§ MR. CREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston)said, he rose to call attention to the critical condition of affairs in the East. He wished to ask the Government, whether, in the face of the difficulties which existed, and the complications which seemed likely to arise in Europe, they would give the country a pledge that no war should be entered upon without the previous consent of Parliament? He might explain that he now renewed this Question because of the very unsatisfactory character of the reply given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Tuesday. In that reply the noble Lord rightly presumed that the putting of the Question implied want of confidence in Her Majesty's Government. It was because the House of Commons was about to separate for some months, and the Government would be left unchecked and uncontrolled, that the Question was again addressed to the noble Lord. The assurance that, in case of any serious difficulty presenting itself, the Government would be sure to act in a Constitutional manner was to him vague and unsatisfactory. He was afraid that too much freedom was permitted to the Government by the Constitution of the country with regard to foreign and Colonial matters. In the case of the annexation, or attempt at the annexation, of Burmah the conduct of the Government might have been Constitutional, but it was very reprehensible; and because he feared that the same course might be pursued with reference to some other portion of the globe during the Recess, he urged the Government, in case of serious difficulty arising in Europe or elsewhere during the Recess, to advise Her Majesty to summon Parliament. To that appeal, made on Tuesday, the noble Lord vouchsafed no reply. The outlook in Europe was of a most serious character. There was in Bulgaria a difficulty which might any day involve the whole of Europe in a fearful struggle. The present attitude of the Press fully justified the course pursued by the friends of peace 30 years ago, and proved the assertion that the verdict of history was always with the friends of peace. There had been rumours of Russia pushing on to Constantinople, 1329 and being allowed to do so by the English Government in return for Russia winking at our remaining permanently in Egypt. In view of those rumours it would be well if a decided and official denial was given to them. These rumours caused feelings of irritation in France, and endangered the peace between the two countries. He hoped that an assurance would be given that if any serious difficulties arose in the Recess Parliament would be convened, in order that the Representatives of the people should have an opportunity of expressing an opinion as to the merits of the dispute before rather than after the country had been committed to a struggle. Hitherto Governments had been in the habit of deciding upon a warlike policy, and then coming to Parliament to pay the bill. That had been the case with regard to Burmah. If the country had been consulted before the annexation was made, a very different conclusion would have been arrived at.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL) (Paddington, S.), who rose at the same time as Sir Wilfrid Lawson, said: I have a particular motive for intervening thus early before the hon. Baronet addresses the House. I make no complaint of the hon. Member for bringing up this question at this hour of the evening (7.50 P.M.), though the proceedings of to-day have been rather protracted. The hon. Member is perfectly within his right, and if he will allow me, in all sincerity, to say so, I honestly respect the opinions which he holds on this subject; but I do not share those opinions myself. They have never been opinions that have commended themselves to a majority of the House of Commons, nor do I think they are opinions largely shared by the people of this country. The hon. Gentleman has raised practically two questions. He has dealt with the Constitutional relations which are supposed to exist between the Executive Government and the Parliament of this country, and he has also dealt summarily, and, if I may say so, roughly, with questions of foreign policy. The discussion of the Constitutional point which he has raised must be a very academical one. The hon. Gentleman holds that the Government of the country, in dealing with Foreign Powers, should not commit itself, or take any step even 1330 of a diplomatic character, without having previously consulted Parliament.
