Lords Sitting of 15 June 1877

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Imbecile, Lunatic, and other Afflicted Classes (Ireland) * [110].
Second Reading—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 3)* (100); Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (Felmingham, &c.) (96); Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Atherton, &c.) * (86); Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Caistor Union, &c.) * (94).
Committee—Report—City of London Improvement Provisional Order Confirmation (Golden Lane, &c.) * (82); Metropolis Improvement Provisional Orders Confirmation* (72); Greenock Improvement Provisional Order Confirmation (83) *; General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Provisional Order Confirmation (Dumbarton) (68) *.
Third Reading—Provisional Orders (Ireland) Confirmation (Artisans and Labourers Dwellings) (78) *; Provisional Orders (Ireland) Confirmation (Ennis, &c.) * (79); Crown Office (84); Local Government Provisional Orders (Altrincham, &c.) * (89); Local Government (Gas) Provisional Orders (Penrith, &c.), (90) and passed.

RUSSIA (UNITED GREEK CHURCH).

  ADDRESS FOR A PAPER.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYrose, pursuant to Notice, to call the attention of the House to the Correspondence respecting the treatment of the members of the United Greek Church in Russia; and to move for the omitted Despatch of Earl Granville in reply to Lieutenant - Colonel Mansfield's Despatches of the 29th of January and 18th of February, 1874. The noble Lord said: I do not know whether I ought to apologize for asking your Lordships to consider the Papers respecting the treatment of the United Greeks in Poland; but as complaint is so frequently made that Her Majesty's Ministers are chary of communicating Papers to Parliament, it would seem to be ungracious if notice is not taken of those which are communicated. Moreover, now that Russia is held up by some persons as an example, in connection with civil and religious liberty, it might be well to bestow some attention on the Russian view of civil and religious liberty, and to inquire into some of those good deeds of Russia which Mr. Gladstone has urged this country to emulate. The despatches of Colonel Mansfield and Mr. Webster contained in these Papers show that in consequence of measures taken by Russia to carry out a change of Ritual, and to bring the United Greeks into the orthodox or Russian Church, massacres of peasants by the Russian soldiery have taken place, the peasants have been driven into rivers in mid-winter, others have been kept during that season in the yards of prisons which were too full, others have been forced to take refuge in the woods, churches have been abandoned, and for marriages and other religious rites the peasants or the priests have had to travel distances of 60 or 70 miles; lastly, women and children have been flogged by the Cossacks. As the Papers are in your Lordships' hands, I need not go more into detail as to the persecution reported by Her Majesty's Consuls; but I leave on one side the Consular Reports chiefly for another reason: because, the Russians allege, that the Reports of Her Majesty's Consuls are exaggerated; and as the noble Duke the late Secretary of State for India (the Duke of Argyll) told your Lordships that be attached no credit to the state-

  1813
  ments of some of Her Majesty's Consuls in Turkey, which were favourable to the Turks, and as he may refuse to attach credit to these Reports because they are unfavourable to the Russians, I will not read to your Lordships any extracts from the Reports of Her Majesty's Consuls, but only ask your Lordships to consider that which is given in this Correspondence as the Russian official version of what took place, since it is sufficient for my case. One exception may be made with regard to a statement of Colonel Mansfield's at page 3—that one woman, more vehement than the rest, received as much as 100 lashes—because this statement has been published in the American Blue Book in a Report of the United States Consul, Mr. Jewel, to Mr. Fish, where it is said that some women received as many as 100 lashes. A history of the Catholic Church in Poland, and of the recent persecution, by Pere Lesceur, states that between 1863 and 1867 11 priests were shot or hung by the Russians, and during that time 14 convents and 126 churches or chapels were closed. The Messager Officiel, of February 26, 1876, states that the United Greek population in Poland belong to the Russian family, and were united to Rome at the end of the 16th century. After some historical details, it states—
  "The alterations in the Greek Ritual had reached its extreme limit, and they could no longer be submitted to. This the Bishops of Chelm themselves acknowledged. At quite a recent period (1841) the Bishop Schoumborski undertook to re-establish the Greek Ritual; but this attempt excited to such a pitch the discontent of the Polish patrons, and of the nation, as stirred up by them, that the Bishop was obliged to give way. After that no further obstacle stayed the alteration of the Greek Ritual: the invasion of Latinism and Polonism assumed the largest proportions, and the high dignitaries of Chelm themselves allowed the introduction into the Uniat churches of the litanies, of the scapularies, and of all the Polish prayers, as well as of organs, canticles; &c. The Polish language held complete sway. The Uniats having gone over to Latinism, under these circumstances became ardent Latins and zealous Poles, strangers to their nationality, and ashamed of the name of Russians."
  The Messager Officiel goes on to mention the measures taken in October, 1873, by the Episcopal Consistory of Chelm for the re-establishment of Divine Service according to the canons of the Eastern Church, and makes the following admissions:—
  1814
  "Unhappily, in the village of Drolew, district of Radin, when, by order of the military authorities, an unarmed party of soldiers proceeded to arrest the principal ringleaders of the disturbances, the crowd attacked them with sticks and stones, and wounded some officers, soldiers, and Cossacks. The remainder of the detachment was then forced to fire several times, and in consequence one person was killed and 10 were wounded. . . . In the village of Pratoulin a crowd of peasants rose in insurrection and indulged in disorders during several days. When the detachment of troops arrived on the spot it was attacked with sticks and stones, whereby the senior officer in command of the detachment, some officers, and many soldiers were wounded. The detachment was consequently forced to fire, with the result of nine peasants killed and 14 wounded."
  A pamphlet called Les Missionaires Moscovites, published last year at Paris, says that at Drelow 5 peasants were killed and 28 severely wounded. It is singular how the Russians are attached to the number one in their lists of killed, and it caused a German paper lately to observe that the Cossack who was to have been killed in a recent engagement, was not so, because he was on furlough. The next extract from the Messager Officiel of July, 1874, states—
  "During the last sojourn of His Majesty the Emperor at Warsaw delegates from several United Greek parishes of the province of Siedlce arrived in that town with the object of presenting a petition begging for the revocation of the measures taken by the diocesan authority relative to certain ceremonies of the United Greek worship. When this was brought to the knowledge of the Sovereign, His Majesty deigned to order the Governor General of Warsaw, A.D.C. General Count Kotzebue, to declare again to the United Greek populations that requests of this kind cannot be received, and that His Majesty is persuaded that the United Greek population, Russian from time immemorial, and always faithful to the Throne, when released from the deplorable errors and the malicious instigations which are forcing them from the path of duty, will not delay the adoption of their ancient and regular religious ceremonies; and will show themselves, as formerly, submissive and quiet, as His Majesty the Emperor has been accustomed to see them hitherto."
  It is therefore established by the Russian official statements that the Uniats were ordered to change the Ritual which they had used for centuries—Page 15 of Blue Book; that they had objected and resisted, and that this resistance had to be overcome by the fire of the Russian troops; that the Emperor refused to receive any petitions from them to stay this persecution, and enjoined on them to return to the Russian Ritual. After

