willingness to grant Supplies, and that appears to me to be totally inconsistent with the assertion of the noble Lord that it is the intention—that it is the duty—of the Opposition to refuse Supplies to Her Majesty's Government until they have received more adequate information, or as long as Her Majesty's present Advisers remain in power. I think it is perfectly clear, from the views which the noble

  249
  Lord has advocated to-night and advocated before, that it is his intention to withhold Supplies. Although he has not seen the Papers, and has not information enough to enable him to form an opinion that Her Majesty's Government have made what he calls a surrender to Russia, on that ground he is prepared to withhold all confidence from the Government, and, if he deems it necessary, to refuse all means for carrying on the Government at all. But I can conceive that right hon. Gentlemen opposite who are more prudent or less bold than the noble Lord are not prepared to commit themselves to the opinion that Her Majesty's Government have made a surrender to Russia, at all events, until they have gone through the form of examining the Papers that will in a few days be presented to Parliament in relation to the question between the two Governments. The noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton), who moved this Amendment, gave us an opportunity of testing the value of his criticisms on our conduct. The noble Lord said that he had himself always opposed the policy of advancing to Khartoum. But immediately after he sat down he was reminded by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that he had had an opportunity, not long ago, of giving effect to those opinions, when the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley) brought forward his Amendment which was directed against the policy of the advance on Khartoum. Did the noble Lord support that Amendment? No; he voted directly against it; and more than that, ho voted for an Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman who sits beside him, which stated that it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government not only to advance on Khartoum, but to establish a stable Government in Egypt, and in such portions of the Soudan as were necessary for the security of Egypt. Is the noble Lord going to say that that Amendment did not mean that we were to establish a stable Government in Khartoum? I ask him to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman sitting near him. The right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) distinctly said, on that occasion, that we ought to hold the Nile at least as far as Khartoum, establish a stable
  250
  Government there, and put a stop to the Slave Trade. Well, Sir, that was the policy which the noble Lord voted for only a few weeks ago, and now the noble Lord comes forward and says that he never approved the policy of going to Khartoum.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I moved an Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: But the noble Lord voted against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley).
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The Government insisted on having the Question put. I had an Amendment on the Paper which gave expression not only to the views of hon. Members on this side of the House, but to those of some hon. Members opposite, and I could not move that Amendment in the circumstances. I voted with the Government in order that I might propose my own.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I sympathize with the noble Lord in the position in which he finds himself. It is really extremely unfortunate that he was prevented by the Forms of the House from giving his vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Newcastle, with whom he agreed, and that, by the exigency of those Forms, he was obliged to vote directly against it. But I do not suppose that the noble Lord will deny that he voted for the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon shire (Sir Stafford North cote) for the establishment of a settled Government in Egypt, and such part of the Soudan as might be necessary for the security of Egypt. Then I think we are entitled to ask the noble Lord, and as many as share that opinion with him, what Her Majesty's Government are to be censured for so far as that policy is concerned, and why the confidence of Parliament is to be withdrawn from us? Is it because we were going to Khartoum, or because of our reversing that policy? We have not yet been told by any hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite—or, indeed, by any hon. Member—whether the ground on which the confidence of Parliament is to be withdrawn from us is the original intention, or the abandonment of that intention. If it is on the first ground, then I submit that the Opposition is equally responsible with

  251
  us. All the Motions of right hon. Gentlemen opposite pledged us to do what we proposed to do, or something more. If the confidence of Parliament is to be withdrawn from us for reversing that policy, then we wait to hear whether the Opposition is in favour of continuing that policy, and what arguments they have to put forward in support of that view. The noble Lord made some observations upon the announcement of our intention to "smash up the Mahdi," and lie spoke of our having murdered 10,000 men. Sir, I deny that that is a fair description, or an accurate description, of the military operations which have taken place up to the present time. The greater part of the fighting which has taken place, and which has been referred to by the noble Lord, has been fighting in the neighbourhood of Suakin. However much we may regret the loss of life, both with regard to our own troops and our gallant enemy, the fighting was altogether justified, irrespective of any intention on our part to advance to Khartoum. We said, at the time of the recent debate on the Vote of Want of Confidence, that Lord Wolseley told us—and surely we ought to have been guided by his opinion—that whether we advanced on Khartoum, or decided that our troops should be concentrated on the Nile, it was necessary for the security of our Army that an Expedition should be sent to Suakin, and that the power of Osman Digna should be broken. Surely it was a justifiable object, and was not to be designated as murder, to undertake military operations which we are told by the General in command he considers to be essential for the safety of our own Force. More than that, I endeavoured to show this afternoon that the operations in the neighbourhood of Suakin were not wholly of an offensive character, but that they were operations necessary from a defensive point of view. Hon. Members may question, if they like, the policy of the retention of Suakin at all; but I have not heard anyone do that except the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley). Hon. Members opposite do not tell us that we ought to abandon Suakin. If we are to remain at Suakin, surely it is not an indefensible operation to shoot our enemy when he attacks us, and to issue forth to destroy his power of concentration and of
  252
  attacking us again. I maintain that, however much these operations are to be regretted, and however painful may be some of the incidents by which they have been accompanied, they were defensible from a military point of view, altogether irrespective of any intention formed and subsequently relinquished on the part of the Government to advance on Khartoum and destroy the power of the Mahdi there. The noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) said the declaration I had to make this afternoon was the most astounding declaration he had ever heard from this Bench. I cannot imagine what the noble Lord can have found astounding in it, after the declaration which was made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the 21st of April. On the 21st of April it was announced, apparently with general acquiescence on the part of the House, that the Vote of Credit which was then laid on the Table did not provide for any immediate advance on Khartoum, or for the undertaking of further offensive operations. That declaration has certainly not been much criticized by Members of the Opposition. Do hon. Members think that that was a reasonable and natural declaration of policy to make? Do they think it an astounding declaration that the Government do not mean to keep 9,000 of our soldiers in scattered positions extending for 600 miles on the River Nile? It seems to me that when the House accepted quietly the declaration of my right hon. Friend, there was nothing astounding in the announcement I had to make to-day. Well, the noble Lord wound up his indictment of the Government by telling us it was on account of the imminence and magnitude of the danger which threatened the interests of this country that he moved the Resolution—that he moved this Resolution in order to resist a fatal step on the part of the Government. Is he going to do that by a Resolution which merely asks for information? We are entitled to ask what is the real meaning of his Resolution. Is it, as bas been said by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), the expression of an intention to refuse Supplies under any circumstances to this Government; or is it what it professes to be—merely a demand for information, reciting at the same time the

  253
  willingness of the Opposition, as already displayed, to provide the necessary Supplies? The House will, perhaps, let me say one or two words in explanation of the change of policy in the Soudan which has recently been adopted by Her Majesty's Government. The House will recollect that when the announcement was made of the intention to provide means for our troops to advance to Khartoum, and smash the power of the Mahdi there, it was said that that resolution had been come to upon the certain state of facts that were then before us. But I venture to submit to the House that the state of facts that then existed is totally different from the present state of facts. We know that Khartoum had then just fallen, and in the opinion of almost everyone an enormous impulse had been given to the power of the Mahdi. It was believed by many—I think by almost all—that the power of the Mahdi, which he had always asserted to be an aggressive power, for he had over and over again expressed the intention of overrunning Egypt, would be enormously strengthened by the success he had achieved at Khartoum. We had reason to believe that the position of a portion of Lord Wolseley's Army was by no means secure, and as has been already explained by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan), we believed that we were bound to place means at Lord Wolseley's disposal which would enable him to take a vigorous offensive position. That decision, as was stated by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan), was due to military rather than to political considerations. At that time Lord wolseley required to know from us—as he had a perfect right to know—what our plans with regard to the Soudan were; and the (question he put to us was whether our intentions were such as to justify him in taking up a vigorous offensive position of advance, or in taking up a position of retreat. Well, Sir, upon the state of facts then before us, it appeared to us that the best policy was to tell Lord Wolseley he was justified in taking those measures of advance which he might think necessary. But what happened? At the time it was Lord Wolseley's intention to retain in its position at Gubat his advanced guard, that another column—that which started
  254
  out under Gen eralEarle—should advance by the Nile River, and that the two forces should co-operate for the capture of Berber. For a considerable time after the fall of Khartoum Lord Wolseley believed it would be in his power, in the course of the present spring, to take Berber, and that it would be from Berber that the advance on Khartoum would be made. But for reasons into which I need not now go—for purely military reasons, reasons connected with the difficulty of obtaining supplies, the difficulty of obtaining transport across the desert—theseopera-tions were found by Lord Wolseley to be impracticable. Notwithstanding the freedom of action which we gave him, he was compelled—I do not blame Lord Wolseley in the slightest degree, for I have no doubt the measures he took were necessary measures, and did not reflect the slightest discredit either upon himself or those under his command—acting upon his own discretion, and not upon compulsion from us, Lord Wolseley was compelled to abandon the execution of those projects which he had intended to carry out when he asked for our authority; and he was obliged to take up a defensive position, a still more defensive position than that which he had contemplated. Well, Sir, is there no difference in the circumstances of an advance being made from Korti, or from Berber, and an advance which would now have to be made from Dongola? And then, Sir, what has recently taken place has thrown great light upon the necessity for any advance upon Khartoum. At the time to which I refer we had every reason to suppose that the fall of Khartoum would be followed by an advance in force of the Mahdi—an advance on Egypt itself. It has been attended with no such result. The Mahdi has shown no disposition to attack the retreating Forces of Lord Wolseley. Ho has shown no disposition to advance on Egypt. On the contrary, the fact that he is no longer opposed by a foreign enemy does not seem to have given him additional strength: he appears to be in considerable difficulties, and it is perfectly possible that his power has of late greatly diminished. The Government were very properly induced to reconsider the decision which was arrived at under totally different circumstances, and altogether irrespective