§ MR. CREMERI rise to Order. According to the terms of the Question which I asked yesterday, I did not go quite so far as the noble Lord represents. What I asked was that a guarantee should be given that the Government during the Recess would abstain from involving the country in further obligations or responsibilities for warlike operations.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLThe hon. Gentleman uses his own language, and I venture to use mine. His may be the best; but practically it means the same thing. I say that the hon. Member holds that the Government of this country ought to take no step, even of a diplomatic character, which might commit the country to any particular course of action, without having previously consulted Parliament. Has the hon. Member reflected on the consequences of that theory? No one has more frequently or more eloquently destroyed that proposition than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone). The logical effect of the proposition would be to place Parliament in the position of the Executive Government. But could Parliament—consisting as it does of two Houses, one with 670 Members and the other with 500 Members—undertake the duties of the responsible Executive Government? That has never been the Constitutional practice in this country, nor anything approaching it. The House of Commons has in late years largely increased its power. I do not in the least find fault with such increase of power; but it has never ventured, nor has any considerable section of the House desired, to place Parliament in the position of the Executive Government of this country. The Executive Government has undoubtedly great latitude of action. If it possesses the confidence of Parliament, it is for the convenience, and indeed necessary for the safety and very existence, of the Empire that that latitude should exist. The Executive Government, it must be borne in mind, only acts so long as it possesses that confidence. The Government is continually giving to Parliament full and complete information with regard to the course of action they take, and from time to time it is open to Parlia- 1331 ment to change the Government of the country, and so to change their policy. I do not know how you can possibly alter for the better that arrangement. I have never heard any argument put forward by any hon. Gentleman holding the opinions of the hon. Member opposite which would lead one to think that it would be possible to make any decided improvement upon the present Constitutional relations between the Executive Government and the House of Commons. The hon. Gentleman alluded to the question of the Burmese War and of the annexation of Burmah. It is quite true that that was a step decided upon outside the walls of Parliament; but it was a matter which, at any rate in the opinion of the Government of the day, required prompt and immediate action, which the summoning of Parliament would have altogether prevented. That was an act which was laid before Parliament almost immediately after it had been committed, and was approved of by the great bulk of the Members of the then House of Commons, the great majority of whom were Gentlemen of the same way of thinking as the hon. Member. Moreover, that action, the Burmese War, on which the hon. Gentleman to a great extent founds his interposition to-night, was altogether approved of, and ratified and followed up by, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian when he came into power. That destroys all the force of the illustration which the hon. Member has given. So much for the Constitutional part of the question. I do not think I could with any advantage to the House go into it further. It is a matter which hon. Members must work out for themselves in their own minds, and undoubtedly it is one that they may discuss to any extent. They may compare the practice of other European nations and the practice of the United States with our own; but I extremely doubt whether, after a careful comparison of the Constitutional practice of this country with that of other countries, they will be perfectly decided in their own opinion that the practice of other countries is preferable to our own. The hon. Member has alluded also to a question of foreign politics, and it is in reference to that matter that I wish to address the House. The particular question of foreign politics which exercises the mind 1332 of the hon. Member, and which rightly exercises his mind, is the state of affairs in the Balkan territory. He is of opinion that that state of affairs may lead to very serious difficulty and dangers, and dangers in which this country might become involved. Well, Sir, I would point out, in the first place, that he is discussing a question of foreign politics, on which it has not been as yet within the power of the Government to give official information to Parliament. The hon. Member has founded most of his opinions upon what he has seen in the newspapers; and no more unsafe guide—I say it with all respect—for an hon. Member who wishes to address the House on foreign politics can be found than the statements and opinions given in the public Press, and using those opinions and statements in the House of Commons unsupported by official testimony. This state of affairs in the Balkan territory is undoubtedly serious, and it might at any moment undoubtedly become critical. The hon. Member has expressed himself with very great freedom about the action of Russia, and the probable action of Russia and of the other Powers; but he must be aware that it is absolutely impossible for any Member of the Government to follow him in