ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.

HL Deb 17 January 1878 vol 237 cc7-58

The QUEEN'S SPEECH reported by The LORD CHANCELLOR.

THE EARL OF WHARNCLIFFE,

in rising to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty in answer to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech, said: My Lords, although I have many years had the honour of a seat in this House, I have not often—indeed, I think only once before — taken part in your Lordships' debates. It is, therefore, with diffidence, and even anxiety, that I rise to address your Lordships; for certainly it has rarely happened that one has risen on a similar occasion under more momentous conditions than those under which your Lordships have met at the present time. The country is, not exactly trembling—that would be too strong an expression—on the balance of war; but it is impossible not to recognize the possibility that we may at some period be drawn into the conflict now raging in the East. Other wars have raged within recent years. There was the Indian Mutiny—in that we were alone concerned—the struggle was between England and the rebellious subjects of the Crown, and there was no pretext for the intervention of any other Power. Other wars there have been between nations on the Continent of Europe, and between the Northern and Southern Provinces of America. In these England or English interests were not concerned in the issues. It cannot, however, be contended that in this great struggle between Russia and Turkey there is not great danger of English interests becom- ing involved. We are standing in the face of a great danger, which, instead of diminishing, is becoming greater day by day. It is natural that the country should feel great interest in the subject, and that Her Majesty's Government should watch attentively the signs of danger — that they should note the spread of the area of war and the advance of one of the combatants upon the capital of the other. We know that there are many who do not agree in the attitude of the Government, and there have been many and angry criticisms upon the conduct of Her Majesty's Ministry. I do not propose to follow in detail the various steps taken by the Government since the commencement of the war; but I think your Lordships will agree with me that nothing could have been more satisfactory, under the circumstances, than the conduct of the Leader of the Opposition, or the manner in which the Government has dealt with the various difficulties that have arisen. Again, those Members of the opposite Parties who have a responsible position—those who are the recognized Leaders of their respective Parties — have been very cautious in their language since the outbreak of the war. But when I come to those who have no responsible position, I am obliged to say that the language used by many of them is not such as ought to characterize the Members of a fair Opposition. They assumed facts which did not exist, and then based arguments and drew adverse conclusions on their assumptions. They suggested "a split in the Cabinet," and assumed that Her Majesty's Ministers were divided into various sections, which held various and antagonistic opinions. They assumed that on the part of the Government there were dark designs that had not been expressed in the Ministerial utterances. An agitation was set on foot and political meetings were held—sometimes in buildings which had been erected for very different purposes. At these meetings the Government were censured for certain opinions which it was assumed they were entertaining—and, on the other hand, when they advised Her Majesty to summon Parliament throe weeks earlier than usual they were abused for that. This reminds one of the French tale where the Prince would not attempt to do anything to please any one, because, he said, whatever he might do with that object he would be sure to displease somebody. Then quite recently a "Conference" had been held, and a manifesto containing a declaration of opinon had been issued, with the object of to a certain extent influencing the policy of Her Majesty's Government. But such proceedings will not bear examination for a moment. In estimating the con-duet of the Government we must be guided by the test of certain touchstones, and if your Lordships will refer to the utterances of the different Members of the Government, it will be found that they are all consistent in their statements of their policy. If your Lordships will refer to the utterances of the Home Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary for War, and the Secretary for the Colonies, it will be found that they are all agreed in the definition of the Prime Minister that the position of this country is one of "conditional neutrality." When, therefore, the country is agitated in the manner which I have described—when Her Majesty's Ministers have been thus continuously addressed by public speakers in words of remonstrance and warning—notwithstanding that they have been consistent in the declarations of their policy, the necessary result must be to weaken the influence of this country abroad. My Lords, I have taken some pains to ascertain what really is the opinion of the country; and I am convinced that there is a real feeling of distrust of Russia—that there is a great admiration of the patriotism of the Turkish people, and of the gallantry and heroism of the Turkish troops—that there is a complete dislike of the ruling class of Turkey—but that there is throughout the country the greatest reluctance to be drawn into a war, and at the same time a feeling that we should stand firm on those points which have been enumerated by Her Majesty's Government, and which are very often and very simply described as "British interests." My Lords, I admit lam one of those who think that it is only when its sole interests are distinctly and materially involved that any country can be justified in resorting to the extreme measure