  255
  of those considerations which a few weeks ago made it only too probable that the whole of our troops would be required for service in other parts of the world. Was there nothing in those considerations themselves to induce us to reconsider the determination at which we had arrived with regard to the Soudan? I admit that there were other considerations which weighed with us. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon shire (Sir Stafford North-cote), in his speech in the debate upon the Vote of Censure, pressed upon us very strongly the im policy of going to Khartoum unless we saw our way to establish a settled government there as a result of the advance. We are not altogether indifferent to this fact; and further consideration and further experience does not strengthen the belief that an advance upon Khartoum would be attended by the establishment of any settled or permanent government in that place. Well, Sir, we have now been for some time in the occupation of the Valley of the Nile and the Province of Dongola, or what is called the Province of Dongola; and after the experience we have had, I am not aware that we could maintain any permanent or settled government even there unless we supported it by a large British Force. I shall not detain the House by any further observations on the policy of the Government in the Soudan, neither will I detain the House by a discussion of our policy in Afghanistan; there would be no advantage in doing so, because I feel that this debate will settle nothing, and will conclude nothing, but will only be renewed when the House is in possession of more complete and full information. The noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) spoke with considerable inaccuracy of a demand which we had made to the Russian Government for reparation. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister never, as far as I am aware, used the word "reparation." He said over and over again that, in his opinion, there was cause for preparation. The noble Lord, with his usual accuracy, has mistaken the word "preparation" for a demand for reparation. The noble Lord says this is to be a sham arbitration. How is it possible for the noble Lord or his Friends, with any show of common fairness or a judicial spirit, to pronounce
  256
  an opinion as to the character of the arbitration before they see what the negotiations are which have taken place on the subject, or for what object the arbitration has been proposed? The noble Lord speaks of the inequality of the treatment of General Komaroff and General Lumsden. Does the noble Lord wish it to be believed that General Komaroff and General Lumsden were in similar positions? Does the noble Lord think that there was no difference between the position of General Komaroff, in command of a large Russian Force, and of General Lumsden, who was employed on a purely Civil Mission? The attempt to establish a similarity of positions between General Komaroff and General Lumsden is an attempt to place the latter in a position which he never held, and which it would be extremely wrong to induce anyone to suppose ho ever did hold. General Lumsden was not in command of the Afghans who were defeated. General Lumsden was not directing the movements of Afghan troops; and, therefore, the attempt to establish any similarity between hi3 position and General Komaroff's is an attempt to establish a comparison which is perfectly fallacious and misleading. An hon. Member—I think it was the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin)—inquired this evening if General Lumsden's recall was made at the request of the Government of Russia. Sir, I cannot allow one moment to pass without saying that neither directly nor indirectly has any demand or any suggestion been made for the recall, if you like to call it so, of Sir Peter Lumsden by the Russian Government. The noble Lord asks what guarantees we have obtained from Russia that she will not advance upon Herat. How is it possible that we can discuss with any advantage to the public, or any completeness, questions such as that when the Papers are not before us? Sir, the anxiety of the Opposition to discuss these questions, and to endeavour to get a decision upon them when they have no information before them, when they know they will have full information before them in a very few days, is somewhat remarkable, and somewhat calculated to lead one to suppose that they are thinking more of obtaining a Party advantage over the Government than of getting at the facts of the case.

  257
  It is said that we have gained nothing in the negotiations that have taken place with Russia. It is impossible that the House can form an opinion on that subject also until they see what has been the course of the negotiations, and what has been the result. If we have succeeded in establishing a settled and definite frontier of the dominions of our Ally, the Ameer, whom we are pledged to defend, instead of having, as we have had up to the present time, an indefinite and unknown frontier, I think we have done something. The hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) taunted us by saying we had an Ally in the Ameer of Afghanistan who would not allow us to march through his dominions. Well, Sir, if a result of these negotiations and transactions should be that the first act of the Ameer, on his return to Cabul, was to send an invitation to British officers to visit Herat and put that place in a state of defence, I think that will be something gained, and will show that our relations with the Ameer are improved by these proceedings.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Is that in the official Papers?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Perhaps the noble Lord will wait and see. I say that this Amendment, moved by the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton), is a vague and indefinite one. It is one which cannot by any possibility do any good. It may be that the Amendment is moved with the object of overthrowing the Government, but the noble Lord knows very well that that is not a likely result. If it has not that result it can settle nothing. It can only give an appearance of dissension all over the world; it can only proclaim to the world, what I am afraid is the fact, that even in a time of crisis, through which we have not yet altogether passed, there exists here a Party that prefers the prospect of damaging and injuring the Government, even in the absence of full information, to presenting to the world at large a firm and united front.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTH COTE: At this hour I will not detain the House more than a few minutes; but it is necessary for me to take notice of the observations of the noble Marquess and others who have spoken in this debate with regard to the Amendment put down by my noble Friend the Member for Mid-
  258
  dlesex (Lord George Hamilton). We have been asked what is the meaning and nature of the Amendment which we have heard spoken of as a Vote of Censure, and we have heard described as a Vote of Want of Confidence. We have also heard it pointed out, very truly, that if such a Motion were carried it might have a peculiar effect upon the existence of Her Majesty's Government. But the particular object with which this Motion was put on the Paper is to be found in the terms of the Motion itself—upon the face of the Motion. It is a demand that before we proceed further in granting Supplies of an extraordinary character we shall have adequate information of the present policy of the Government. I lay stress upon the "present" policy, because it is upon that that the whole matter turns. The Government have so many policies, and the position they are taking up now is so different from that of a week or a fortnight ago, that it is incumbent upon us to demand from them an adequate definition of their policy. I can congratulate my noble Friend on having at least attained this object—that he has drawn forth from the Government promises of the production of Papers, and of some statement with regard to certain points of detail, at an earlier period than we had any reason to anticipate. I appeal to the memory of hon. Members whether we have not found the Government exceedingly reticent in regard to information on this subject; and, therefore, I hope there will be an early production of information. If it were a question of our wanting information with a view of founding on it some charge or censure upon Her Majesty's Government—if that had been all we were looking to—our conduct might have been open to some of the remarks which have been made upon it; but that is not the main object, or certainly not the only object, which we have in view in making this demand. We feel that we are in a position of such importance and of such a peculiar character that it is incumbent upon us, before it is too late, to ascertain what are the motives, the feelings, and the intentions of the Government with regard to the two very important questions which are connected together in this Vote they ask the House to pass. We have been asked to do that which it is a very common thing to do—we have been asked at the beginning

  259
  of the financial year, when the natural Estimates ought to be framed with a view to the probable expectation and needs of the year, to come forward and vote a large sum as a Vote of Credit to the Government with respect to certain preparations for certain services which they have in view. We were asked to vote a sum of unparalleled size for that purpose. But that is not by any means the most remarkable part of the transaction. We were asked to give that large Vote—I may almost say without any explanation, at all events with a very meagre explanation, of the circumstances in which it was required, and with an observation of the most remarkable character—namely, that there were bound together in one Vote two services which appeared to be entirely distinct. We were asked to give that Vote not only for services in the Soudan, but also in respect of events that were likely to arise on the borders of Afghanistan and in connection with Central Asia. Why these two services were put together might not at first sight appear to be very obvious; but when we came to consider the matter we saw that they were, and are, very closely connected together—that they are closely connected with what I may call the most vital of all foreign questions for this country—I mean the protection of our Indian Empire. One of those Votes was asked with reference to what seemed the possibility of a direct attack upon that Empire, and the other Vote was asked with reference to services undertaken in Egypt which had for their object the protection of the communications with our Indian Dominions. When the two were put together, they were put together in a most remarkable manner. We were asked to supply large sums of money for special preparations; but we were told also that it was important, with regard to the Vote for the Soudan—and this was really the key to the Resolution that was proposed—that the troops and the forces of the Empire, wherever they might be, and especially those which were in Egypt, might be held available for service wherever they were required. And it was quite clear at the time that the speech of the Prime Minister, to which reference has so often been made, was delivered, that the point which he was anxious to press upon the House was this—that whatever may be the re-
  260
  quirements of our Forces in the Soudan, however important may be the services for the defence of Egypt, there are other matters of such vital importance which may lead to transactions of such magnitude that you must be prepared to set aside what you may be called upon to do in Egypt, and to subordinate it to what you may be called upon to do elsewhere. And it was in consequence of that appeal and of the remarkable manner in which it was put forward, and in consequence also of the solemn and very marked tone in which we were invited to make this Vote, that the House at once, unanimously, and without a single word of objection, voted this large sum. Well, but very shortly after we had done that we began to hear that there were changes in the situation, and after a time we were told that the immediate pressure upon us in regard to the special preparations is somewhat relaxed, and that there is a hope and probability of that sum not being needed altogether for the purposes which at first were indicated. But then arises the point, what is to be done in regard to the other part of the question? We were told a good deal of what was the policy of the Government in the Soudan in the early part of the Session. A fortnight ago we were asked to lay that matter aside for a time and to regard it as an entirely subordinate matter, and to substitute for it a policy that would put all the Forces at the disposal of Her Majesty's Government to be used wherever they are required. When that need seemed to have passed away we were anxious to know, and it was right that we should know, what the policy of the Government was with regard to their peculiar conduct of affairs in the Soudan; and it became necessary for us to press for information on that subject, because we cannot but say that the conduct and the course pursued by the Government have been open to the greatest objection on account of their uncertainty. The noble Marquess who has just sat down made some remarks about what he thought was the inconsistency of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) in respect of the vote which he gave in February last, and in respect of the language which he used to-night. There is no inconsistency in the result at all. The noble Marquess opposite takes up a