  1815
  this it is not surprising that the Messager Officiel of January, 1875, was able to announce that 45 parishes, and 50,000 souls, and 26 priests, had been re-admitted to orthodoxy and to the Ritual of their ancestors. It is to be observed that throughout these official papers the Russians are always harping upon the ancestors of these people. If the Russian Government had a right to require people to be of the religion of their ancestors, then we should be of the religion of our father Adam, and all mankind would be of one religion; but if we are not to go back so far, where is the line to be drawn; and if the United Greeks are to go back 200 years, why not 600 or 700 years, when their ancestors were idolators. In these districts conversion by military pressure has always been the custom. The Lithuanians were converted in that manner, and drawn up in platoons for baptism, and the name of Peter or Paul was given to each platoon for the whole of the men in it. The Messager Officiel goes on to say—
  "These despatches having been submitted to His Majesty the Emperor, His Majesty deigned to order that the Uniats that have rejoined orthodoxy should be thanked for the sentiments of boundless devotion and happiness which they had expressed at being henceforward of one faith with their Sovereign."
  This is sufficiently significative; but it is rendered more so by the next Paper in the Correspondence, which is a despatch from Lord Augustus Loftus, forwarding an extract from the Journal de St. Pétersbourg, containing an address from the United Greeks of Chelm. Lord Augustus Loftus says—
  "This address has apparently been published to correct the impression which may have been formed from the previous publications of the official organ, that the thanks of the Emperor had been expressed for the return of the United Greeks to orthodoxy, whereas they were only called forth by the loyal expression of the address."
  Now these are exactly the principles in respect to religious administration of Nebuchadnezzar, and not the principles of civil and religious liberty which are identified with Englishmen. It is remarked by the Poles that the name of the Assyrian King, when read and translated in the Slav language, is a concise epitome of his principles, for "Na Bog nada Tsar" means "There is no God but the Czar." The Russian official
  1816
  papers lay much stress upon these United Greeks belonging to the Russian family; but there is internal evidence that they do not belong to it, for throughout an expression is used which would not be used by Russians proper or Muscovites, they call the Emperor the White Czar. Now that expression, or Ak-Padishah, is one that is used naturally by the Kirghiz and other Tartars, and by races foreign to Russia. There is also the alternative supposition that these addresses were not drawn up by the United Greeks, but by an official from a part of the Russian Empire where this phrase is in vogue. The attempt to substitute Russian images or paintings for those of a Western pattern, referred to in this Blue Book, is traditional in Russia. For as long ago as the reign of the predecessor of Peter I., an account is given in the travels of Macarius, the patriarch of Antioch, of the preaching of the patriarch of Moscow, Nicon, to the Tsar Alexis, when he was at Viazma, near Smolensk, against paintings in the Frank fashion, and of his anathematizing and excommunicating all those who painted them or placed them in their houses. On this occasion Nicon threw the paintings on the pavement of the church, and ordered them to be burnt. But the Czar entreated the patriarch, saying—"No, father, do not burn them; rather bury them in the earth," and in such sort they were disposed of. The patriarch Nicon may have so acted from religious fanaticism; but now the Russian Government uses fanaticism as a pretext for civil tyranny, and for crushing the Polish race and language. Lord Augustus Loftus wrote on the 18th March, 1874, that M. Westmann said that these sad events, the disturbances in Poland, were in no way connected with any political questions, nor did they bear a Polish character. This hardly agrees with the fact that, a few years before, in 1868, an article had appeared in a newspaper of St. Petersburg, with the title— On the authorization, of the introduction of the Russian language into the Catholic services. This article says—
  "We are of the opinion of those who maintain that the solution of the Polish question meets with difficulties, unless Catholicism is first separated from Polonism, by the help of the introduction of the Russian language into sermons, prayer-books, and those services which are now read in Polish, for the Latin employed

  1817
  in the mass is not dangerous to us. It is quite true that the so-called Kingdom of Poland has in Russia a powerful and national institution this is the Roman Catholic Church."
  The pamphlet named The Muscovite Missionaries, to which I have already referred, gives copious extracts from the minutes of a Conference held at St. Petersburg in June, 1872, of a Committee called the "Guardian of the United Greek Church." This Committee was presided over by Count Berg, Governor of Poland, while Count Tolstoy, the Minister of Instruction and Worship, and Count Schouvaloff, Director of the Secret Police of the Imperial Cabinet, were invited to it. Imagine Colonel Henderson or the Bow Street Magistrate being called to sit in the Jerusalem Chamber in a Committee of Convocation of the Province of Canterbury! There were also summoned from Poland the Governors of Siedlce, Podlachia, Lublin, and the Abbé Popiel. These minutes state that the Committee had unanimously decided that the Government, while not using violent measures to bring the United Greeks to orthodoxy, can in no wise permit the Catholicization of the Union, by the introduction of Latin ceremonies, and that, on the contrary, it must free the Union from all innovations recently introduced, and which are not compatible with the interests of the Empire. In conclusion, I would request your Lordships to observe how very dispassionate are the despatches of Colonel Mansfield; and I have endeavoured to treat the subject in the same spirit. The Press has recently announced that the Russian Government will shortly refute them. In order to do this, the Russians will first have to refute their own Official Gazettes, and they must be prepared to meet the still stronger despatches of the Consuls of other Powers, which will probably see the light before long. I move for the despatch in reply to Colonel Mansfield's despatches. It may not exist; there are many who say Mr. Gladstone did not care for the victims in this case because they were Roman Catholics—possibly they wrong the right hon. Gentleman. Others say that as the noble Earl (Earl Granville) wrote that Her Majesty's Government did not care to inquire too minutely how far the Russian Government had observed its engagements with regard to Khiva, where a British interest was involved, so
  1818
  it was hardly to be expected that he would minutely inquire into these events. But I believe the truth is that he had not time to do so, for it will be remembered that the late Government was engaged in a struggle for its existence at the date of these despatches; but if that is the case, I expected that the noble Earl the late Foreign Secretary, whom I regret not to see in the House, would be glad of an opportunity of stating to the House and to the country that these deeds of the Russian Government are not among those good deeds of that Government which Mr. Gladstone has so frequently described.
  Moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for the omitted despatch of the Earl Granville in reply to Lieut.-Colonel Mansfield's despatches of 29th January and 18th February 1874.—(The Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  LORD HOUGHTONsaid, that the production of Correspondence such as that from which his noble Friend had quoted was a proceeding of a somewhat unusual character. The Correspondence referred to matters of purely local and internal administration in the Empire of Russia, and its production in ordinary circumstances might have been interpreted as manifesting an unfriendly and discourteous feeling on the part of Her Majesty's Government towards the Government of Russia. Whatever our individual opinion might be, the English Government had no more right to interfere, politically or diplomatically, in a religious dispute between the Russian Government and Russian subjects, than the Russian Government would have to interfere in any religious dispute that might arise between the English Government and any of Her Majesty's subjects in any part of the British dominions. He did not deny that there was some validity in that objection. At any rate the events referred to in the Correspondence had taken place some years ago, and were not immediately connected with any of the late transactions between Her Majesty's Government and that of Russia. Therefore, he presumed that Her Majesty's Government would not have spontaneously laid on the Table the Correspondence now before their Lordships; but it was a different question whether they would have been justified in refusing its pro-