of war. That being so, how are we to manage so as to avoid the terrible alternative of a war with Russia? The points upon which our Government have warned Russia are three. We have defined the three points in which it is to be considered that "British interests" are affected. We have again and again warned the Porto that it must not expect assistance from us, and ever since the war broke out Her Majesty's Government have declared their great desire for peace. We are not, therefore, likely to be called upon for a war unless in the defence of those "British interests" which have been defined by Her Majesty's Government. The "British interests" which are not to be touched without the consent of England are the Suez Canal, Constantinople, and the passage of the Straits. In the Speech from the Throne Her Majesty says— Hitherto, so far as the war has proceeded, neither of the belligerents has infringed the conditions on which my neutrality is founded, and I willingly believe that both parties are desirous to respect them, so far as it may be in their power. So long as these conditions are not infringed my attitude will continue the same. Her Majesty, however, goes on to say— But I cannot conceal from myself that, should hostilities be unfortunately prolonged, some unexpected occurrence may render it incumbent on me to adopt measures of precaution. I think your Lordships must fully concur in that latter sentence, and, that being so, Her Majesty's Advisers could not have taken any other course than that they have now taken—an appeal to Parliament in order that provision may be made against eventualities. When a great nation like England takes up the position we have taken—gives warnings to another country, and sees a possibility that those warnings may be disregarded—how can its Government avoid taking stops to support what they have said? If a country uses words which it is not pre-pared to back up, it will occupy a much lower position in the eyes of the world than it did before. I cannot think that at the present moment there is any danger to the Suez Canal, though no one can say that such danger may not arise if the war continue. At present the whole danger lies in respect of Constantinople and the passage of the Dardanelles. It is agreed by the highest authorities that Constantinople ought never to be in the hands of any but a neutral Power. If it were, there could only be one course open to this country— that of keeping an increased Fleet in the Mediterranean, which would, of course, involve a very much increased charge to the taxpayers of this country. Not only would the possession of Constantinople by Russia be dangerous to us in an international sense, but I do not think it would be favourable to the development of free trade or of British commerce. There has been much discussion and difference of opinion as to the effect which the possession of Constantinople by such a Power as Russia would have on our communications with India. Very high authorities—among them, I believe, the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India—are of opinion that the importance of the occupation of Constantinople has been overrated in that respect. Well, however that may be, there is an aspect of the question which ought not to be lost sight of. The agitation now felt in India as regards the issues of the war and the attitude of England is unprecedented; and I am assured from reliable private sources that the Native Princes are looking closely to the events of the present time in order that they may be able to estimate the power of this country in respect of our great Indian Empire. Hostile Chiefs, who hope to, at some time or other, sot up independent Principalities, are looking forward to any events which may result in lowering the power and the reputation of England. I rejoice, then, that in Her Majesty's Speech the world has evidence that Her Majesty's Ministers have made up their minds to boldly face the difficulties of the situation, and to propose such measures—unpalatable though for the moment they may be — as may be necessary to sustain the interests, the welfare, and the prosperity of the British Empire. I still hope that there will be no occasion for action on the part of England. Austria, it is understood, has declared her adherence to the Treaty of Paris; and the previous character of the Czar entitles him to as much trust in his declarations as the extraordinary difficulties of his position will allow, and that he will not go back from his pledged word as to the conditions in which English interests are declared to be involved. Therefore I trust there will be no necessity for our intervention. My Lords, Her Majesty in Her Gracious Speech then refers to the condition of Native affairs in South Africa —I trust that the hope expressed by Her Majesty of the peaceable and satisfactory settlement of this question may be realized:—And on this point may I be allowed to say that it has always struck mo that it will be necessary in regard to that country to do as we did in the olden days in regard to other colonies—namely, to organize local forces for the protection of the States. My Lords, Her Majesty also refers in Her Gracious Speech to the terrible Famine which has ravaged Southern India. I rejoice that that great calamity is nearly at an end; and I sincerely trust that the Commission that is to be appointed will be able to discover, in the investigation of the causes of the present Famine, the means of preventing these deplorable calamities in future. The subject is a very difficult one, and it is to be regretted that one of the greatest orators in this country should have recently propounded a scheme so haphazard and incomplete that it only needed a stroke of the pen from that distinguished Indian official, Sir James Fitz Stephen, to accomplish its entire refutation, and to show how unsound were the premisses of those who supported the plan. My Lords, I am glad to see