  261
  point which will not bear examination when he says that my noble Friend voted against the Motion of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley). He did so for the purpose of clearing the way, and of enabling himself to propose another Resolution which was a direct Vote of Want of Confidence in the Government. But, however that may be, whatever may be the inconsistency charged against my noble Friend, it is as nothing compared with the inconsistencies of the Government with regard to this question of going to Khartoum. "What is the policy of Her Majesty's Government? A year ago, when discussing the question of the Vote of Censure with regard to the Soudan policy of the Government, the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke), who then took a leading part in the discussion, referred to General Gordon's opinion that it was necessary to smash up the power of the Mahdi, and he referred to it for the purpose of saying that he entirely dissented from that opinion, and that it would be madness to adopt it. But a few months after that time the Prime Minister came forward and said that that policy which his Colleagues had denounced as madness to adopt was the policy which the Government were going to pursue—that was the policy which ho told us in February last the Government had adopted, and according to which they desired Lord Wolseley should frame his proceedings. Now, again, we find that the Government have taken another turn round, and adopted a wholly different view with regard to the policy of advancing on Khartoum. But they do not give us all the information we want. We want to know how far they have a decided policy with regard to Egypt and the Soudan? They do not tell us. The noble Marquess has been good enough to give us some general information to-night. He has told the House of some general views they have with regard the Suakin Railway, the Nile Railway, what is to be the position of the troops for a certain time, and that in some indefinite future Suakin is to be handed over to some other civilized Power; and he has told us something about making commercial railways in Egypt should they bethought desirable. Now, I would ask hon. Gen-
  262
  tlemen whether, after listening to the statement of the noble Marquess, they can feel the slightest confidence as to what is going to happen in the Soudan? It is over and over again the same story. The Government make certain declarations; then those declarations lead to acts which take them on and on, and you do not know when and where they are to be brought to an end. The policy of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley)is simple and plain enough. We may not approve of it, but we understand it. We understand that he desires to withdraw from Suakin and from the Soudan. That, however, is not the policy of the Government. The policy they adopt is a sort of stop-gap policy, and which, in consequence of a fresh movement of the Mahdi or of Osman Digna, may have to be changed and altogether upset. We complain that we are not furnished with sufficient information, and when we are asked to vote no less a sum than £4,500,000 we have a right—and should have exercised it under ordinary circumstances—to obtain a full account of what the Government are going to do with it. It is no answer to say—"What do you think we ought to do?" They are the responsible Ministers; they have all the information and knowledge of the circumstances; and they ought, at least, to give us an intelligible and definite policy, and one which they are prepared to justify and support. That is, I think, an important consideration, which operates as a full justification, for the Motion which my noble Friend has placed on the Paper. But it is a consideration, after all, that pales in importance when compared with another. It is all very well to say}', as the hon. Member for Orkney (Mr. Laing) told us just now, that the policy of the Opposition is to get into Office and declare war against Russia. Nothing could be more absurd than such a view as that. It would be the policy of the Opposition to endeavour to bring about such a settlement of the question of our North-Western Frontier as would reduce to a minimum and put, if possible, altogether out of sight, all chance of war with Russia. But what we say and what we complain of is that if you leave things as they now stand you run the danger of finding yourself—as we did the other day, according to the declaration of the Prime Minister—

  263
  within measurable distance of being engaged in hostilities with Russia—and engaged in hostilities with Russia in the most inconvenient form that can be imagined. We have heard what was said and thought by great men in past times under very different circumstances, when there was a distance of 1,000 miles or 2,000 miles between the Frontier of Afghanistan and the nearest Russian Possessions, and it was reasonable enough to suppose that the advance of the Russians would stop short of the frontier. But the Russians are now on the frontier, and you are in the position of being under obligations to the Ameer, some more or less definite, which may render it necessary for you to take part, at a most inconvenient time, in a quarrel between the Ameer and the Government of Russia. What do we hear is taking place? We are told that negotiations are going on which have nearly arrived at a satisfactory result, which will enable us to settle all important questions between us and Russia. That may be so; but there has of late been a habit on the part of the Government of taking up some minute and isolated points, and, when these have been settled, to treat everything as settled. The right hon. Gentleman laid enormous stress on the Penjdeh incident, and he seemed to think that the whole question at issue was whether there had been a misunderstanding on the part of one Power or the other which had led to that incident. He appeared to think that the whole question turned on this, and when a mode of arranging that point was arrived at—namely, by arbitration—he treated the entire matter as settled, and as if we had only to consider the delimitation of the frontier. But there is a great deal more beyond this. We have to get into proper relations with the Ameer. I remember so long ago as 1872, when we had a discussion in this House in regard to the proposal of a neutral zone, and I remember expressing the opinion that it would be a great danger to have to maintain a buffer State between such great Powers as England and Russia. What I argued then, as I argue now, is that you place yourselves in a most dangerous position if you place a buffer State, as it is called, between such great Powers as England and Russia. Therefore, what I say is this. There are three things you want.
  264
  In the first place—and in this I think every hon. Member will agree with me—you want to strengthen your position in India and to improve your means of communication with your own frontier; secondly, you want to have a proper and clear arrangement with the Ameer of Afghanistan, which will not bind you in any inconvenient way to support him when it is impossible to do so, but which will enable you to give him proper assistance in the way of arms and ammunition and money, or in whatever else he may be in want, on condition that he gives you, in return, certain facilities of access to important points in case of necessity; and, thirdly, you ought to have a clear agreement—a clear Treaty with Russia, in which it should be laid down, in the most unmistakable manner, where the points are to which Russia may come, and beyond which she cannot be permitted to come, and that any advance by her beyond those points shall be considered by you as a casus belli. A system founded on these three principles, with a reasonable administration, ought to preserve you from any dangers in that quarter. There is no doubt that the circumstances of India are greatly affected by these last advances of the Russians. The great "silver streak" of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke has been swept away, and you have been brought almost in conterminous lines with another great Power, and when you are brought in conterminous lines no doubt heavy claims may be made upon you. We are most anxious with regard to these three points, and we feel that it is absolutely necessary that they should be pressed upon Her Majesty's Government while there is yet time, and that Her Majesty's Government should endeavour to make arrangements which will secure the objects which we have in view. Now, Sir, I do not think the discussion of such a subject, in this House, is one of a factious character, or one that ought to be repudiated with contempt or indignation. It is a contribution, on our part, to the great question of the protection of our Indian Possessions and Empire; and what I say is that if we can bring about any settlement of the question that would impart confidence, and if the Government could establish a system such as I have pointed out, which would show that we are prepared for any eventuality, they would do more

  265
  than by any amount of expenditure of troops or money. What is so mischievous is the constant apprehension, the constant rumours, the constant uncertainties and alarms that are spread about, sometimes from high quarters, sometimes from commercial centres, sometimes from bazaars, sometimes from we know not where—rumours of a disturbing character, and of an alarmist character—which are calculated to disturb and alarm the people. And I venture to say that some of the language used by the Prime Minister himself has had somewhat too much of that alarmist character. I think that that speech he made to us, under ail the circumstances, considering what we now know, when he moved the Vote of Credit, was of an unnecessarily alarmist character. It was one of those speeches which throw a great halo round the speaker at the moment; but it was calculated to disturb and alarm. Whom? Not Russia, but our own people. It was calculated to disturb the people of this country, and, what is still more important, it was calculated to disturb and alarm our Indian fellow-subjects, who hear all these things and do not understand them. I trust and hope that the Government will make a change in the manner in which they deal with these questions, always putting forward some small matter as the first point, until they reach a point that must land us in all these difficulties. What are they doing now in reference to the Soudan? They are trying to put matters in such a position that if we have to do certain things we must do them in self-defence. Why, that was exactly what they said on the occasion of the bombardment of Alexandria. It was in self-defence that we had to bombard it. It is also in self-defence that we have to make these incursions against Osman Digna. Having shown that it is not from want of the will to make great sacrifices for a great public and Imperial object, having shown that we are ready to furnish men and money to enable the Government to carry on the war, provided that a necessity is shown for it, we do insist upon having a clear, distinct, and unmistakable declaration of policy. We have an entire want of confidence in the explanation and declaration already made. They altogether miss the point, and, as far as I can understand, they put us in all the dangers
  266
  we wish to avoid, while providing no such means of safety as we desire. It is said that we ought to wait until the Papers are produced. We know what that means. At the end of the week we should be told that they have not left the printers' hands; that you are not responsible for the delay, and then some hitch wall come which renders it necessary to put them off for some time longer. Then Whitsuntide is upon us, and we come back after Whitsuntide and find there are other pressing matters which require our attention. It is really one of those cases in which, if we mean to speak at all, we must speak at once. We have challenged the position of the Government, and I hope the House will show, by the votes recorded tonight, that it looks upon the information already given as altogether insufficient.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am sorry to find myself under the necessity, at this late hour, of making a few remarks upon the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. In the first instance, I must observe that the right hon. Gentleman has entirely repudiated the ground upon which this Motion has been proposed and recommended by all its principal supporters. By the noble Lord who moved the Motion (Lord George Hamilton) it was declared to be a Vote having for its purpose to stop all proceedings of the Government by ejecting them from Office. By the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) and the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) the issue was the same. It was simply a Motion for stopping the Supplies. The right hon. Gentleman carefully disavows that interpretation. [Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: No.] Then, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to say, as his supporters have said, and as his confidential Friend sitting by him (Lord George Hamilton) has said—"I will withhold everything from you until I displace the Government from Office?" The right hon. Gentleman has totally avoided saying anything of the kind, and he declares that it is the insufficiency of information—and the insufficiency of information alone—upon which he founds his support of the Vote. That is a glaring contradiction indicating the community of sentiment which prevails between the right hon. Gentleman and those with whom he acts. [Laughter, and "Oh, oh!"]