his opinions or his speculations—the very crisis, the very difficulty and danger, which the hon. Member is so anxious to guard against might be, to a certain extent, precipitated if the Government were to be so incautious as to follow the hon. Member into his speculations. Moreover, I would point out to the hon. Member and those who sit near him that they cannot divest themselves of a considerable responsibility with regard to the state of things in the East of Europe, which is serious and may become critical, if they allow themselves, in the absence of official information, to be committed to opinions of such width and freedom as those stated by the hon. Member. Foreign countries watch closely the debates in this House. Foreign Ministers are not accurately acquainted with the relative positions of hon. Members and Ministers of the Crown; and undoubtedly it would be perfectly natural and probable that foreign Ministers should attach to the utterances of the hon. Member as a Member of the House of Commons, or to the utterances of those who sit near 1333 him with regard to the action of foreign countries, almost as much weight as they would attach to the utterances of Ministers of the Crown. That is why I must ask hon. Gentlemen to excuse the Government from dealing at all with this question of the state of affairs in the Balkan territory. Moreover, I would appeal to those who sit near him to follow the example of the Government, and to abstain from discussing those questions at all. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Haggerston (Mr. Cremer) asks for a guarantee that the Government will not commit this country to any serious and strong action with regard to any questions which may arise out of this state of things in the Balkan territories without summoning Parliament and taking Parliament into their confidence. Obviously, no Government would think of deciding upon strong and definite action which might involve a portion of the Empire, with regard to questions of this kind, without immediately summoning Parliament and placing the whole case before them, and asking for the confidence and the support of Parliament in the action they intended to take. That is a state of things which has frequently arisen, and that arose in the case of the Egyptian War. To go back to an earlier period, it arose in the case of the Afghan War. It arose, also, with regard to the state of things which existed—a very critical state of things—on the North-West Frontier of Afghanistan in the year 1885. On all these occasions the Government came to Parliament, stated the case which they had to present, the action which they proposed to take, and asked for the confidence and support of Parliament in their action.
§ MR. CREMERAfter the fighting had been begun?
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLNo; certainly not with regard to the state of affairs on the North-West Frontier of Afghanistan, and certainly not with regard to the Egyptian War. It is true that the bombardment of Alexandria did precede the application to Parliament. That is true; but the actual military operations in Egypt were not even begun until Parliament had been consulted. Even the preparations for those operations were not begun until Parliament had granted a Vote of Credit.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSON (Cumberland, Cockermouth)But the bombardment took place.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLThat certainly took place; but the preparations for the military operations—which certainly came very near war—were not begun until Parliament had been consulted. So it was with regard to the North-West Frontier of Afghanistan. The Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone), before proceeding to any strong or definite action, came to the House and asked for a large credit. I am quite prepared to pledge this Government that we will act within the lines of precedent. I do not see how any British Government could for a moment hesitate to give such a pledge; but beyond that pledge it would be absolutely impossible for me to go. I do not think the hon. Member can really desire more than that pledge. The hon. Gentleman is a friend of peace; he belongs, I understand, to a Society which hopes to bring about a state of universal peace and to obtain a settlement of all international disputes by arbitration. I think that is an admirable Association, against the objects and aims of which I shall never say one word. I only hope that the principles which that Association professes may become more powerful and popular as time goes on. But I would point out that it is not always the avowed friends of peace who obtain peace, or produce peace, by their acts. Never was there a greater friend of peace, in the opinion of all classes—never was there a more devoted friend and insurer of peace—than Lord Aberdeen. But if there was one thing on which history is unanimous, it is that the action of the Government of Lord Aberdeen and the well-known peaceful proclivities of Lord Aberdeen were as much as anything else the cause of the Crimean War. I allude to this to show the hon. Gentleman that the action of the friends of peace must be controlled by the ordinary rules of prudence and common sense by which such inferior mortals as Ministers are obliged to guide their conduct. But, generally speaking, with regard to this question in Bulgaria, the hon. Gentleman may be perfectly confident that the Government are fully alive to the critical—I will not say critical—to the serious 1335 state of things which may become critical which there prevails. The hon. Gentleman may recollect that the