that amid these great and difficult questions, Her Majesty's Government are not unmindful of measures of domestic legislation. We are promised by Her Majesty's Government the introduction of measures for the improvement of our local administration, for the consolidation of Acts affecting the condition of our operative classes, and of the Law relating to Summary Jurisdiction; and upon the very important subject of the Cattle Disease, which has so seriously affected the food question of this Kingdom. For Scotland we are told there will be introduced measures for remedying a grievance of which the Scotch have long complained in respect of their Roads and Bridges, and with reference to the Endowed Schools and Hospitals of that country. And attention will be invited to the subjects of Intermediate Education and the Grand Jury Law of Ireland. Finally, we are promised a very important measure of legal reform—the reduction into one Act of the whole law and procedure relating to Indictable Offences. In conclusion, my Lords, I have to thank your Lordships for the patience with which you have heard mo. I cannot say that I do not look upon the probability of war with dread, seeing the present state of our manufacturing interests and the condition of the labouring population, large numbers of whom are either out of employment or receiving reduced wages; but I dread still more the consequences of looking on calmly whilst the interests of the nation are in danger. Should that danger come, I hope we shall present an united front and profit by the words of warning addressed by Her Majesty's Government to the country. The evils that have been referred to may not exist in the immediate present—they do not exist; but they will, if left alone, increase year by year, and by-and-bye become a serious danger to the country. My Lords, I now move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, thanking Her Majesty for Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech from the Throne, as follows:— MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN, WE, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament. We humbly thank Your Majesty for taking this early opportunity of acquainting us with the efforts made by Your Majesty to terminate the war now devastating Eastern Europe and Armenia. We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that, after having unsuccessfully striven to avert that war, Your Majesty, whilst declaring Your Majesty's intention to observe neutrality so long as the interests of the Empire, as defined by Your Majesty's Government, were not threatened, yet expressed an earnest desire to profit by any opportunity that might present itself for promoting a peaceful settlement of the questions at issue between the belligerent Powers. We thank Your Majesty for informing us that, the successes obtained by the Russian arms having convinced the Porte of the desirability of bringing hostilities to a close, the Government of the Sultan addressed to the Neutral Powers, parties to the Treaties relating to the Turkish Empire, an appeal for their good offices. We humbly 'thank Your Majesty for informing us that as it did not appear to the majority of the Powers that they could usefully comply with this request, Your Majesty agreed, in response to a separate appeal from the Porte, to inquire of the Emperor of Russia whether His Imperial Majesty would entertain overtures for peace. We thank Your Majesty for informing us that the Emperor expressed, in reply, his earnest desire for peace, and stated his opinion as to the course to be pursued for its attainment. We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that, through Your Majesty's good offices, communications have taken place between the Governments of Russia and Turkey, which Your Majesty earnestly trusts may lead to a pacific solution of the points at issue, and that no efforts on Your Majesty's part will be wanting to promote that end. We thank Your Majesty for informing us that hitherto neither belligerent has infringed the conditions on which Your Majesty's neutrality is founded, and that Your Majesty willingly believes that both parties are desirous to respect them, so far as it may be in their power. That so long as these conditions are not infringed Your Majesty's attitude will continue the same, but that Your Majesty cannot be blind to the fact that, should hostilities be unfortunately prolonged, some unexpected occurrence may render it incumbent upon Your Majesty to adopt measures of precaution. That such measures could not be effectually taken without adequate preparation, and that Your Majesty trusts to the liberality of Parliament to supply the means which may be required for that purpose. We humbly thank Your Majesty for directing that papers on these affairs shall be laid before us, and for informing us that Your Majesty's relations with all foreign Powers continue to be friendly. We rejoice with Your Majesty that the famine which has ravaged Southern India is nearly at an end, and we thank Your Majesty for informing us of the strenuous and successful exertions made by the Local Governments, powerfully seconded by the liberal aid of Your Majesty's subjects at home and in the Colonies, to relieve the sufferings of the population; and also for an announcement that an inquiry will be made as to the best measures for dealing with such calamities in the future. We thank Your Majesty for informing us that in consequence of the condition of native affairs in South Africa, Your Majesty has thought it expedient to reinforce the troops in that part of the Empire, and we join with Your Majesty in trusting that a peaceful and satisfactory settlement of all differences may be shortly obtained. We humbly assure Your Majesty that our careful consideration shall be given to the measures which may be submitted to us, and we earnestly trust that the blessing of the Almighty may attend and guide our deliberations.