  1819
  duction when it was moved for by an independent Member of the other House. B yhaving done so, they would not, indeed, have taken upon themselves the justification of the acts of Russia, but they would have exposed themselves to the imputation of refusing information as to those acts; while As regarded the acts of another Power, they had laid on the Tables of both Houses details which had deeply agitated the feelings of the people of this country, and had seriously influenced the future destinies of England and, perhaps, of the world. That being the case, he thought Her Majesty's Government could not be accused of unfairness in having produced the Correspondence to which attention had been drawn by his noble Friend. If this country was to take up and be deeply agitated by the religious difficulties of another country, it was just that they should know the whole matter and be made fully acquainted with both sides of the question. He did not however, wish to attach an undue importance to the Correspondence. It told them nothing new, nothing exceptional. Through his connection with the Committee of the Polish Society, which now dated as far back as 35 years, he had had before him the series of persecutions of the Roman Catholics which had taken place in Russia—persecutions no doubt vindicated, by some minds, on grounds of high State policy, but still of such a nature as to be abhorrent to the feelings of the English people. The war now going on in that distant portion of the world was founded upon identically the same plea, principle, impulse, and passions which animated the conduct of the Russian Government in dealing with this question. He thought, however, that even in its worst times, the persecutions related in these despatches were not to be attributed entirely to the Sovereign or Government of Russia. One of the results of those persecutions was that, without concealment, the heads of the Roman Catholic Church had expressed their desire for the success of the Ottoman arms, and in Spain there was the astounding phenomenon —enough to make Ferdinand and Isabella rise from their graves—of prayers ascending from the churches of that country for the triumph of the Turks. He could not think that, in fairness to all parties, Her Majesty's Government could
  1820
  have done otherwise than lay these despatches on the Table of the House. It must be borne in mind that the present war, which seemed to us inexcusable, was justified in the minds of millions of men, who believed that by prosecuting it they were propagating a true religious doctrine, the consequence of which would be the complete dominion of the Greek Church in the Ottoman Empire; while, on the other hand, the hopes which the Roman Catholics entertained for the Christian populations of Turkey were very much modified by their fears of what their co-religionists might experience if, by the success of the Russian arms, they were to fall under the rule of the Russo-Greek Church.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, he was not at all astonished that the noble Lord (Lord Stanley of Alderley), should have asked for further information than was contained in the Correspondence that had been laid upon the Table. The dates of the despatches, the answers to which were asked for by the noble Lord, showed that those despatches could not have reached this country till his noble Friend (Earl Granville) had left, or was on the point of leaving, the Foreign Office, and had been succeeded there by his noble Friend who now filled the post of Secretary for Foreign Affairs; but it was remarkable that there was not a single despatch from our Foreign Office in the whole Correspondence; and he feared that the reply of his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) would be, that there were no answers included in the Papers, because no answers were sent. It was possible that he himself, being of the same faith as those who had been persecuted by the Russian Government, might feel an even warmer and heartier admiration for the gallant struggles of the Roman Catholic subjects of Russia, and a stronger abhorrence of the persecutions to which they had been subject, than were entertained by some other persons; but he felt sure that in their Lordships' House there was no sympathy in those persecutions. He must, however, differ from those who would put the case of the Russian persecutions on a par with the Turkish outrages in Bulgaria, as regarded the manner in which each ought to be regarded by this country. The two cases were different not only in degree, but in kind. Could his noble Friend (the

  1821
  Earl of Derby) have found an opportunity of expostulating with Russia on the receipt of the statements made to him in 1874 and 1875, in the same tone as he had expostulated with Turkey in his famous despatch of last Autumn? He asked whether his noble Friend would have been justified in addressing to Lord Augustus Loftus such a letter as that which he had addressed to Sir Henry Elliot? If he would not have been, the two cases were not parallel. Could his noble Friend the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) have described Russian independence as, in terse and decisive language, he described in January last the "independence" of the Ottoman Empire? He ventured to think not. In fact, there was no real parallel between the two cases. He trusted, however, that his noble Friend had found it possible by some means to expostulate with regard to those disgraceful proceedings —or, at any rate, to express sympathy with the sufferers.
  LORD WAVENEYsaid, that he had the honour of bringing this subject before their Lordships some two months ago, under a feeling that it was his duty to inquire under what circumstances these despatches were presented to Parliament. It did seem very strange to him when he heard in the explanation of the noble Earl that these despatches were called a "Correspondence," as correspondence there was none, there being no reply to any one of the despatches. Russia was now doing in the field that which diplomacy had an opportunity of doing six or eight months ago; but whatever credit Europe might be disposed to allow to Russia, the duty of this country would be to consider what power she had acquired, or was acquiring, and whether she would exercise it for the benefit of those races over whom she might claim Sovereignty. He thought that his noble Friend (Lord Stanley of Alderley) had done good service upon this occasion. Their object was not to exasperate, but to calm, the feelings of people both in the East and the West. This war was not so much one of the Russian Government, as of the Russian people on behalf of their co-religionists in European Turkey, and there were millions of people in this country who, though they had no interest in the Greek subjects of the
  1822
  Porte as co-religionists, yet as members of the Christian Church, and on grounds of humanity, which bound all men together as one people, deeply sympathized with them in their sufferings.
  EARL FORTESCUEwas understood to protest against any recognition—even by implication — of the righteousness of the absorption of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw by Russia in defiance of Treaty obligations. Notwithstanding the statement of the noble Lord (Lord Houghton) that the country had no right to interfere between the Russian Government and its subjects in religious disputes, he maintained that we had a right—the expediency of doing so was another question—to protest against the ill-treatment of a people who, though de facto, were not de jure, subjects of Russia.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I do not think I need follow the noble Lords who have addressed you through all the details to which they have referred; and, therefore, I shall content myself with simply answering the Questions which have been addressed to me. They mainly resolve themselves into two: "Why do you lay these Papers upon the Table? and why have you not, or do you not also lay the answers to the despatches contained in the Blue Book?" Now, my Lords, I have already explained, and probably you will not require me to refer to it again, except in passing, what were the circumstances under which this Correspondence took place and under which it was laid on the Table. I do not think it would have been our duty to volunteer it. I do not think it would have been our duty to have laid upon the Table of the House, without the expression of a strong wish that we should do so, Papers relating to the local and internal administration of a foreign and independent Power. But those Papers were moved for by a Member of the other House of Parliament; and I believe it was a fact that a considerable degree of interest was felt in their production—and it was not unnatural that that interest should have been felt, as we all know the greatest possible excitement prevailed in the country as to the relative positions at that time of Russia and Turkey. There were some persons who said that the Russian Government were merely using the Eastern Question as a means to its