policy Lord Salisbury's Government pursued last October with regard to the equally critical state of things in that part of the world received the approval of all Parties in this House. It was not censured even by those who agree with the hon. Gentleman. It was approved in the most marked and public manner by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian. Am I making too large a demand on the hon. Member? I am not appealing to him now as a partizan; I am appealing to him as an independent Member of the House of Commons. Am I making too large a demand upon him if I say that the action which the Government—the Conservative Government—took last October, and which met with universal approval, constitutes some claim upon the House generally to repose a considerable amount of confidence in the treatment which the present Government are likely to give to this state of affairs in Bulgaria? The aim of the Government in all these great foreign and European questions is to maintain in its efficient form the concert of Europe for the purpose of preserving the peace of Europe. We have no other object outside that. None. We know that if we are successful in attaining that object we shall have preserved in its most effectual form all those great British interests about which the hon. Member is so anxious. I ask the hon. Gentleman and those who agree with him to realize that I am not making any appeal to them on this subject lightly, unreflectingly, or for the purpose of avoiding any inconvenient discussion. It is because I am convinced that any discussion—if any should arise—without the House being in possession of information might lead to most serious misinterpretations abroad, and might facilitate, accelerate, or precipitate those very evils which the hon. Member is really so anxious to avoid.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSON (Cumberland, Cockermouth)said, he thanked the noble Lord for the courteous, temperate, and able way in which he had answered the Questions of his hon. Friend the Member for Haggerston; but his answer had not quite satisfied them, and they would like to discuss the subject a little further. Everybody was aware that emergencies might arise 1336 in which it was the duty of the Executive to act at once; but it was equally well known that wars nowadays were gone into deliberately, and after some sort of consultation. The noble Lord told them that they might take it for granted that the Government would act in a Constitutional way, and for the interests of the country. Of course, everybody acted in a Constitutional way, because no one knew what Constitutionalism really was. Why should they trust the present Government upon questions of foreign policy? It was not appointed to settle the Eastern Question. It was appointed to settle the Member for Mid Lothian, and it had settled him. It was the duty of the Opposition, acting on the maxim once laid down by the noble Lord himself, to oppose the Ministry on all suitable occasions. Although they knew the opinion of the Government on the Irish Question, they did not know its opinion on the Eastern Question; and they wanted to have it clearly stated that no new engagements, no confederacies, no complications should be entered into until the policy was plainly laid before the Representatives of the people. He denied that this involved any interference with the action of the Executive. All they wanted was one broad declaration of policy from the noble Lord. The Eastern Question was just this—Were they to spend money and men in keeping the Turks at Constantinople and preventing the Russians going there? At the present moment everybody knew that the approach of Russia towards Constantinople was within a more measurable distance than it had ever been within the lifetime of the present generation. That state of affairs, so far from causing a scare, was being taken by the people very quietly. The newspapers were taking it calmly and rationally, and when newspaper editors got rational we might expect almost anything. All he asked was that the noble Lord should declare that he was in favour of a policy of non-intervention. The noble Lord was in a great position now. He had no trouble on his hands at present, except a little war in Burmah and one in Belfast. He led the House with ability and approbation. The Liberal Unionists had gone into seclusion. He had behind him 319 Gentlemen who would follow him on every 1337 question wherever he went. In snort, he was like the Dictator in the Spanish Republic, who was told on his deathbed that he was to forgive his enemies. "I have none," was the reply, "I have shot them all." The noble Lord had sent all his enemies to the House of Peers. Now was his chance. Now was his opportunity for proving that he was a great statesman. The noble Lord in his heart, he believed, agreed with every word he was saying, for he had a suspicion that the noble Lord was the biggest Radical in the House, and some day his 319 followers behind him would find that out. Let him get up, or let somebody else get up for him—anyone would do it, if he told them to do it—and say that he, on behalf of this country, did not care two straws whether the Turks or the Russians were at Constantinople, he would have gone a great way to settle the Eastern Question, as far as this country was concerned, and to promote the peace of Europe and the world. He would become the head pacificator of Europe; he would send the Radicals away in a happy and grateful frame of mind; and he would make himself an everlasting name as the Minister who, for once in a way, had spoken common sense on a question of foreign policy.