  267
  The right hon. Gentleman may laugh or sneer if he likes; but the remarks I am making upon the right hon. Gentleman are not at all calculated to excite any display of feeling from him. It is in his power, of course, to explain what he pleases; but this is my contention—namely, that the support which the right hon. Gentleman gives to this Motion, on the ground that it is a Motion complaining of defective information, is totally at variance with the support given to it by his leading Friends on that side of the House, who support it as a Motion which aims at the assertion of the principle that no Supplies should be granted to Her Majesty's present Government for the purposes contemplated in the Vote of Credit. [Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Without information.] They did not say anything of the kind. The right hon. Gentleman has interpolated that most needful commentary upon the speeches of his Friends which entirely changes their character, and with which interpolation his ground is totally different from theirs. Pray recollect what happened last week. If there be want of information now, much more was there want of information then. My noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington) had not made his statement; we were not in a position to say when the Russian Papers would be laid upon the Table; and yet, what said the right hon. Gentleman at that time? He absolutely disclaimed, in the strongest manner, on Monday last, with all his Friends around him, all idea of interposing the slightest obstacle in the way of the Vote we had then proposed. Such is the history of the question as far as regards the terms of this very remarkable Motion. And now, Sir, it has been said that in the time of the late Government their hands were weakened by hostile attacks and criticisms upon their policy. All that is perfectly true. It was a necessity lamented at the time—["Oh!"]—lamented at the time. ["Oh!"] It seems to me not an unfair claim that I shall be allowed to finish my sentence. Lamented at the time not in our interior minds, but in debate in this House, and I challenge contradiction. Sir, it is a very great evil when such a thing is done; but to this I claim the assent of hon. Gentlemen opposite—that when we challenged, in the time of the late Government, the
  268
  proceedings which they took, upon no occasion did we shelter ourselves behind the plea that an Opposition was not bound to find a policy. Upon every occasion we set forth distinctly what were the principles to which we objected, and what were the principles which we wished to substitute. ["Never!"] I wish the hon. Member who says "Never!" would be good enough to verify his assertion in a legitimate manner. Now, what is the present position? The present position is this—there are two questions before us. The first question relates to India, to Afghanistan, and to Russia. We have told you that we can now see our way to lay the Papers, so that they shall be in your hands, we are assured by the Foreign Department, at the end of the week. Under these circumstances, you choose to bring forward a Motion which the right hon. Gentleman, at any rate, recognizes as a Motion which, if carried, must displace the Government, without those Papers in your hands. And how do you supply the defect? You supply it by putting forward a series of suppositions, every one of which, so far as you are able to show, is absolutely baseless. You say that everything has been surrendered to Russia in what you term a lamentable fiasco. Of that you know nothing whatever. You say it is a base surrender to Russia to carry on negotiations in London instead of on the Afghan Frontier. [Interruption.] Those hon. Members who assume to themselves such an amount of licence are not likely to listen to anything I may have to say, and therefore I will speak to the House generally. You say it is a base surrender to Russia. What if, when the Papers are produced, you find that Sir Peter Lumsden was himself averse, under the circumstances, to carrying on the negotiations on the Afghan Frontier? If it is so, how can you say that the transfer to London is a base surrender to Russia? How can that be a base surrender to Russia, which is the opinion and conviction of your own Government, and which I shall be ready to argue at the proper time—when the gentleman in whom you place confidence—Sir Peter Lumsden—may have desired, for all you know, that the transactions on the Afghan Frontier shall cease, and that the arrangement shall be made elsewhere? [An hon.

  269
  MEMBER: Why?] That is not the point. The point is the authority of Sir Peter Lumsden, in whom you profess to place confidence, but with whom you are ready and willing to part company when you have some reason to suppose that he does not agree with you. You speak of the recall of Sir Peter Lumsden. Suppose you find that he has not been recalled, but that his return to this country is in full conformity with his own views? You say that everything has been surrendered, with respect to the frontier line. Suppose you find that, on the contrary, a frontier line has been drawn which, supported by conclusive authority, has the thorough adhesion of the whole Indian Government, and which is completely conformable to the views of the Ameer of Afghanistan? You say that a speech was made on a Monday, of which the noble Lord said, with exultation, "every man who heard that speech throughout the land believed that it meant war," and therefore the satisfaction with which he says it was received. But on the Monday following a speech was made in a totally different tone, and it was clear, the noble Lord says, that everything had been surrendered to Russia. Suppose that when the Papers are discovered, which you are to have within the week, and for which you cannot wait—suppose that when those Papers are brought to light, you find, on the contrary, that the speech, indicating somewhat dark and gloomy views, was made when we were contending for objects which we hardly hoped to gain, and that the speech in the more sanguine tone on the following Monday was made when those objects had been gained. It is under these circumstances that the Opposition are so oppressed with their conscientious sense of public duty, and with regard to a Vote and a Bill which on Monday last they entirely disclaimed any notion of opposing, they now meet it with a Motion of which they candidly admit that its carrying would displace the Government, and with respect to which the noble Lord opposite and his principal supporters, excepting the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), do not scruple to declare that its meaning is the refusal of Supplies and the refusal to give to the Executive the means necessary for meeting the demands of the
  270
  present condition of affairs. I contend that it is a practice entirely opposed to the traditions of Parliament to attempt to obtain, under cover of a call for information, or in any other shape, a condemnation of the Government under circumstances which compel you to admit that you have hardly any particular knowledge of the course that they have been pursuing in these delicate and difficult negotiations, and when you know that this knowledge is to be in your hands in the course of a few days. The right hon. Gentleman, indeed, has supplied to-night what he calls a contribution to the settlement of this question, in dilating largely and putting force and weight upon matters concerning our relations with the Ameer. But these are not the matters which have been at issue. They may be matters very proper for the consideration of this House; but they have really been just as well open for its consideration at any time during the existence of the present Government. There has been no pressure or difficulty, and no danger with respect to that—no greater harmony has ever prevailed between the Ameer of Afghanistan and the Government of this country than that which prevails at the present time; and it is little short of ludicrous to urge on the House considerations such as that, as a reason for forcing a decision with reference to the Ameer of Afghanistan, when the House is without any proper moans of forming a judgment on the conduct of the Government. So much as to the Russian part of the case. You have not got in your hands the evidence; but, notwithstanding that, you are determined to go on. Well, Sir, with regard to the other part of the case, the right hon. Baronet says he has got very insufficient information about the Soudan. Does the right hon. Baronet think that it would be possible for my noble Friend to say more than he has said? What did my noble Friend leave undefined? He left undefined the nature of the measures which it might be necessary to take with respect to the making of the railways. Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that it would be in the power of the Government, or of any Government, to give a final and conclusive answer upon that subject, and to describe now the precise steps which may be taken, if they happily find the door open towards

  271
  converting these military lines for the purposes of peace and civilization? I can hardly think that this is a serious demand. Well, the right hon. Baronet says that my noble Friend has not told the House whether we should withdraw from Suakin. But how does he think himself that it is in the nature of things possible or compatible with common cense for us to say at this moment whether we shall leave Suakin or not? The right hon. Gentleman has not ventured to give that information to the House. Sir, the real question here is the question of Khartoum; and I am bound to admit, although the Opposition have no knowledge or policy with regard to Russia or Afghanistan, that with regard to Khartoum the evidence is clear enough. With respect to Khartoum, does the right hon. Gentleman deny that this is the main matter—the centre and the heart of the whole? Why, Sir, it was the Expedition to Khartoum, it was the existence of the Army in the Nile Valley that required us to undertake, as my noble Friend has shown, Tinder the demand of Lord Wolseley, the new Expedition to Suakin. It is upon Khartoum, and the arrangements connected with Khartoum, that all the rest hangs. Here is a certain light and clear issue shown. The noble Lord says he has never been in favour of an advance on Khartoum, although he has stoutly voted for it. [Lord GEORGE HAMILTON: When?] In the House of Commons on the 27th of February, 1885, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon moved a Motion which closed with the words that the conduct of the Government, and so forth—
  "Has rendered it imperatively necessary in the interests of the British Empire, and of the Egyptian people, that Her Majesty's Government should distinctly recognize, and take decided measures to fulfil, the special responsibility now incumbent on them to assure a good and stable Government in Egypt, and to those portions of the Soudan which are necessary to its security."
  What portions of the Soudan are necessary to the security of Egypt? There was a meaning, I presume, in those emphatic words. What was the meaning? Sir, it was perfectly plain that there were two points of main action. One was the Valley of the Nile, and the other was Suakin. It was not Suakin that you described as necessary for the
  272
  security of Egypt; it was Khartoum that you meant to describe, and the advance upon Khartoum is the policy for not adopting which we are now to be condemned. That was the policy affirmed by the Opposition in the month of February last; it is not now disavowed. Sir, there is only one other point I may mention. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has abandoned as desperate all attempts to defend the language either of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) with respect to Russia, or of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton), or of the Marquess of Salisbury, who pointed out that the choice for Russia was between owning to the character of a swindler and owning to the character of a bankrupt. What do hon. Gentlemen mean when they say they are not friends of war, when, at the same time, they indulge in this most unwise and most unjustifiable language? If we are to have a frontier to Afghanistan—that is, a frontier between Afghanistan and Russia, are we, or are we not, to have an engagement with Russia with respect to it? [An hon. MEMBER: How long will she keep it?] Are we so devoid of sense as to think that we can make that engagement, and at the same time to cast in the teeth of Russia the reproach that no engagement she may make will be respected? We must recollect that this language is used by men who are the Leaders of a Party seeking avowedly for immediate possession of Office, and that in the midst of a great controversy, which, according to their views, it would devolve upon them to close. I must say it was a matter of great satisfaction to me that at the time when we were in difficulty and doubt, and the chance of an unfavourable solution appeared greatly to preponderate, the House came forward and supported with wonderful unanimity the demand which we made. It is not alone with grief that I witness the change which has taken place in the attitude of Gentlemen opposite since the heavens have cleared, and since the blessed prospect of peace has returned. As long as we were taking measures, as long as we were holding language that could be interpreted in the direction of war—and too good grounds there were, in our mind and view, for taking such measures and using such language—so

  273
  long we experienced at your hands forbearance and consideration. The change which took place was a change at the prospect of peace, and that was the only change that occurred in the interval. There was not an act done by us in the interval which could have been made by you the subject of hostile comment. You might, or may have, disapproved of what we have done before; but for the change in your attitude there is no cause to be found in any act of ours which you can trace to that period. But the profound and deep mortification which was manifested upon that change, and upon the prospect of a settlement to be effected by our hands, were as painful to us as the generous and confiding support which we had previously received was pleasurable. I wish that these facts could be concealed. There is no doubt at all of your change of attitude, and it will lie with you to show that that change of attitude has reference to something done by us, or to some discovery made by you in the interval. But you cannot show it. We are in hopes—we continue to be in hopes—of a peaceable settlement to be effected by honourable means, and tending to the establishment of solid relations with a great Empire, to be at war with which would be a calamity to Russia, a calamity to Great Britain, a calamity to civilized mankind, and a calamity to the world at large. If you find fault with our proposal with reference to arbitration, why do you not embody your views in a Motion which we will meet, and upon which we will take the judgment of the House? When we turn to the Soudan, what I say is that we have adopted a policy which apparently you are glad to assail by indirect or circuitous means, and which I greatly doubt you will ever dare to challenge in an open manner. The House of Commons and the country understand our position with reference to this great question; let them understand your position. Give construction, if you can, to the Motion you yourselves propose against us; and depend upon it that if you are ready to assume the Government of the country, you will not be able to cloak yourselves and escape a great issue by vague and general declamation. Our policy is the abandonment of the Expedition to Khartoum. What your policy is it will be incumbent on you to declare.
  Question put.
  The House divided: 260: Majority 30.