  1823
  own aggrandizement; while others said that Russia was the champion of religious freedom, and was defending an oppressed race against religious persecution. Well, that is a very fair controversy on both sides; and it was perfectly natural that those who do not take the view that Russia is the disinterested champion of religious freedom should inquire what has been her attitude, and what has been the action of the Russian Government, on questions of religious toleration where its own subjects were concerned. I do not think I should have been justified, nor would Her Majesty's Government have been justified, in withholding those Papers. I do not see how we could have justified the production on the one hand of the minutest details of every question which had arisen between the Turkish Government and its subjects, if we had said that in regard to matters which concerned Russia, we thought it our duty to keep back information on the ground that offence might be given to Russian feeling. My Lords, that is my answer why and how these Papers came to be produced. With regard to the other Question—"Why do you not lay the answers upon the Table?" my reply will be one of a very simple character. I believe these despatches were acknowledged in the usual official form; but I distinctly state —and I do not in the least wish to conceal the fact — that I have not thought it my duty in the past, and I do not think it my duty now, to address any representation to the Russian Government upon the subject of the acts narrated in the Papers. I have my own opinion as to the character of these acts —and I should not, if called upon to do so, shrink from expressing it. But before you address a representation to a foreign Government there are two circumstances which you are bound to consider. One is, what is your locus standi for making that representation; and the other is, what practical advantage will result from your so doing to those for whose benefit the representation is made. Now, my Lords, looking at the question of locus standi, I am bound to say that I really do not know upon what ground I should have been justified in taking this up as a matter of diplomatic controversy. It is purely and simply a question between the Russian Government and the subjects of that country—and I think it
  1824
  would introduce a very dangerous and very inconvenient precedent if we were to set an example in formal official despatches of one Government undertaking to lecture another Government as to the manner in which it conducts its internal affairs. We are told that the Polish war led to official remonstrances and representations on our part. Yes; but that was an entirely different matter. That was a question in which to a certain extent international arrangements and Treaty rights were concerned. The Treaty of Vienna constituted for the Kingdom of Poland a certain organization, and it was thereby made a matter of general European arrangement. Subsequently Russia caused that arrangement to be modified, the Kingdom of Poland as it then existed being destroyed and the administration of Poland being merged in the general administration of Russia. That was a change of an international character, and all those Powers which had been parties to the original settlement were undoubtedly entitled, if they thought fit, to take cognizance of subsequent changes introduced in that way. My Lords, the only other ground which may be alleged—and I do not think it is parallel—is the case of the Bulgarian atrocities, upon which so much has been said. But our position in regard to Turkey last year was wholly different from our position in regard to Russia. When these affairs were going on, Russia was not engaged in any controversy in which we could be called upon to act as mediators. We had never guaranteed the independence of Russia; we had guaranteed the independence of Turkey. In the case of the Bulgarian atrocities, we did not rest upon the general and, I think, rather weak ground of Turkey being a Power whose existence we had guaranteed —we rested upon the special ground that, at the very time when these outrages occurred, we were actually engaged in a mediation, the object of which was to extricate the Turkish Government from the difficulties into which it had fallen; and, as I have said more than once in this House, we had an obvious right to protest in our capacity of mediator against outrages of such a character which, if they had continued, would have made mediation on our part impossible. Nothing of that kind was the case as regarded Russia;

  1825
  and, therefore, unless we were to act simply on humanitarian motives and were to say—"We denounce in the face of Europe the manner in which you are treating your Polish subjects," we had no ground at all to stand upon. And as I said before, so I repeat now, that I think for any one great Power to set an example of interfering by official representations in the internal affairs of others would be a practice which—however it might commend itself in the first instance to our feelings of humanity—would in the long run tend to produce evils more grave than any which it might remove. My Lords, there is another consideration, and that is, what result would follow from any representations on our part? I am bound to say I do not think the result would have been one of a satisfactory character. It would be quite impossible for us, even if we attempted to do it, to exercise a general supervision over the provincial and internal administration of the Russian Government; and if we were on a single occasion to interfere on behalf of one single class of persons whom we might suppose to have been ill-used, the probability would be that, as soon as our backs were turned—that is to say, as soon as our attention was called to some other quarter—those who had complained, and those who had given us information, and those of the Native population who had solicited our interference, would only suffer the more for the foreign intervention which they had invoked. My Lords, on the ground, therefore, of general principle and on the grounds of practical expediency I have abstained from taking any further part in this matter than such part as I have been compelled to take when these Papers were called for, and when I laid them upon the Table of your Lordships' House. I have explained the principle upon which we have acted, and if it should be assailed in this House, or elsewhere, I shall be prepared to defend it.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, in reply: I anticipated the possibility of the late Secretary of State not having had time to reply to these despatches, but it was to be expected that some of the late Government might take this opportunity of reprobating the action of the Russian Government. In any case the Catholics are not likely to feel any excessive gratitude for the rather
  1826
  lukewarm advocacy of the noble Marquess.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  CHURCH OF SCOTLAND—(THE PAROCHIAL ELECTORATE)—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF MINTO, in rising to call the attention of the House to the Return presented to the House (Paper No. 5 of the present Session) relative to the composition of the Parochial Electorate for the appointment of parish ministers created by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland under the provisions of the Church Patronage (Scotland) Act, 1874, and to the insufficiency of the information afforded therein, said, he must commence by reminding their Lordships that by that Act a totally different system of regulating the government of the Church of Scotland had been introduced, and that the General Assembly were thereby empowered to make regulations by which the appointment of the ministers should vest, not in the parishioners simply, but in the congregation. Under the joint legislation of Parliament and the General Assembly two classes of electors had been created —namely, First, all persons on the Communicant Roll, without distinction of sex, age, or residence, became, ipso facto, electors; secondly, all such other persons being parishioners of full age as have claimed to be enrolled, and . . in regard to whom there appeared to the kirk·session to be no reason for refusing to admit them to the communion if they should apply. He thought that the effect of having these two classes of electors might be, in some cases, to introduce the element of' electioneering strife into the appointment of a minister—and it was to be noted that, under the regulations, the claims for admission to the electoral roll were neither to be made nor considered until the very eve of the election, when, perhaps, the heat attending a contested election had already begun to be manifested. But what he particularly wished to point out was the peculiar result that the passing of the Act had had in giving the preponderance at elections to the female element in the congregation; and his object in moving for the Return last Session was to see how far his anticipations in that respect had been verified; and he found that they

  1827
  had been verified in a remarkable degree. He would not trouble the House by going into details, but he found that, with the exception of one parish in the Presbytery of Dunbar, the female communicants greatly preponderated. He found that altogether in the 75 parishes embraced by the Return, the number of electors was 40,000 who qualified as communicants, and of those 16,309 were male and 23,691 female, giving to the female electors a majority of 7,382. That was the general result, and with only one or two exceptions—one being a case in which there was an actual tie—there was a great preponderance of females over male electors. He would only mention one or two isolated cases to show how great this preponderance was. In St. Stephen's, Edinburgh, for instance, there were 1,924 communicant electors, of whom 1,394 were females and 533 males. In the parish of Blair-Athole there were 236 female to 157 male electors; in St. Andrews, 1,135 females to 605 males; and in Montrose only 930 male communicant electors to 1,927 females. There was no doubt, therefore, that the female element vastly preponderated. It might be defended perhaps, but it was rather a remarkable thing, and it certainly seemed to him to be contrary to the spirit of the old Reformers that women should possess so large a power in the government of the Church; and their Lordships would remember that John Knox was not very complimentary upon this subject, designating them as "the monstrous regiment of women," and demonstrating that women from their qualities both of mind and body should be assigned over to the dominion of men. It was for this reason that he moved for these Papers last year. At the same time, he considered the Return as produced somewhat deficient, giving no information as to the number of the electors below 21 years of age, and not saying whether they resided in the parish or not. It seemed to him that the number of electors who were non-parishioners ought to be returned; but upon that point they got no information at all. It was very desirable to have more information respecting the age of the communicant electors, because they knew very well that young people, especially women became communicants long before they attained the age of 21, and
  1828
  therefore they might have a very much larger proportion of female than of male electors under the age of 21. He would not detain their Lordships any longer. The noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond; had always shown himself most courteous in furnishing information, and no doubt he thought that that which had been furnished was sufficient — and in fact he had said that the other information he desired was unattainable; but inasmuch as by the General Assembly's own regulations no one was an elector of the second class, unless he or she was a parishioner "of full age," he could not understand the alleged impossibility of procuring precisely similar information in regard to communicants voters as was required in respect of non-communicant voters. He would conclude by suggesting that in some respects the free action of the Church might advantageously be enlarged. In a recent debate in the General Assembly, it had been broadly laid down by the Procurator of the Church, that it was incompetent for the Church to carry out any essential modification in the tenor of a certain formal document then required to be signed by Elders on taking office. He would, therefore, suggest whether it would not be well to give to the Church greater power of self-government than it at present possessed.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he would not follow the noble Earl through all the details into which he had entered. He was somewhat at a loss to understand to what particular point in these Returns the noble Earl had called attention to. The noble Earl seemed to desire some further information; but he assured the noble Earl last year, and he assured him again now, that that information could not be obtained—for the reason that it did not exist—the electoral roll contained no information as to how many male or female communicants there were under the ago of 21. The noble Earl complained of the insufficiency of the Returns, but they contained all the information for which he had asked. The noble Earl seemed to think that the number of lady voters was an objection; but he carefully avoided drawing any comparison between the lady of John Knox's time and of the present time, and unless the noble Earl could show that the lady of the present time was something

  1829
  worse than the lady of the time of John Knox, he did not think he could allege the number of lady electors in the Church of Scotland as an objection. If he recollected rightly, the question with respect to the lady voters was discussed on the passing of the Bill, and their Lordships did not favour the proposal to exclude them, and the principle of election which was adopted had the sanction of the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Argyll). In his opinion it was premature to propose any amendment to the Act, or to interfere in any way with the constituent body who were to have a vote in the election of ministers in the Church of Scotland.