THE EARL OF LOUDOUN

My Lords, in rising to second the Address so ably moved by my noble Friend (the Earl of Wharncliffe), I must claim that forbearance which is always extended to one who addresses your Lordships for the first time. And at such a time as this, when the eyes of Europe are on your Lordships' House, it is a very hard task which I have to perform. The reference to the Eastern Question contained in Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech, recalls the memories of the Crimean War, by which we were called upon to rise in protection of British interests. Many of your Lordships stood forward then in support of those interests, and I am sure you would be prepared to do so again should the necessity arise. The noble Earl who moved the Address has spoken at some length on the Eastern Question, and I think I cannot do better than conclude my remarks on the subject by quoting the words used in 1856 by the noble Earl the present Prime Minister, who is sitting in front of me, who was then in Opposition, and was opposed to the continuance of the war for the sake of adding lustre to our arms; but said that the spirit of the nation was such that— There was no sum which Parliament would not cheerfully vote, or her people cheerfully raise, to vindicate her honour and maintain the independence and interests of her kingdom."—{Life of the Prince Consort, vol. 3, p. 435.] With regard to the Indian Famine, it is gratifying to think that such a calamity has been alleviated by open hearts and hands in England, and by able administration in India itself. The question of irrigation in India is most important, and it is to be hoped that it will receive due consideration. There was an important meeting in Birmingham last night, reported in The Standard to-day, at which Sir Arthur Cotton, who has been connected with engineering in India for more than half a century, spoke of the great works of irrigation which had boon carried out by the Government, who had spent £20,000,000 on it. But he added that much of course remained to be done, and that it was often a very good investment.

An alteration in the constitution of County Boards is much needed in many parts of the country, and it is to be hoped that the plan of the Government will satisfy the ratepayers. Factory Law Consolidation will, I hope, tend to develop industry and promote the interests of those concerned in one of the great sinews of the country. I trust that the Bills to be laid before your Lordships in regard to Cattle Disease may enforce such precautions that we shall not have another outburst of that calamity for many years to come; and, as to the Roads and Bridges Bill, I hope that will tend to the improvement of the roads —if roads in Scotland can be improved. As to the Endowment of Schools and Hospitals, I hope that legislation on that subject will be effective, and that it will be of such a character as will relieve people of the fear that in making bequests the advantages may not be enjoyed by their successors and by the class of persons for whom they were intended, thus doing away with the founders' intentions.

The necessity of Intermediate Education in Ireland is more apparent every day, but will, I fear, prove rather a difficult question, owing to the fact that many parts of the country are very thinly populated, and also considering the various conditions of the people; but any legislation which may tend to promote better instruction would be a distinct gain.

My Lords, I have to thank you for the kindness with which you have listened to the few remarks I have made, and I beg to second the Address. [See p. 13.]