  AYES.

  Acland,rt.hn.SirT. D.

  Courtauld, G.

  Agnew, W.

  Courtney, L. H.

  Ainsworth, D.

  Cowper, hon. H. F.

  Allen, H. G.

  Craig, W. Y.

  Allen, W. S.

  Creyke, R.

  Amory, Sir J. H.

  Cropper, J.

  Armitage, B.

  Cross, J. K.

  Armitstead, G.

  Crum, A.

  Arnold, A.

  Cunliffe, Sir R. A.

  Asher, A.

  Currie, Sir D.

  Ashley, hon. E. M.

  Davey, H.

  Baldwin, E.

  Davies, D.

  Balfour, Sir G.

  Davies, R.

  Balfour, rt. hon. J. B.

  Davies, W.

  Balfour, J. S.

  De Ferriéres, Baron

  Barclay, J. W.

  Dickson, T. A.

  Baring, Viscount

  Dilke, rt.hn. Sir C. W.

  Barnes, A.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Barran, J.

  Dodds, J.

  Bass, Sir A.

  Duckham, T.

  Bass, H.

  Duff, R. W.

  Baxter, rt. hon. W. E.

  Earp, T.

  Beaumont, W. B.

  Edwards, H.

  Biddulph, M.

  Edwards, P.

  Blennerhassett, Sir R.

  Egerton, Adm. hon. F.

  Blennerhassett, R. P.

  Elliot, hon. A. R. D.

  Bolton, J. C.

  Evans, T. W.

  Borlase, W. C.

  Fairbairn, Sir A.

  Brand, hon. H. R.

  Farquharson, Dr. R.

  Brassey, Sir T.

  Fay, C. J.

  Brassey, H. A.

  Ferguson, R.

  Brett, R. B.

  Ferguson,R. C. Munro-

  Bright, J.

  Ffolkes, Sir W. H. B.

  Brogden, A.

  Findlater, W.

  Brooks, M.

  Firth, J. F. B.

  Brown, A. H.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord E.

  Bruce, rt. hon. Lord C.

  Fitzwilliam, hon.C. W.

  Bruce, hon. R. P.

  Flower, C.

  Bryce, J.

  Foljambe, F. J. S.

  Buchanan, T. R.

  Forster, Sir C.

  Burt, T.

  Forster, rt. hon. W. E.

  Buszard, M. C.

  Fort. R.

  Buxton, F. W.

  Fowler, H. H.

  Buxton, S. C.

  Fowler, W.

  Caine, W. S.

  Fry, L.

  Cameron, C.

  Fry, T.

  Camphell, Lord C.

  Gabbett, D. F.

  Campbell, Sir G.

  Gladstone, rt. hn.W. E.

  Campbell, R. F. F.

  Gladstone, H. J.

  Campbell- Bannerman, right hon. H.

  Gladstone, W. H.

  Glyn, hon. S. C.

  Carbutt, E. H.

  Gordon, Lord D.

  Carington, hon. R.

  Gordon, Sir A.

  Cartwright, W. C.

  Gourley, E. T.

  Causton, R. K.

  Grafton, F. W.

  Cavendish, Lord E.

  Grant, Sir G. M.

  Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.

  Grant, A.

  Chambers, Sir T.

  Grant D.

  Cheetham, J. F.

  Guest, M. J.

  Clarke, S.

  Gurdon, R. T.

  Clifford, C. C.

  Hamilton, J. G. C.

  Cohen, A.

  Harcourt, rt. hn. Sir W. G. V. V.

  Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

  Collings, J.

  Hardcastle, J. A.

  Collins, E.

  Hartington, Marq. of

  Colman, J. J.

  Hastings, G. W.

  275

  Hayter, Sir A. D.

  Paget, T. T.

  Henderson, F.

  Palmer, C. M.

  Heneage, E.

  Palmer, G.

  Henry, M.

  Parker, C. S.

  Herschell, Sir F.

  Pease, Sir J. W.

  Hibbert, J. T.

  Pease, A.

  Hill, T. E.

  Peddie, J. D.

  Holden, I.

  Pender, J.

  Holland, S.

  Pennington, F.

  Hollond, J. E.

  Philips, R. N.

  Holms, J.

  Picton, J. A.

  Hopwood, C. H.

  Playfair, rt. hon. Sir L.

  Howard, G. J.

  Portman, hon. W.H.B.

  Illingworth, A.

  Potter, T. B.

  Ince, H. B.

  Powell, W. R. H.

  Inderwick, F. A.

  Power, J. O'C.

  James, Sir H.

  Pulley, J.

  James, hon. W. H.

  Ralli, P.

  James, C. H.

  Ramsden, Sir J.

  Jardine, E.

  Rathbone, W.

  Jenkins, Sir J. J.

  Reed, Sir E. J.

  Jenkins, D. J.

  Reid, R. T.

  Johnson, E.

  Rendel, S.

  Jones-Parry, L.

  Richard, H.

  Kinnear, J.

  Richardson, T.

  Labouchere, H.

  Roberts, J.

  Laing, S.

  Roe, T.

  Lambton, hon. F. W.

  Rogers, C. C.

  Lawrence, Sir J, C.

  Rogers, J. E. T.

  Lawrence, W.

  Rothschild,SirN.M.de

  Lea, T.

  Roundell, C. S.

  Leake, R.

  Russell, Lord A.

  Leatham, E. A.

  Russell, C.

  Leatham, W. H.

  Russell, G. W. E.

  Lee, H.

  Russell, T.

  Lefevre,rt. hn. G. J. S.

  Ruston, J.

  Lloyd, M.

  Rylands, P.

  Lubbock, Sir J.

  St. Aubyn, Sir J.

  Lusk, Sir A.

  Samuelson, Sir B.

  Lyons, E. D.

  Seely, C. (Nottingham)

  Macfarlane, D. H.

  Sellar, A. C.

  Mackie, R. B.

  Shaw, T.

  Mackintosh, C. F.

  Sheridan, H. B.

  Macliver, P. S.

  Shield, H.

  M'Arthur, Sir W.

  Sinclair, Sir J. G. T.

  M'Arthur, A.

  Slagg, J.

  M'Clure, Sir T.

  Smith, E.

  M'Coan, J. C.

  Smith, Lieut.-Col. G.

  M'Lagan, P.

  Smith, S.

  M'Laren, C. B. B.

  Stafford, Marquess of

  M'Minnies, J. G.

  Stanley, hon. E. L.

  Maitland, W. F.

  Stanton, W. J.

  Mappin, F. T.

  Steble, Lieu-Col. R.F.

  Marjoribanks, hon. E.

  Stevenson, J. C.

  Martin, P.

  Storey, S.

  Martin, R. B.

  Stuart, H. V.

  Mason, H.

  Stuart, J.

  Maxwell-Heron, Capt. J. M.

  Summers, W.

  Sutherland, T.

  Mellor, J. W.

  Talbot, C. R. M.

  Monk, C. J.

  Tavistock, Marquess of

  Moreton, Lord

  Tennant, C.

  Morgan, rt. hon. G. O.

  Thomasson, J. P.

  Morley, A.

  Thompson, T. C.

  Morley, J.

  Torrens, W. T. M.

  Morley, S.

  Tracy, hon. F. S. A.Hanbury-

  Mundeila, rt. hn. A. J.

  Noel, E.

  Trevelyan, rt. hn. G.O.

  Norwood, C. M.

  Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

  O'Beirne, Colonel

  Vivian, A. P.

  O'Brien, Sir P.

  Waddy, S. D.

  O'Shea, W. H.

  Walker, S.

  Otway, Sir A. J.

  Walter, J.

  276

  Waterlow, Sir S.

  Wilson, Sir M,

  Waugh, E.

  Wilson, C. H.

  Webster, J.

  Wilson, I.

  West, H. W.

  Wodebouse, E. R.

  Whitbread, S.

  Woodall, W.

  Whitworth, B.

  Wiggin, H.

  TELLERS.

  Williamson, S.

  Grosvenor, right hon. Lord R.

  Willis, W.

  Wills, W. H.

  Kensington, right hon. Lord

  Willyams, E. W. B.

  Noes.

  Ackers, B. St. J.

  Dawnay, hon. G. C.

  Alexander, Gen. C.

  Dawson, C.

  Amherst, W. A. T.

  De Worms, Baron H.

  Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

  Dickson, Major A. G.

  Bailey, Sir J. R.

  Digby, J. K. D. W.

  Balfour, A. J.

  Dixon-Hartland, F. D.

  Barne, F. St. J. N.

  Douglas, A. Akers-

  Barry, J.

  Dyke.rt. hn.SirW. H.

  Barttelot, Sir W. B.

  Eaton, H. W.

  Bateson, Sir T.

  Eckersley, N.

  Beach, rt. hon. Sir M. E. Hicks-

  Ecroyd, W. F.

  Egerton, hon. A. de T.

  Beach, W. W. B.

  Egerton, hon. A. F.

  Bective, Earl of

  Elcho, Lord

  Bellingham, A. H.

  Elliot, Sir G.

  Bentinck, rt. hon. G. C.

  Elliot, G. W.