INDIA—THE AMEER OF AFGHANISTAN.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLrose to ask a Question of the Secretary of State for India, in respect to the relations of the Government of India with the Ameer of Afghanistan. In doing so, he wished to explain that he had purposely framed his Notice in a vague way, because he had no wish to say anything that could possibly embarrass the Government, either at home, or in India. All he wished was to afford the noble Marquess an opportunity of making a statement that might help to extricate the Government in India out of the position of embarrassment in which it had been placed by, it seemed, unfounded rumour. The fact was, that the Foreign relations of the Government of India had been always peculiar. The relations of the Government with Indian Frontier States differed from those with civilized European nations, because the former were in a semi-barbarous condition, and the communications with, and with regard to them, had to be made in a somewhat irregular manner—we had no recognized Representatives with them, and they had none with us. Therefore Governmental communications between the Home and Indian Governments had to be conducted to a great extent by means of private letters, personal communications, and telegrams—documents that it was not easy to convey to the public in the shape of Parliamentary Papers or Returns. This had been his experience while at the India Office, and he did not suppose that of the noble Marquess who succeeded him was widely different. In
  1830
  fact, during his tenure of Office he had become convinced of the fact that the Government of India by telegrams and private letters and instructions must have its limits — and more especially was this so in reference to our relationship with independent States. It was, in fact, impossible to get real secrecy in India—a point to which reference was made by a noble Lord, then a Member of their Lordships' House, in speaking with reference to the transfer of the Indian Government from the East India Company to the Crown—his argument was, that you could not expect it from the servants of the Company, but might from the servants of the Crown. Now, as regarded the foreign policy of the Government of India, that policy was shaped by the Minister at home, who formerly acted through a Secret Committee, and therefore the change of name from Company to Crown did not in that respect produce any serious effect; but much depended upon the good faith of the servants of the Crown in India. No doubt the Members of the Government in India were not in the position of Cabinet Ministers at home. They were not and did not consider themselves as being under the seal of secrecy;—and; in truth, it was impossible to issue instructions in India and to act upon them without their becoming matter of public notoriety and talk in all the barracks in India; and the result was that what was intended by the Government came out, and generally came out in a most inconvenient form, and often tinctured with great exaggeration, misconstruction, and misapprehension. This misapprehension, as it seemed, existed in regard to the intentions of the noble Marquess opposite in respect to the relations of the Government of India with the Ameer of Afghanistan. Perhaps, it might be said that among the many qualities of some of the high and distinguished men forming the Government of India reticence was not the most remarkable; and certainly one of those eminent men the other day, in making a Budget speech, alluded to the question of foreign policy in a manner which gave rise to very serious speculation and alarm. So far for the form of the Question he had put upon the Paper. A few words as to its substance, as to which he had given the noble Marquess some private explanation Terrible mistakes hail been made

  1831
  in the Government of India which led to the war with Cabul, and which, in their results, went at one time very near to shake the power of the British Government in India. Ever since that disastrous, but ultimately triumphant, war, the relations between the Government of India and the Ruler of Afghanistan had been a matter of anxious and serious consideration. The policy of the last three Viceroys of India towards that country had been one of watchfulness and friendly support. We did not wish to tangle ourselves in any permanent, arrangements towards that Sovereign. Eastern Sovereignties were liable to sudden changes, and in the Royal Family of Cabul there had been a series of assassinations and murders under circumstances of atrocious treachery which rendered the tenure of any Sovereign of that country essentially insecure. It did not appear to the noble Lord (Lord Lawrence)—it did not appear to Lord Mayo — whose name he could never mention without an acknowledgment of the affection and respect with which he remembered him—it did not occur to his noble Friend behind him (Lord Northbrook), that it would be wise or judicious to enter into any permanent Treaty to be binding as between the Ameer and the Government of India. It was considered sufficient to show the same friendly feeling towards that Ruler as had theretofore existed, and to act towards him in a friendly manner. Above all, there was one point which was frequently a matter of discussion in the Government of India—namely, whether it would be wise to send to Cabul a resident Envoy. As to this point, he felt very much as the noble Marquess did on Monday night, when he spoke on the subject of the appointment of a Consul in Central Asia. No doubt, it might be very important to have a Resident at Cabal, if we could get a man for the place and that he was received with cordiality; but it was notorious that for a long time past the present Ameer had set his face against having such an officer at his Court, and he was bound to admit that there was much to be said on behalf of the objection of Indian Princes to having Residents at their Courts. The truth was, that by the necessities of the case the position, influence, and power of the Resident threw into the shade the autho-
  1832
  rity of the Native Sovereign, who knew very well that the appointment of such an officer had been one of the steps by which British aggression had gone on and British dominion had been established. He could hardly believe, after all the friendly conduct they had pursued towards the Ruler of Afghanistan, they could have any serious intention of adopting aggressive measures as regarded that country, and yet its people were so jealous and so notoriously suspicious a race that it might well be that such a suspicion had entered into their mind; and if we were to send a Resident Representative to that Court they might regard it as a serious danger. That rumours existed on the subject there could be no doubt. The noble Marquess had not perhaps heard of the reports which were in circulation; but such rumours had reached his ears through channels which left no doubt in his own mind that there was some particle of truth in them accompanied by the greatest possible exaggeration. Rumour said that the Government of India had determined upon a complete change of policy, and had resolved to insist on the Ameer receiving a Resident British Envoy at his Court. It had been said, too, that a particular officer had been appointed, or was likely to be appointed—one whom he knew to be a man of great ability and energy, and who on that very account would be regarded by so jealous a personage as the Ameer with all the greater suspicion. But there were more formidable rumours still—namely, that this change of policy had been backed by a movement of a considerable body of troops under circumstances not easily understood, but which seemed to point to aggression on the North West Frontier—even that a bridge of beats had been prepared on the Indus; and that, alarmed by diplomatic demands and military arrangements, the mind of the Ameer was thoroughly unsettled—that he was in a state of agitation and anger, and was collecting troops to resist aggression, or perhaps to make an aggressive movement upon India. The Ameer of Afghanistan was not perhaps a great Power; but another Afghan war would be, he need hardly say, a very serious matter. But though they had, of course, no cause to dread such a movement, at the same time, another war would cost several millions of