EARL GRANVILLE

My Lords—If on the first night of the Session it is regarded as the duty of the Opposition to criticize the whole policy and conduct of the Government on every possible subject, I am afraid I shall not perform that duty successfully to-night. I know that the minds of your Lordships are entirely absorbed in one great Question, and that on that Question you must much desire to hear a statement from the opposite Bench at the earliest possible opportunity; and I only rise now because I believe my doing so may be the means of eliciting that statement before the debate proceeds much further. I venture to promise your Lordships that I shall not interpose very long between the speeches you have just heard and the Ministerial statement. My Lords, I last year remarked that it was a matter of congratulation for your Lordships' House that Her Majesty's Government, from whatever side they may be chosen, is able year after year to select young Peers who are able to perform that most difficult task of moving and seconding the Address with great credit to themselves and with great promise for the future. When about a fortnight ago I saw it stated that my noble Relative (the Earl of Wharncliffe) had been selected to move the Address on this occasion, it occurred to me that, while no doubt the Government could not have exhausted the number of youthful Peers on their side, who would have addressed the House with discretion and ability, yet that upon so critical an occasion they had thought it desirable to secure the services of a noble Lord of more mature ago, who is not without experience in your Lordships' House, and whom I have heard addressing your Lordships before now with great effect, and who, without going into details, might give your Lordships a satisfactory outline of the policy of the Government in respect of the Eastern Question. The noble Earl (the Earl of Warncliffe) having professed to speak without a knowledge of the intentions of Her Majesty's Government, it perhaps took away some of the interest of his observations. But I am glad that on some, at least, of the points to which he referred, he was speaking his own individual opinions and not those of Her Majesty's Government. I am not, my Lords, going into a general criticism of measures promised in or omitted from the Queen's Speech. Were I to do so no doubt the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) would criticize my remarks very severely. Last year, on the opening night, I complained that in the Speech from the Throne there was no mention of a Burials Bill. I found, however, that I had been rather premature, for Her Majesty's Government did bring in a Burials Bill. I shall only say that I trust that the fact of there being no mention of it in the Speech of this year, is no proof that the Government will not bring in a Burials Bill this year, and that their attempt at legislation in that direction will be in accordance with the opinions of the majority of your Lordships' House. I saw that the other day my noble Friend the President of the Council, in his usual genial way, made some complaint of the work of this House last Session, and of the way in which the Business of Parliament had been dealt with. Now, I think he hardly ought to have been the person to complain of that, seeing that, with the exception of that unfortunate Burials Bill, hardly any legislation was offered to us. The noble Duke in this respect reminds me of the offender who was convicted of the murder of his father and mother, and who, when the Judge was about to pass sentence upon him, exclaimed—"Have pity on me, my Lord; I am an unfortunate orphan." I hope that some of the Bills that are mentioned in the Speech will be introduced in your Lordships' House. As to the Famine in India, the feeling shown in this country certainly is matter of congratulation; and as to the very important subject of the disturbances at the Cape, I am glad that Her Majesty's Government are able to take so hopeful a view of the prospects in that quarter.

Having now said a few words as to the last part of the Queen's Speech, I wish to address myself for a few moments to the beginning. The noble Earl who moved the Addresss was good enough to state that he did not consider that the Leaders of Her Majesty's Opposition had in any way embarrassed Her Majesty's Government in their action respecting this war. In bearing that testimony he used nearly the same words as Mr. Hardy, and I am glad to accept the compliment as I believe it to be true.

THE EARL OF WHARNCLIFFE

I never read Mr. Hardy's speech.