  Beresford, G. De la P.

  Ellis, Sir J. W.

  Biddell, W.

  Elton, C. I.

  Biggar, J. G.

  Estcourt, G. S.

  Birkbeck, E.

  Ewart, W.

  Blackburne, Col. J. I.

  Ewing, A. O.

  Boord, T. W.

  Fielden, Lt.-Gen. R. J.

  Bourke, rt. hon. R.

  Fellowes, W. H.

  Broadley, W. H. H.

  Finch, G. H.

  Brodrick, hon. W. St. J.F.

  Finch-Hatton, hon. M. E. G.

  Brooke, Lord

  Fitz-Wygram, Sir F.

  Brooks, W. C.

  Fletcher, Sir H.

  Bruce, Sir H. H.

  Floyer, J.

  Bruce, hon. T.

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Brymer, W. E.

  Forester, C. T. W.

  Bulwer, J. R.

  Foster, W. H.

  Burghley, Lord

  Fowler, rt. hn. R. N.

  Buxton, Sir R. J.

  Fremantle, hon. T. F.

  Callan, P.

  French-Brewster, R.A.B.

  Cameron, D.

  Campbell, J. A.

  Freshfield, C. K.

  Carden, Sir R. W.

  Galway, Viscount

  Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G.

  Gardner, E. Richardson

  Chaplin, H.

  Christie, W. L.

  Gathorne-Hardy, hon.J. S.

  Churchill, Lord R. S.

  Clarke, E. G.

  Gibson, right hon. E.

  Clive, Col. hon. G. W.

  Giffard, Sir H. S.

  Close, M. C.

  Giles, A.

  Coddington, W.

  Goldney, Sir G.

  Cole, Viscount

  Gorst, J. E.

  Compton, F.

  Grantham, W.

  Coope, O. E.

  Gray, E. D.

  Corbet, W. J.

  Greene, E.

  Corry, J. P.

  Greer, T.

  Cotton, W. J. R.

  Gregory, G. B.

  Crichton, Viscount

  Gunter, Colonel E.

  Cross, rt. hon. Sir R. A.

  Halsey, T. F.

  Cubitt, right hon. G.

  Hamilton, rt.hn. Ld.G.

  Curzon, Major hon. M.

  Hamilton, Lord C. J.

  Dalrymple, C.

  Hamilton, I. T.

  Davenport, H. T.

  Harrington, T.

  Dawnay, Col. hon. L. P.

  Harris, W. J.

  277

  Harvey, Sir R. B.

  Newdegate, C. N.

  Hay, rt. hon. Admiral Sir J. G. D.

  Newport, Viscount

  Nicholson, W. N.

  Healy, T. M.

  Nolan, Colonel J. P.

  Herbert, hon. S.

  Northcote, rt. hon. Sir S. H.

  Hicks, E.

  Hildyard, T. B. T.

  Northcote, H. S.

  Hill, Lord A. W.

  O'Brien W.

  Hill, A. S.

  O'Connor, A.

  Holland, Sir H. T.

  O'Connor, J.

  Home, Lt.-Col. D. M.

  O'Connor, T. P.

  Hope, right hon. A. J. B. B.

  O'Gorman Mahon, Col. The

  Houldsworth, W. H.

  O'Kelly, J.

  Jackson, W. L.

  Onslow, D.

  Johnstone, Sir F.

  O'Sullivan, W. H.

  Kennard, Col. E. H.

  Paget, R. H.

  Kennard, C. J.

  Patrick,R.W.Cochran-

  Kennaway, Sir J. H.

  Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

  Kenny, M. J.

  Pell, A.

  Ker, R. W. B.

  Pemberton, E. L.

  King-Harman, Col. E. R.

  Percy, rt. hon. Earl

  Percy, Lord A.

  Knight, F. W.

  Phipps, C. N. P.

  Knightley, Sir R.

  Phipps, P.

  Lalor, R.

  Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.

  Lawrance, J. C.

  Power, P. J.

  Lawrence, Sir T.

  Power, R.

  Leahy, J.

  Puleston, J. H.

  Leamy, E.

  Raikos, rt. hon. H. C.

  Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

  Rankin, J.

  Leigh, R.

  Redmond, J. E.

  Leighton, Sir B.

  Redmond, W. H. K.

  Leighton, S.

  Rendlesham, Lord

  Lever, J. O.

  Repton, G. W.

  Levett, T. J.

  Ridley, Sir M. W.

  Lewis, C. E.

  Ritchie, C. T.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Rolls, J. A.

  Lindsay, Sir R. L.

  Ross, A. H.

  Lloyd, S. S.

  Ross, C. C.

  Loder, R.

  Round, J.

  Long, W. H.

  Salt, T.

  Lopes, Sir M.

  Sclater-Booth,rt.hn.G.

  Lowther, rt. hon. J.

  Scott, M. D.

  Lowther, hon. W.

  Selwin - Ibbetson, Sir H.J.

  Lowther, J. W.

  Lynch, N.

  Severne, J. E.

  Macartney, J. W. E.

  Sexton, T.

  Mac Iver, D.

  Sheil, E.

  Macnaghten, E.

  Small, J. F.

  M'Carthy, J.

  Smith, A.

  M'Carthy, J. H.

  Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

  M'Garel-Hogg, Sir J.

  Smithwick, J. F.

  M'Kenna, Sir J. N.

  Stanhope, hon. E.

  M'Mahon, E.

  Stanley, rt. hon. Col. F.

  Makins, Colonel W. T.

  Stanley, E. J.

  March, Earl of

  Storer, G.

  Marriott, W. T.

  Strutt, hon. C. H.

  Marum, E. M.

  Sullivan, T. D.

  Master, T. W. C.

  Sykes, C.

  Maxwell, Sir H. E.

  Talbot, J. G.

  Mayne, T.

  Thornhill, A. J.

  Meagher, W.

  Thynne, Lord H. F.

  Miles, Sir P. J. W.

  Tollemache, hon. W.

  Mills, Sir C. H.

  Tollemache, H. J.

  Milner, Sir F.

  Tomlinson, W. E. M.

  Molloy, B. C.

  Tottenham, A. L.

  Morgan, hon. F.

  Tremayne, J.

  Moss, R.

  Wallace, Sir R.

  Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J. R.

  Walrond, Col. W. H.

  Warburton, P. E.

  Mulholland, J.

  Warton, C. N.

  Muntz, P. A.

  Watney, J.

  278

  Whitley, E.

  Wroughton, P.

  Williams, General O.

  Wyndham, hon. P

  Wilmot, Sir H.

  Yorke, J. R.

  Wilmot, Sir J. E.

  TELLERS.

  Wolff, Sir H. D.

  Thornhill, T.

  Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

  Winn, R.

  Main Question put, and agreed to.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (REDISTRIBUTION) BILL.— [BILL 134.]
  (Mr. Gladstone, The Marquess of Hartington, Sir Charles W. Dilke, Mr. Attorney General, The Lord Advocate, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  SIR CHARLRS W. DILKEsaid, he wished to explain to the House the extreme urgency of this Bill, to which he made allusion at Question time tonight. He thought he was quite justified in using the words "extreme urgency." The House of Lords would sit to-morrow; they did not sit on Wednesday or on Thursday of this week, Thursday being Ascension Day, on which day the House of Lords never sat. If the Bill was read a third time to-night, the House of Lords would be able to read the Bill a first time tomorrow, and to take the second reading on Friday next. Now, the urgency of the Bill being read a second time in the House of Lords on Friday next was very great. The passing of the Bill without delay was just as necessary as the passing of the three Registration Bills. Until this Bill had become law merged boroughs would exist, and exist for registration purposes; the new boroughs would not come into existence; the altered boundaries of old boroughs would have no force; the new divisions of counties and boroughs would not exist. The result of that was to produce a state of utter confusion with regard to the duties of Clerks of the Peace, Town Clerks, and overseers. The town clerks of the merged boroughs had to issue precepts which would be of no effect. The different conditions under which the ownership vote and the occupation vote now existed in the boroughs to be merged, and under which they would hereafter exist, would cause the precepts to be inapplicable. Similar difficulties would arise with respect to the precepts issued by Clerks of the Peace in districts now parts of counties,

  279
  but which were hereafter to form new boroughs, or to be included in boroughs. The precepts to be issued by Town Clerks and Clerks of the Peace ought to be issued not later than the 10th of June, and before that time eight days were required for the drawing out and the printing of the precepts. The Act itself was not likely to be in the hands of the Town Clerks until about eight days after it had passed through Parliament and received, the Royal Assent. Should the Bill be delayed in the other House, owing, for instance, to the Whitsuntide holidays, a great practical difficulty would arise, as to the formation of the polling districts. All polling districts which divided parishes had to be formed before the 1st of July, before which the magistrates must meet. The three Registration Bills should pass on as early a date as possible; but they were so drawn that they must pass after this Bill. For instance, "divided boroughs" and "Parliamentary counties," about which there was a great deal to be found in the three Registration Bills, were, of course, expressions which had no meaning until this Bill was passed. If, therefore, Parliament were to pass the Registration Bills in advance of the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill, they would legislate in regard to matters which did not exist. Now, he thought he had established a case of urgency for the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes), judging from what he said at Question time to-day, was of opinion that very large changes were made in the Bill on the Report stage. Having gone very carefully through the Bill, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that that was not the case. The changes made were almost entirely changes of name. There were four changes in borough names, and of 339 county names only 36 were altered on Report. The changes included the adoption of points of the compass, and the striking out in certain cases and the adding in an equal number of cases of alternative names. Under all the circumstances, therefore, he felt bound, in the public interest, to press on the House the importance of reading the Bill a third time to-night. It was suggested on Friday night, when Report was finished, that the Bill should be read a third time. He had reason to
  280
  believe, from inquiry he had made, that such a proposal would have been well received by the House; but he knew, from an announcement made by the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), that although that hon. and learned Gentleman would not have objected to take the third reading then, he would have divided against it. Under the circumstances he did not think it right to take the third reading immediately after Report. There was a very thin House, and therefore, in all probability, some Members would have objected to that course being adopted. He regretted that he was obliged to ask the House to read the Bill a third time at that late hour (2.15).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Sir Charles W. Dike.)
  MR. RAIKESsaid, he was very willing to go a great way to meet the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman, because he thought hon. Members owed him a debt of gratitude for the admirable manner in which he had conducted the Bill through the House. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that it was with no wish to diminish the credit which attached to him that he felt obliged to take exception to the course he had now recommended. Admitting the force of all that had been said, ho thought a case had not been made out for pressing the Bill to a third reading that night. The right hon. Baronet told them the House of Lords would not sit on Wednesday or Thursday this week, and that the Bill must be sent up to them at once, otherwise they would not receive it before Friday, in which case it could not be read a second time before the Whitsuntide Recess. He (Mr. Raikes), however, would point out that, in the event of this House disposing of the Bill to-morrow, it could reach the House of Lords in time for second reading on Friday; for in that House there was a custom when, on an emergency, an important Bill was to come up from the House of Commons, to adjourn during pleasure to await the arrival of such Bill, in order when it came, later in the evening, to read it a first time. He thought that, in regard to a Bill of such importance as this—perhaps the most important Bill that had been brought forward during the