  1833
  money, and it would, in any event, be a great misfortune if our good understanding with the Ameer were seriously disturbed. He was bound to add that if he had put his Question 10 days ago he might have been suspected of doing so from a fear that the noble Marquess was affected by Russophobian propensities; but, after the speech the noble Marquess delivered in their Lordships' House last Monday, followed by his speech the same evening at the Merchant Taylors' Hall, he could now have no such apprehension, and he could not but thank the noble Marquess for the language he held on those two occasions. Although those speeches assumed a light form and administered some friendly "chaff" to certain alarmists, he believed the noble Marquess's language had served to calm the public mind both in India and England. It was, however, all the more important that the noble Marquess should have an opportunity of giving their Lordships' House and the country an assurance that he did not contemplate any serious change in the policy heretofore pursued towards Afghanistan; and, above all, that lie desired to continue, at all events, that friendly, but watchful, course of conduct which he believed was the only safe course to adopt in our relations with such a Sovereign as the Ameer.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I have no cause to quarrel with the noble Duke in reference to the maxim he has laid down with respect to private letters. I quite agree with him that an over-use of them would be a thing to be deplored. But, we have a tradition in the India Office that it was with the noble Lord at the end of the bench opposite (Viscount Halifax) that the excessive use of them originated—I have no doubt that in the political circumstances with which he had to deal his success was a sufficient justification of his action. No doubt, it would be undesirable that a full record of the proceedings of one Government should not be left for the benefit of their Successors; but I need not say that it does not follow that because our instructions prescribe adherence to that system, those documents can be laid upon the Table of your Lordships' House. I am bound also to concur entirely with the noble Duke as to the singular difficulty which is placed in the way of the Indian Government by the curious talka-
  1834
  tiveness of the English officials in India I do not for a moment mean to include all Indian official; in that censure; but there are no doubt some who talk about the public business of the Government to their friends. In spite, however, of the gloomy picture which my noble Friend drew — and to which to some extent, I must say, I subscribe—I think that matters are mending in that respect, and that, on the whole, the Governments of India are learning the necessity of imposing greater reticence on the part of those they employ in public matters. The public of India have, however, become so accustomed to a free and frank disclosure of all the Government are doing, that when they are unable to obtain the usual information they are very apt—with imaginations perhaps warmed by an Indian sun—to supply the facts which they are anxious to obtain, and the result is these strange stories which have frightened my noble Friend as to the prospects of our Indian Empire. Of course, it is perfectly true that there has been a Conference at Peshawur. A great many subjects were discussed at it; but it will be difficult to produce Papers, because the politics of the East, much more than those of the West, are of a personal character; and often communications, which, if they occurred in Western nations, it would be very easy to lay upon the Table, involve in the East the personal feelings of Potentates to such an extent as to make such disclosures inexpedient. Therefore, the conversations which occurred at Peshawur are not matters which I could prudently place on record among the Papers laid before Parliament. There is another observation which I should like to make. The noble Duke alluded to the fact that the Ameer of Afghanistan does not allow a British Envoy to reside at his Court. The noble Duke evidently regards this refusal as an act of semi-barbarism, and said that the Ameer of Cabul was the only Potentate with whom we had relations over the globe who would not receive our Envoy. I am not prepared to dispute the liberty of action belonging to the Ameer; but the result is, that we are obliged to communicate with him in a more formal and open method than would be otherwise necessary, and that suggestions, explanations, and requests which, if we had ordinary diplomatic

  1835
  relations with the Ameer would be sent through a British officer residing at his Court, have, as matters stand, to be sent through some other diplomatic channel. There must be numerous Papers constantly proceeding through the Foreign Office to Ambassadors and others which are never heard of by the public. The Ameer does not think it right to have an Envoy at his Court, and many of such communications, necessarily, take a more formal shape. Indeed, the Conference held at Peshawur was arranged at his request. With respect to the information asked for by the noble Duke, I can hardly give him much positive knowledge; but I think I can give him some negative information. He has derived from the sources open to him the following statement, as I understood him—that we had tried to force an Envoy upon the Ameer at Cabul—that we had selected for that purpose Sir Lewis Pelly, whose vigour of mind and action might possibly inspire apprehension in the Councils of a Native Prince—that we had supported this demand by a large assemblage of troops on the North-Western Frontier, and that we were preparing boats upon the Indus. Now, we have not tried to force an Envoy upon the Ameer at Cabul—we have not suggested Sir Lewis Pelly as an Envoy to Cabul—the troops were assembled on the North-Western Frontier without the slightest reference to any such demand; and with regard to the beats on the Indus, I never heard of them until to-day. Our relations with the Ameer of Cabul have undergone no material change since last year, I do not believe that he is worse disposed towards us than hitherto, or that his feelings are in any way more embittered towards the British Government. I cannot follow the noble Duke into a discussion of his character; nor can I enter upon that very thorny question, how far the great movements of the principal European Powers are connected with the events to which he refers. The matter is one deserving serious attention, and when the occasion arises it will call for proper precautions. There is no doubt that the contest between Russia and Turkey has produced among the nations bordering on India a certain recrudescence of Mussulman feeling which I do not think will issue in any action attended with the slightest danger to our
  1836
  Indian Empire, but which may very well cause vigilance and care on the part of the British Government, and may induce those who are always on the look-out for news in India to imagine that something stronger and more definite has occurred than has really happened. If it is necessary to re-open the Conference it will be done under better auspices. I only wish emphatically to repeat that none of those suspicions of aggression on the part of the English Government have any true foundation; that our desire in the future, as it has been in the past, is to respect the Afghan Ruler, and to maintain as far as we can the integrity of his dominions. There is no ground for any of the apprehensions to which the noble Duke has referred, or for suspicions which are too absurd to be seriously entertained. The affairs of the Frontier are maintaining a peaceful aspect, with the exception of a little trouble with a local tribe—the Afreedees. We have also maintained our relations with Khelat, and the Papers we have laid on the Table will explain what has occurred. But there is no reason for any apprehension of any change of policy or of disturbance in our Indian Empire.
  LORD LAWRENCEsaid, that so far as Central Asia was concerned, them was nothing to be desired beyond the statement of the noble Marquess to the House, coupled with that made "elsewhere" on the previous Monday; but, with regard to our policy on the North-West Frontier and our relations with Cabul, he feared that something more had occurred than had yet been heard of. It seemed unlikely that all the doubts, forebodings, and suggestions which had appeared in the Indian papers should have so little basis as contended for in the explanations of the noble Marquess. It was clear from the Indian papers, and he included those which supported the action of the Indian Government, that something of very considerable importance had occurred to cause agitation on the North-West Frontier of India. With regard to the late Conference at Peshawur, it was generally understood that certain demands were pressed on the Ameer of Cabul which had caused him much distress and perplexity of mind. It was asserted that this perplexity mainly arose in consequence of the movements of