§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton), differing from the noble Lord, thought that the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Haggerston was essentially a practical suggestion. In other countries the Legislatures had a voice in the liabilities and obligations which were incurred by their Governments, and that had been found in practice to work most advantageously. In the United States every Treaty was submitted to the Senate and confirmed before being adopted by the country. The United States thus could live at peace and amity with other countries, and they were not ever meddling in disputes which did not concern them. In France, again, the Executive could not undertake any war without the consent of the Legislature; and he asserted that, had a similar power been vested in the British Legislature before the bombardment of Alexandria, the assent of the British Parliament to the bombardment would not have been given at that moment to the Executive, and the lives and treasure subsequently spent in Egypt might have been saved. 1338 When the noble Lord appealed to them not to discuss the Eastern Question on the ground that it might shake the confidence of Foreign Governments in Her Majesty's Government, who ought to be considered as acting for the nation collectively, he would point out to him that his Government had not the confidence of that House or of the country. [Ministerial laughter."] Surely hon. Gentlemen opposite were aware that the Liberal Unionists took every opportunity of saying that, with the exception of matters regarding Ireland, they had no confidence in the Government. Now, they must consider what was the policy of the Conservative Government when last in power and in a majority. At that time Lord Salisbury was strongly in favour of the maintenance of the Turkish Empire, and most anxious that we should go to war then in order to defend the Turkish Empire against Russian aggression. They wanted foreign countries to understand that there was a Party in this country—it might be a minority—who did not agree with the traditional policy of this country—the maintenance of the Turkish Empire in the Mediterranean. As regarded Bulgaria, again, it would be infinitely better that we should not interfere the least in the matter. We ought to let the Bulgarians chose their own Governor, and let the Russians, Turks, and Austrians fight it out as they liked. We might look on with sorrow and regret that persons should be so foolish as to fight; but certainly, if we were wise, we should not join in it, and envenom it by so doing. Why were we in Egypt? Because, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, he felt it necessary to continue the policy of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Never.] Well, it was to carry out the obligations of the preceding Government. And so it always was—succeeding Governments were bound by the engagements of their Predecessors; but each protested against the action of the other. We were not in Egypt for the benefit of the Egyptians, or that of Turkey, or that of Europe, who all wished us away; and we were not there for our own, for our remaining there cost us £300,000 or £400,000 a-year. We were there simply because we had a vague idea that a policy of grab was a good policy. We were not 1339 like the dog in the manger, because the animal was in his own manger; but we were like a dog in somebody else's manger. Let the Chancellor of the Exchequer read over the excellent speeches he had made on the subject when not in Office, and give effect to them now that he was in power. There was an idea that the Red Sea route was necessary to us for the defence of India; but military and naval men were agreed that if we went to war with a Naval Power we should close the Red Sea route at Aden and send everything round by the Cape. Therefore, there was not the slightest necessity for us to hold Egypt or the Suez Canal, or for our meddling unnecessarily with what went on in Turkey. If Russia went to Constantinople we might regret it; but it would be most unwise to go to war to prevent it. There had been other illusions as to India. In point of fact, we were the aggressors and not the Russians. Russia naturally wanted to get to the sea; we were perpetually interfering to prevent her doing so; and Russia retorted by pushing on towards our Indian Frontier, but without any intention of invading India. If Russia were at Constantinople India would be safer than it was now, because Russia would be satisfied, and the two countries would live in peace and amity. There was no reason why we should not always be the best friends with Russia, except that we were always interfering with her natural rights and the necessity of her position. The Colonies would not stand by us if we got into trouble through meddling with paltry questions of European boundaries and disputes. If we kept up a strong Navy, and maintained communication with our Colonies, no country would attack us if we did not interfere in affairs that did not concern us. Within the last 100 years we had not been involved in war because we were attacked; but we had drifted into war because we had meddled in matters that did not concern us. The country was now anti-Jingo. The former Government of Lord Salisbury was turned out because it was too Jingo; and the Liberals did not win at the last Election because, notwithstanding Radical protests, we remained in Egypt. If the present Government wished to remain in power they would do well to remember what had occurred to both Lord 1340 Salisbury and the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, and they would openly declare that we washed our hands of all European troubles, that we had nothing to do with them, and that we would not interfere with them, but that we would have a strong Navy, we would maintain our communication with our Colonies, and that we would only go to war with any country that directly attacked us.
§ Main Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill read the third time, and passed.