  281
  last half century—Her Majesty's Government should allow hon. Members every opportunity for consideration. The measure closely affected their own privileges; it had reference to the seats they occupied in the House. There had been alterations made in the Bill on the Report stage—alterations in its nomenclature in a great number of places. The measure, as finally passed, should be reprinted, so that Members of the House of Commons would not have to go to the other House in order to obtain a copy of the Bill as introduced there, so as to find out its contents when it left the House of Commons. Surely this House should have a complete record of its own work—of its work on a subject fundamentally connected with its own privileges. He could not help thinking it was a most reasonable claim to make that they should have the Bill in their hands in the precise form in which it was reported and read a third time. It was a very common thing in connection with Bills of much less importance than this to have them reprinted after they had been amended on Report. He was familiar with cases in which this course had been adopted in regard to Bills of a most trumpery description; and he maintained that in dealing with a Bill which affected so materially the position of hon. Members in the House—which affected hon. Members even more largely than their constituencies—it was not an unreasonable thing to request that the third reading might be delayed a sufficient length of time to enable the Bill to be reprinted and submitted in its complete form. As he had said, if the House of Lords received the Bill at even a late hour to-morrow, it would be quite competent for them to read it a second time on Friday. Having regard to all those considerations, he hoped the House would insist upon such delay as was necessary for the reprinting of the Bill. He begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he desired to second the Motion. He felt as strongly impressed as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Raikes) with the admirable manner in which the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had conducted the Bill through the House. He ventured to say, indeed, that no one else sitting on the Treasury Bench would have managed the Bill so well as the right hon.
  282
  Baronet had done; but, at the same time, he must point out that unless they had the measure reprinted before it went up to the House of Lords they would not possess a correct record of what had been done in this Chamber, and would not be able to put right several matters which required alteration. For instance, it had been decided that the Pembroke Division should be called "Pembroke or Haverfordwest;" but the alteration had not been made by the right hon. Baronet in the stereo. There were alterations also required in the Bill in the matter of the numbering of certain provisions; in fact, he was quite sure there were several points in regard to which it was necessary that the Bill should be amended before it left this House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Raikes.)
  MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOE)wished to say one word in support of the view of the President of the Local Government Board. He thought the right hon. Baronet had clearly shown to the House that it was most important that the measure should be read a third time here and sent to the House of Lords. There was one point on which, he thought, they were all agreed; and that was that they all wished that the Bill should, as soon as might be, become law, because both sides of the House were anxious to appeal to the country. That appeal could not be made until the Bill had become law. On those grounds he hoped the House would allow the Bill to be read a third time.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Government were of opinion that there was force in the remark of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) when he complained that no record of the Bill would be kept if it were not reprinted before it was sent up to the other House. The suggestion was a reasonable one, and the Government were disposed to meet that view; and, if the right hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with the arrangement, a copy of the Bill as it had now passed would be deposited in the Vote Office clearly showing the Amendments. That would form a practical record of what had been done in this House. The

  283
  right hon. Gentleman had proposed the adjournment of the debate until tomorrow. If the debate were adjourned the Government would not be able to deal with the Bill to-morrow, or, at any rate, they would be in the same position with regard to it as they were now, because the Registration Bill would stand before it. The question was not one touching the duty or convenience of the Government, or even of Members of the House; but it was one principally affecting Clerks of the Peace, Town Clerks, and other election agents. The settlement of the point before the House would decide the question whether the Bill should pass the House of Lords before or after the Whitsuntide Vacation. If it was not passed before the Recess the result would be to throw a burden on the Clerks of the Peace and Town Clerks which they could not properly bear, and which they ought not to be asked to bear. Some of the duties which were necessary to be performed commenced ordinarily on the 10th of June, but could not be entered upon this year before the passing of this Bill. It was useless for them to go on with the Registration Bills unless they could obtain the passing of the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill through the House of Lords. This was not only the view of the Government. Their attention had been called to it by the Clerks of the Peace and Town Clerks, upon whom the burden would fall, and the House would not be fulfilling its duty to those officers if it did not allow them sufficient time to do what was expected of them. He trusted hon. Gentlemen would allow them to proceed to read the Bill a third time.
  MR. RAIKESsaid, that, after what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member, he should be happy to withdraw the Motion he had made. He had attained the object at which he had aimed, for, as he understood the promise of the Government, it was that the Bill, as amended, would be in the hands of hon. Members before long.
  MR. MACARTNEYasked whether hon. Members would have an opportunity of protesting against the third reading before the final vote?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): Yes; now.
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid, there were many hon. Members not now present
  284
  who were anxious to express an opinion upon the measure as it now stood before it passed to the House of Lords. On a former occasion, because there was no formal protest made in the House, the Prime Minister had put on the Minutes after the passing of a Bill "nemine contradicente." In order to prevent that on the present occasion he (Mr. Macartney), when the Question was put, should say "No!"
  MR. SPEAKER: Is it your pleasure that the Motion be withdrawn?
  GENERAL ALEXANDERsaid, he wished to protest in the strongest manner against the way in which his constituents had been treated in this Bill.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman's remarks will be more pertinent when I put the Question, "That this Bill be read a third time." The Question now before the House is that the Motion for the adjournment of the debate be withdrawn.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  GENERAL ALEXANDERsaid, he wished in the strongest manner to protest against the gross injustice with which his constituents had been treated by the provisions of the Bill. It seemed excessively hard that he should have foisted upon him a population of no less than 90,000, which was larger by 20,000 than any constituency in England. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had said that his own constituency of Chelsea was nearly as large; but the right hon. Gentleman must be perfectly aware that a rural constituency of 90,000 was very different to a borough constituency of that number. But as the Bill was the joint production of both political Parties, he was bound to say that the managers of the Conservative Party—he did not know who they were—had grossly mismanaged, or rather had entirely neglected, their duty in respect to Scotland. As far as he was able to understand—and he had it on very good authority—they had made no stipulation at all with regard to Scotland; therefore, he (General Alexander) had no hesitation in saying that the managers of the Conservative Party had neglected their duty towards Scotland. They would have taken very good care that no constituency in England had a constitu-

  285
  ency of anything like 90,000; but it seemed to have been perfectly immaterial to them whether such a constituency was formed for Scotland. It might be said that they did not know that the population of South Ayrshire would be 90,000; but if they did not know it they should have known it. They would regret too late—when Conservatism was entirely stamped out of Scotland—the Conservative Party would regret that they had shown this base ingratitude towards the county which, even in the great crash of 1880, returned two Conservative Members to the House. The time had passed for a division against the measure; but when the Question was put that the Bill be read a third time, he should say "No!" as a protest against the manner in which his constituency had been treated by both political Parties in the House.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that as he had stated the other night that he should divide against the Bill he fully intended to do so. As to the observations of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down, to the effect that the interests of the Conservative Party in Scotland had been neglected, it appeared to him (Mr. Healy) that there was a very feasible explanation of that—namely, that the energies of the Tory Party were entirely concentrated upon the North of Ireland. That would explain why they had not been able to give that attention to South Ayrshire which the exigencies of the case might have demanded. He (Mr. Healy) had been greatly entertained by the protests of the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney); but, unfortunately, this Bill would go down to posterity with the record that the Irish Tory Party from the North of Ireland failed to move a single Amendment in the discussions of the boundaries of the Bill, and that the only occasions on which those Gentlemen interfered were with regard to the preservation of the names of Lisburn and Carrickfergus. On every other occasion that great and glorious body of gladiators failed to do their duty to their constituents. Strongly as the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had opposed the Nationalist Members, ho (Mr. Healy) wished to pay a tribute of respectful admiration to the right hon. Gentleman for the way he had conducted the Bill in his charge
  286
  through the House. On every occasion the right hon. Gentleman had opposed the Nationalist Party. He had not made them a single concession whatever on any material point. He had allowed them to have two or three names changed; but on every material point he had not yielded in the slightest degree. But if the right hon. Gentleman had opposed them he had done so with a grace and good temper which no one could fail to admire. Whatever were the record of the Tory Party as to the compromise on this Bill one reputation would stand higher than it ever did before—namely, the reputation of the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board. He (Mr. Healy) had regarded the single seat system introduced by the Bill as a soap boilers' provision, and had, therefore, opposed it. He was told that Ireland gained something even in getting 103 Representatives instead of 105, seeing that the number allotted to her by the Act of Union was only 100; but the English Members now numbered considerably more. So far as the Boundary Commission was concerned, he believed it would remain a monument of the fraud and baseness of the Irish Government. Indeed, the Bill, in every possible shape and form, had been a cheat upon the Irish people. In the Province of Ulster, in Donegal, Armagh, South Derry, Tyrone, and Down, the Commissioners had converted what was a popular majority into an anti-popular majority. The Conservatives might complain of the Bill, but they had woke up too late. Their protest ought to have been made six months ago, when the Representation of the People Bill passed. This Bill protected them in every possible way, and he challenged any hon. Gentleman who looked into the facts to say that it did not. The county divisions, as first designed by the Commissioners, would have secured, a popular majority in all the divisions of Tyrone, Donegal, Dublin, South Derry, and Armagh; and as no change could be brought about except by jerrymandering the constituencies, everything that could possibly be done in that direction had been done by the Commission. The Marquess of Salisbury distinctly told the Conservatives—"Your future depends upon the spirit in which the Bill is worked." It was a distinct instruction to the Com-