  1837
  Russia against Turkey. He would not deny that there was a certain amount of interest felt by the Mahomedans of India in the conflict now going on in regard to Turkish possessions. From a long experience of Mahomedans, he was convinced that while a certain number of religious and learned men, leaders of the faith of Islam, as well as men who had actually made pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina, would probably have strong feelings on the subject of the present war, the great mass of the Mahomedan community had no lively interest in the contest. But it seemed certain to him that some great change affecting the relations of Afghanistan with the British Government had been actually contemplated, and that this was the origin of the anxiety at Cabul. It was now 20 years since he (Lord Lawrence) had made the Treaty, which still existed, between Dost Mahommed, the late Ruler of Cabul, and the British Government. Previous to that time the Ameer had been our prisoner, and by Lord Ellenborough had been magnanimously restored to his own country. At the time of the Treaty of 1857, and before his death in 1863, the Ameer had warned him (Lord Lawrence) against lending the support of the British Government to the conflicting pretensions of his sons, and advised him to allow them to fight it out. In consequence, he steadily refused his support to any party until one got the upper hand. The old Ameer, Dost Mahommed, received two British officers, and allowed them to go to Kandahar, where they remained so long as they could do so with safety. But the elder of them, the present Sir Harry Lumsden, assured him that, owing to the espionage practised on him at Kandahar, less information was obtainable there than could be got, without difficulty, at Peshawur, where travellers and traders from all parts of Central Asia met each other and talked freely, without fear of interference. One special circumstance calculated to affect the mind and influence the policy of the present Ameer was the late occupation of Quettah, which was in the direct line of communication between Scinde, the Bolan Pass, and Kandahar. That occupation was a direct challenge to the Afghans, and an exceedingly unwise stop, if we desired to cultivate friendly relations with them. As to the invasion of India from Central Asia, he
  1838
  could only endorse the clear and forcible remarks made by the noble Marquess himself the other day. As regarded the occupation of Quettah, independent of the political objections to which he had already referred, it struck him that much might also be said as to the military disadvantages of such a movement. Those who had for years advocated this policy looked on Quettah, at the head of the Bolan Pass, as the proper position whereby, on the one hand, we held a command of the pass and the mountain country on both sides against an invader, and, on the other hand, would be able to move rapidly, if necessary, on Kandahar and Herat, or from Kandahar towards Cabul, so as to meet or to take in flank an enemy moving from Herat towards Cabul. A small body of troops, however, at Quettah, far advanced from effectual support, would be liable to be cut off, if attacked in force by a formidable enemy from the West, while a body of troops at Quettah, sufficient to meet such an enemy advancing from Herat, or moving by that place towards Cabul, should be of the dimensions of a considerable army, with suitable reserves in the rear. In the first Sikh war we had an instance of the evil of placing a force far advanced from its supports at Ferozepore, when it required all the courage of the late Lord Gough, and all the sagacity of the late Lord Harding, to prevent that force from being destroyed. In that instance our troops were hurried forward, and had to fight the battles of Moodkhee and Ferozeshur at great disadvantage. If what had been stated by the noble Duke, however, who preceded him was a delusion, that delusion had spread to England. The noble Duke had also made some allusion to the movement of troops. What he (Lord Lawrence) understood to be the case was, not that any troops had been actually put in motion, but that they had been told off to be in readiness in their several cantonments, and that to this end the collection of carriage and supplies in considerable quantities had been ordered. Further, he was credibly informed that a bridge of beats had been built at Koshalgurh, on the Indus, for the passage of troops to Kohat. It was impossible to guarantee secrecy or to prohibit discussion while such preparations were being made. He (Lord Lawrence) further

  1839
  thought that there was a third cause of probable offence to the Ameer. The Maharajah of Kashmir had been encouraged to advance troops beyond Gilgit towards Chitral, so as to obtain a command of the passes leading from Eastern Turkistan, and with that view we had given the Maharajah 5,000 stand of arms. It was impossible that these matters, even if they were no more than talk, should not come to the oars of the Ameer, and cause irritation. In fact, in the Ameer's view of the case, he, no doubt, would consider himself threatened at three different points. First, there was the occupation of Quettah; secondly, there were the rumours of troops being about to move, and the collection of supplies and carriage on our frontier; and, thirdly, the encouragement held out to the Maharajah of Kashmir. At all events, the noble Marquess might let the House have the Papers, as it was important that they should know the actual Correspondence that had passed on the subject. There was another rumour to which he would call the attention of the noble Marquess, though it was not immediately connected with this subject—namely, that the Governor General intended to divide the Punjab and place the whole of the Trans-Indus Territories under a separate Government. He had a strong feeling of affection towards the Punjab and the people of the Province, who would thereby be seriously affected, and he could not help thinking that it would be a serious political error, as well as a great misfortune, if there should be a break-up of the Punjab system and Government. His reasons for so thinking were as follows—to say nothing of the changes in the internal administration, which would require to be treated at too great length to be clearly understood, and the disruption of the frontier districts from the main portion of the Punjab, the transfer of the frontier and local force from the control of the Lieutenant Governor to that of the Commander-in-Chief would probably follow. This change had from time to time been advocated, but had hitherto been resisted with success. The Frontier Force, from its first formation—now 28 years ago—had been the main instrument whereby they had guarded a large portion of the North-West Frontier with uninterrupted success. It
  1840
  had borne all the predatory attacks of the adjacent hill tribes; it had secured our occupation of the Border districts; and, above all, it had proved of the greatest value in all the great troubles of the Mutiny of 1857. He might say a great deal on this last subject, but would content himself with one instance of its value. When the Mutiny broke out they had six regiments of Native Infantry and one corps of Infantry and Cavalry—the latter known as the "Guide Corps"—in the Peshawur Valley. The latter force was moved at once towards Delhi; it marched a distance of about 500 miles in 15 days, and joined in a severe action which was fought under the walls of the city on the day of its arrival. On the other hand, such was the condition of the six Regular regiments of Infantry that we had to disarm five of them and carefully watch the sixth. Of the 11 Infantry regiments which composed the Punjab Force, and which had been allotted to the Frontier defences, no less than five fought at the siege of Delhi, and, from first to last during the Mutiny, they lost from one-fourth to one-half their numbers; and on no single occasion that he could recollect failed to distinguish themselves in action. The officers and men of this Force, whether English or native, were proud to hold their position as a separate body devoted to a particular duty; and their identity, when placed under the Commander-in-Chief, would be in danger of being gradually lost. At present they were, in the discharge of their duties, closely connected with the people and the police of the districts in which they served, and depended much for their usefulness on their good relations with the villages generally, of the Border, and thus they obtained valuable information of what might be going on in the hills, and these advantages by the change contemplated were very likely to be lost. One of the main grounds, he believed, which had been put forward in favour of a change of system on the North-West Frontier was the assertion that unnecessary expeditions against the hill tribes had from time to time been undertaken. But he had found that no one of the expeditions which had been made into the hills had been made except after all reasonable attempts had failed to bring the particular tribe against whom the expedition was di-