  287
  missioners, and they had acted upon it. In every single instance where the original scheme of the Commissioners had been changed—in Down, in Derry, in Donegal, in Armagh, in Dublin, and in Wicklow, those Gentlemen had cheated the popular Party. The Bill was the result of a compromise, and on that account he hoped that he would not be using an un-Parliamentary expression when he said that it was the illegitimate offspring of unfortunate parents. The House of Commons had had the House of Lords at their mercy, and they failed to take advantage of the fact. The Upper House had always obstructed and defied popular ideas; and when the Lords were at the mercy of the Commons, for the sake of bringing about a compromise, they entered into a treaty with their worst enemies, which gave the House of Lords a new lease of life. He (Mr. Healy) was not surprised at that result when he found himself face to face with a Cabinet, one-half of whom were Lords or expected to be Lords. This was the state of things which had been brought about because a number of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, who were supposed to exercise considerable influence over the Ministry and the Liberal Party, refrained from giving expression to their real opinions, and allowed themselves to be choked. [Cries of"Question!" and "Order!"] Whenever he said anything unpleasant he always found that he was out of Order. He would only say, in conclusion, that the Radical Party would live to regret the compromise they had made—a compromise not founded upon good faith, good sense, or, in his opinion, upon good policy. This Bill, which was to have been the charter of democratic liberties in future, would in the end be torn to fragments by the true Democratic Party.
  MR. DALRYMPLEwished to say a few words to supplement the remarks of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (General Alexander). He did not agree with his hon. and gallant Friend in the depressed view he took of the fortunes of the Conservative Party in Scotland. Nor would he describe the few words he intended to say as a protest, for that sounded like a futile attempt. He wished deliberately to put on record the efforts which had been made on that side of the House to re-
  288
  medy the gross injustice of the Bill as it was originally placed before the House in Committee. It was well known that although 12 seats were given by the Bill to Scotland the details of the measure, so far as Scotland was concerned, had been entirely neglected. He had often heard it said in the House of Commons that Governments paid but indifferent attention to the effect which an Imperial measure would have on Scotland; and it would appear as if the Leaders of Parties had entered upon no details of the Scotch case. It was no doubt on this account that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had placed before the House a scheme of his own. That scheme, however, was ultra vires and inconsistent with the compact between the two Front Benches, and accordingly it was ultimately abandoned. The consequence was that, as the Bill now stood, the arrangements in regard to population between the counties and boroughs were grossly unfair; and although the Scotch Conservative Members had endeavoured in the course of the Bill to remedy that defect, to some extent, their efforts had been attended with no success. He believed that the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had fully recognized the force of their claims. The right hon. Gentleman had so expressed himself in many cases; but, as the right hon. Gentleman found it more important to conciliate his own Friends than to concede the just claims of his opponents, nothing was done. The Bill, when it passed, would introduce this unsatisfactory state of things, that the population of the counties would be enormously in excess of those of the boroughs. In the case of the county represented by his hon. and gallant Friend (General Alexander)—Ayrshire—there would be an enormous county population with one Member, while a group of burghs in the same county, with a much smaller population, would also return a Member. The Chancellor of the Duchy (Mr. Trevelyan) said that the object of the Bill was to secure that the opinion of the country should be fully represented. That was what was desired by all; but it was impossible to say that it had been obtained by the present measure. In point of fact, the rural voters would be absolutely overwhelmed by the enormous numerical strength of the town popula-

  289
  tions thrown into the divisions. He and his hon. Friends had desired by adding to the existing groups of burghs to remedy the inequality, but they had entirely failed. He would not charge the Government with having been animated by a desire to cut up the constituencies so as to suit the convenience of any political Party; but he was bound to say, seeing how stubbornly the Party opposite had stuck to what had been done, that the arrangement must have been favourable to themselves. He had no wish to arouse Party feeling; but the inequalities between the two sets of constituencies were so gross and so unfair that he regretted the matter had not received more consideration at the hands of the Government and of the House. He had felt that he ought not to allow the final stage of the Bill to pass without placing those opinions upon record.
  MR. MACARTNEYmerely wished to say that he had listened to the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) with much astonishment. The hon. and learned Member seemed to think that blessings of an extraordinary kind were conferred by the Bill upon the Conservative Party. He failed to see how the Conservative Party would derive the great advantages which the hon. and learned Member seemed to expect. So far as the single-Member constituencies were concerned, he was as hostile to them as the hon. and learned Member. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member in very few matters; but that evening a very remarkable occurrence had taken place, seeing that on two occasions he had found himself in the same Division Lobby as the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he could not allow the Bill to be read a third time without repeating an expression of his deep conviction that the effect of the Bill would be extremely derogatory to the character of the House of Commons. He joined in the regret which had been expressed at the introduction of the single-Member system. He thought, himself, that it would be the introduction of the greatest possible element of chance into the representation of the people in that Assembly. He feared that the judgment of the country might find expression in the House of Com-
  290
  mons in a different direction from that which was the judgment of the country at large, and as a necessary consequence the force of public opinion would run a risk of being entirely miscalculated. Although that was a considerable danger, a matter still more to be deplored was the prospect of the absence of that element of independence which had characterized the House of Commons in the past, and which with a better system might have been still further developed in the future. [A laugh.] His right hon. Friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) appeared to laugh at those auguries. He (Mr. Courtney) should be glad indeed if they were falsified. At all events, the matter was too serious to be lightly regarded or scoffed at. He was speaking not only on a matter of a priori reasoning, but from the experience afforded by practice in other countries, where it had been found that the character of the representation decided by single-Member constituencies was much more narrow and restricted than it would have been under the double-Member system which had existed in this country so long. Personally, he would have preferred to run the risk of a Serutin de Liste than to be compelled to accept the single-Member system. It was a somewhat extraordinary fact that while the House of Commons was adapting its constitution to that of the Chamber of Deputies in France, that country was getting rid of the system which had now been tried for some years, and the result of which had been found to be the introduction of an inferior character into the French Legislative Assembly. It had been abundantly established that the representation had been degraded, and that the character of the Deputies who found their way into the Chamber was much inferior to that of the old Representatives. All the fears which were originally expressed had been realized, and respectable people had been debarred from the privilege of entering that Assembly. He feared that a similar state of things might be brought about in this country by the adoption of the single-Member system, and that they would not obtain that representation of independent popular thought which was expected when the franchise was extended, to the result of the further enfranchisement of the people. He could not say that he agreed with the hon. and

  291
  learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) in the remarks he had made as to the jerrymandering of the Irish constituencies. He confessed that he was a sceptic upon that point, and believed that the Commissioners had conducted their operations with perfect honesty. The evil, however, was already upon them in the very fact that such a suspicion should be entertained and so freely expressed. He was afraid that it was impossible to have single-Member constituencies without running greatrisk of imputations as to the justice with which the old constituencies had been cut up. Already they had heard direct accusations in connection with the Irish constituencies, and there had been suggestions of the same thing elsewhere. He would express once more his deep regret that it had been felt necessary to establish single-Member constituencies as one of the principles of the Bill.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that in Ireland Her Majesty's Government had delegated to obscure officials work which they were ashamed to do themselves. They professed to be guided by a desire to secure the public good, whereas they had been actuated throughout by a desire to give a greater share of power to the minority in Ireland. Probably the effect upon the House of Commons collectively would not be much worse than the existing arrangement. Indeed, the present state of things was so bad that any change must bring about something better.
  Original Question put, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  The House divided;—Ayes 116; Noes 33: Majority 83.—(Div. List, No. 178.)

  SUPPLY—REPORT.
  Resolutions [7th May] reported.
  First Resolution, agreed to.
  Second Resolution postponed.
  Subsequent Resolutions agreed to.
  Postponed Resolution to be considered To-morrow.

  EAST INDIA (UNCLAIMED STOCKS) BILL.— [BILL 125.]
  (Mr. Kynaston Cross. Mr. Hibbert.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. J. K. Cross.)
  MR. WARTONsaid, that although there were very minute differences in some of the clauses, this was practically the same Bill as last year. He and several other hon. Members had complained of that Bill when it was before the House. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) and the hon. Member for Stafford were amongst those who objected to it; there were other hon. Members whose names at that moment he did not recall. The Bill was postponed from time to time last Session, from Mondays to Thursdays during four or five weeks, and it had never entered into the mind of the Under Secretary of State for India, who brought it in as he had brought in the present measure, that it was a Money Bill. But one day it was suddenly read a second time as a Money Bill; having been two or three times postponed, it was taken on a Thursday, when he happened to be absent from the House. Now, he ventured to say with all respect that it was very important that the House should have, in some form or other, a well-considered and authoritative statement from the Chair as to what constituted a Money Bill. He would not at that late hour speak on the question at length, but he would inquire what were the measures which, as Money Bills, the House dealt with in an exceptional manner? For his own part, he inclined to the opinion that they were Bills essential for carrying out great operations in the interest of the country, such as the raising of money or Stock; for State purposes. A Bill like this, for the mere purpose of confiscating part of the dividends, rents, or interest of a particular Railway Company, he was inclined to think was not a Money Bill. At all events, he was glad to have the opportunity of asking the question before the House went into Committee on the Bill; and, pending the authoritative declaration he had alluded to as being desirable, all he wished to say was that, whether this was a Money Bill or whether it was not, he regarded it as a Bill that was not necessary to carry on the business of the State; it was not for taxation or any State purpose, but simply, in his opinion, a Bill for the

  293
  purpose of plundering a Railway Company.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at a quarter after Three o'clock.