  1841
  rected to reason, and to induce it to respect British territory. If we occupied the tracts lying between the Indus and the mountain ranges, and required the inhabitants to pay revenue, we were bound to maintain order and protect them from depredation; and if tribes in the hills, who from time to time invaded our territory, could not be restrained by purely defensive measures, we had nothing for it but to retaliate and invade the lands of the spoilers. These expeditions, as a rule, had the best effect. It had been rare that a second expedition against a tribe became necessary, and it might be said that from year to year this necessity had diminished. In conclusion, all the inhabitants of the Frontier districts who wished for the continuance of our rule must, he thought, be supporters of the present system. The government of that Province had now for nearly 30 years been carried on with signal success. If they broke up the Administration, divided the Province and destroyed its symmetry, they would infallibly reduce the local Government to comparative insignificance, while all that forcible and continuous unity of action, which had resulted from entrusting the internal government as well as the policy of the Frontier to one and the same hands, would be weakened, if not entirely destroyed.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My Lords, the Question put my noble Friend the noble Duke behind me (the Duke of Argyll) is one of such great importance that, having had so recently myself to deal with some of these subjects, I wish to say a few words in this debate. I can assure your Lordships that it is my most anxious desire to give all the support in my power to the noble Marquess and the Government of India in the management of the affairs of that country. I wish to add a few words to what has been said by the noble Duke, and to express the great gratification with which I listened to the speech of the noble Marquess the other night, and read the speech which the noble Marquess made elsewhere, in which he expressed in language more powerful than I can use the views which I entertain upon the subject of the alarmist statements made from time to time with regard to the possible dangers of India from Russia. It was also with great
  1842
  pleasure that I heard what fell from the noble Marquess to-night. I have shared very much in the anxiety expressed by my noble Friend who has just addressed your Lordships with so great authority —for there is no man in this country or in India, I may say, who has so perfect a knowledge of the whole policy which for many years has been pursued with respect to Afghanistan and the Punjab as my noble Friend—there is no man in India, to my knowledge, whose opinion carries so great weight both with the Natives and the English officials as that of my noble Friend, and therefore the language which my noble Friend has used must have great weight with your Lordships. I have shared very much in the anxiety expressed by my noble Friend lest the rumours which appeared in almost all the Indian and English newspapers touching what is supposed to have happened lately as regards negotiations with Afghanistan have been correct. Now, my Lords, we have heard from the noble Marquess that we need be under no apprehension of any substantial change in the policy pursued towards the Ameer of Afghanistan. I heard that with the greatest possible satisfaction, because I feel it would be no light matter to change a policy which has been pursued deliberately by successive Governments in this country, and which has received the cordial support and approval of men like Lord Canning, my noble Friend who has just addressed your Lordships, and Lord Mayo. We have heard from the noble Marquess that it is not correct to say that the Ameer of Afghanistan has been pressed to receive a British Resident at Cabul, or that there was any intention, as I understood the noble Marquess, of sending a British Force from India to Afghanistan with any hostile intent. Now, that was the rumour which caused me and others much anxiety. My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships by going into any historical question at any length, or stating the principle of the policy which has hitherto been pursued. I agree with almost every word that fell from my noble Friend who last addressed the House. It is necessary, in dealing with Princes of the class of the Ameer of Afghanistan, to make great allowances for the position in which they are placed, and all the circumstances connected with them. We cannot expect

  1843
  to carry on negotiations with the Ameer of Afghanistan in the same manner as with European States. The policy we have pursued with regard to the Ameer has been to show him that we desired to assist him with our advice whenever he requires it, and not to press upon him the presence of British officers in his territories, unless he really desires that they should go there, and will give him a welcome. I feel satisfied that if that policy is deliberately adhered to now, as it has been for many years, whatever difficulties may have arisen for the time being, and whatever suspicions may be entertained by the Ameer—from what cause I, not being acquainted with the facts, will not inquire—will disappear, and that the Ameer will soon see that his suspicions have no foundation, and will look upon us—as every sensible man in his position must—as his best friends, and as those to whom, in certain circumstances, he will have to apply for assistance. It is with great satisfaction, therefore, that I have heard the assurance of the noble Marquess that the policy I have referred to Her Majesty's Government will continue to pursue. I am satisfied that he has given us that assurance in perfect good faith, and that we may trust him to resist any attempt to put it aside. Turning to incidental matters, to which reference has been made to-night, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say a word or two in favour of the Public Servants in India. It has been stated that we cannot always rely upon our Indian Public Servants preserving the secrecy that in some cases is absolutely necessary to enable us to conduct negotiations. That is not my experience of the Public Servants in India. I believe them to be as honourable and as discreet a body of men as can be found in this country, and that they may be trusted implicitly to keep secret any confidential matters that may be communicated to them. I am able to state, from my own experience, that when I had the honour of being connected with my noble Friend the Duke of Argyll, when he was Secretary of State for India, a confidential matter of some importance relating to India appeared in one of the newspapers, and the noble Duke wrote to me to endeavour to ascertain how the matter had become public. Curiously enough, I ascertained that the secret had been divulged, not
  1844
  in India, but in this country. I will not say by whom. With regard to the request of the noble Lord who spoke last (Lord Lawrence), that Papers relating to this subject may be laid before your Lordships, I have sufficient knowledge of what passes in those communications not to support the noble Lord's demand, because I am satisfied that there are matters in some of the communications between the Secretary of State and the Indian Government upon this subject which it would not be for the public interest to present to this House. In reference to this point, I may say that it would have been an entirely wrong course to pursue, and quite unconstitutional, had matters of this grave importance been conducted between the Secretary of State for India and the Viceroy of India by means of private letters. The Government of India is not conducted by the Governor General alone, but by the Governor General in Council. The Governor General has undoubtedly the power in matters of importance to overrule his Council; and the latter, on the other hand, have an opportunity of recording their opinions, if they differ from him. Parliament in its wisdom—and I am satisfied from my own experience—has rightly taken care that no matter of importance shall be conducted in India without consultation being held between the Governor General and his Council, in order that the latter may have an opportunity of discussing it. Therefore, I think that it is quite impossible for a matter of grave importance to be transacted in India by means of private communications between the Secretary of State at home and the Governor General in India. During the four years that I was in India, I found no inconvenience whatever arise from this arrangement; but that it resulted in the greatest advantage to the Public Service that men of Indian experience should be at hand to give me freely and frankly their opinions on all matters of importance. With regard to the power of the Governor General to enter into treaties to guarantee the integrity of the possessions of any Native Prince in India, Parliament has gone even further, and by an Act which still remains on the Statute Book, has enacted that the Governor General shall have no power to enter into such a Treaty without the express sanction of Her Majesty's Government. In these circumstances I

  1845
  am glad to hear from the noble Marquess that his Instructions, although they cannot be made public just at present with advantage to the Public Service, are framed in accordance with the practice I have described. With reference to a matter which has been alluded to by the noble Lord who spoke last (Lord Lawrence), I may say that I do not think that it is wise to occupy a post so far from our own Frontier as Quettah. To do so might very possibly cause apprehension on the part of the Ameer of Afghanistan, and also bring us into collision in that part of the country with tribes who are by no means quiet and orderly. With regard to another subject mentioned by the noble Lord who last addressed your Lordships — namely, a proposal that I understand has been made for some alteration in the territorial distribution of India, by which a strip of land 800 miles long by 50 broad in the other side of the Indus is to be separated from the Government of the Punjab, that proposal was very thoroughly discussed some years ago, and was put aside, and during the time I was in India it was never revived. I feel satisfied that all the reasons adduced by the noble Lord against that proposal are sound, and that it would be a grave error of policy, and attended with grave risks, to attempt to make such an alteration. India is a country in which we cannot afford to snake rash changes. Whatever may be my policy in this country, I confess that my policy as regards India is eminently Conservative. We must remember, in dealing with that country, that we have to do with a people who do not understand us, and who cannot follow our reasoning, and who are more Conservative, perhaps, than any others in the world. And, moreover, if there is any part of India to which this observation applies more particularly than to another it is the Punjab. That is a part of the country in which we cannot afford to try experiments, the people being the most spirited, and being the best soldiers in India, and hanging together more than elsewhere. I ask the noble Marquess, therefore, to let us have the Papers upon. this subject at all events laid before us, so that we may feel assurred that it is one on which due deliberation has been had, and on which men of experience have been consulted.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXaddressed their Lordships, but was inaudible.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY,referring to a matter which had been introduced incidentally by the noble Earl who had recently spoken, said that at present he had received no Papers with reference to any territorial arrangements in the Punjab.

  IMBECILE, LUNATIC, AND OTHER AFFLICTED CLASSES (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Laws providing for the care of Imbeciles, Lunatics, and other Afflicted Classes in Ireland—Was presented by The Lord. O'HAGAN; read 1a. (No. 110.)
  House adjourned at half past Eight o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.