EARL GRANVILLE

I did not accuse the noble Earl of plagiarism, and am glad to find that his declaration was spontaneous. As to what the noble Earl said of the statements of other Members of the Opposition, it is not necessary that I should defend those Gentlemen—they are able enough to defend themselves; but I may say that I do not think the accusations made against them apply now. The accusation made against them last year was that they had en- couraged Russia in the same way that Burke and Chatham had encouraged the North American Colonies to revolt against this country. In another part of his speech the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War pointed out what is perfectly true— that Her Majesty Government, at the outset of the negotiations, and therefore a considerable time before the war, had announced to all the Powers that they would give no assistance to Turkey, an announcement which, coming from a Government, must have been much more re-assuring to a would-be belligerent than any language held even by the most distinguished men in Opposition. I do not propose to go over the history of the last 36 months in any detail—it is too well known to your Lordships—the six months' diplomatic inaction before the Andrassy Note, the mode of dealing with that Note, and subsequently the mode in which the Berlin Memorandum was rejected. I do not wish to repeat my conviction, so often expressed, that it was to that unfortunate mode of dealing with the Berlin Memorandum that most of the subsequent misfortunes are owing. Then came the proposal of a Conference—and I will not weary you with what has so often been said of the circumstances which made the success of that Conference impossible. When we complained of those circumstances at the beginning of last year as having produced the inevitable failure of the Conference, we were told—"You are quite mistaken in thinking that the Conference has been a failure. It has not accomplished all that we desired, but it has had one happy result—namely, the good understanding that has been arrived at between the Great Powers of Europe and the knowledge of each other's views—which is full of promise for the future." Then came the London Protocol, with its odd little excrescences; and soon afterwards that declaration of war which we anticipated at the opening of the Session as the probable result of the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and which I described as pregnant with inconvenience and danger. There was considerable alarm in the country and in Parliament lest we ourselves should be dragged into this war; but towards the end of the Session there was a great debate in the House of Commons, and especially a speech of Mr. Cross, which was really the summary of a despatch of the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby), and which, as Mr. Cross has since said, embodied the views of a united Cabinet, greatly calmed the feeling of excitement on the part of the public. A speech delivered by the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury), and one made in the month of August by Sir Stafford Northcote, tended in the same direction—though I cannot agree with the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Wharn-cliffe) that all Her Majesty's Ministers spoke exactly in the same tone. Up to nearly the end of the Session the Russians had seemed to be carrying everything before them, both in Asia and in Europe. What has happened during the Recess? As regards the war, its tide appeared to change. The Russians seemed paralyzed both in Europe and Asia. The Turks, on the contrary, not only maintained the character for physical courage for which they are known, but more energy was shown by the Government, and more skill by their officers, than had been attributed to them. It was only within the last two months that the fortune of war changed again, and the Russians have been as victorious as they were in the first instance expected to be; while Turkey, in its present state, is without effectual means of resistance. If we look back at what happened during the same time in this country, we find that uneasiness was gradually produced as time went on, chiefly owing to the language used—in different degrees but with the same tendency—by the Conservative Press, and uncontradicted by any organ supporting the Government. The 9th of November, which, as somebody has remarked, is an important day for the Turk, was anxiously expected. It was known that the First Lord of the Treasury would speak, and that it was an occasion on which he did not always observe that remarkable reticence of which he is often so judicious a master. Well, that great civic dinner had anything but a re-assuring effect upon those who were fearful that we might be dragged into a war which we had failed to prevent, and that we might be found fighting in favour of the Turk in order to safeguard British interests, some of which were of no importance and others not likely to be assailed. It was a dinner given by a Conservative Lord Mayor in presence of an almost entirely Conservative audience to Her Majesty's Ministers, all of whom, I believe without exception, made it a point to attend. The whole Corps Diplomatique was invited to attend, to do honour to Her Majesty's Government; not only Count Schouvaloff was absent, but not one Ambassador of the Great Powers accepted the invitation. The Representatives of Belgium, Holland, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Denmark were nowhere to be seen. But there was one exception. The Turkish Ambassador— a Christian diplomatist, who, during a long residence in this capital, has made himself very popular—came. He was received with enthusiasm. He made a speech which I thought able and well adapted to his audience, and which the Prime Minister characterized as modest and interesting. I suppose the modesty consisted in this—that he attributed exclusively to the example of the British nation the great Constitutional liberties which the Turks have enjoyed ever since the massacre of the Janissaries. He reminded his audience with pride that the father of the present Sultan had inaugurated his reign by a Proclamation guaranteeing the life, property, and honour of all his subjects, without distinction of race or creed. He showed how those principles were afterwards developed by numerous and important political and administrative reforms, and finally how the great work had been crowned by the glorious Constitution accorded by the present Sultan. All this, including the last observation, was received with cheers. I wonder whether the Secretaries of State for Foreign Affairs and for India, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer cheered, and whether they mentally retracted some things not altogether complimentary they had said about this Constitution. The noble Earl the First Lord of the Treasury followed, and spoke with his usual felicity on general subjects and on the Eastern Question. He, as might be expected, said nothing in contradiction to what had been said by his Colleagues; but, whether it was owing to his enthusiasm for the Turks, or to an allusion to the Emperor of Russia having been misinterpreted by his audience as a sneer, or to his lan- guage about neutrality, which he chiefly defended on the ground that it was advantageous to the Turks, and that it might be forsaken—whatever might be his intention, the effect of what he said undoubtedly led those who were exciting a feeling for war in the country to think that he was not on the side of peace, and to produce the same belief on those who maintained the duty of neutrality. These opinions were not checked, until luckily the noble Lord (Lord Campbell), whom I see behind me, headed a deputation which has become historical to the Foreign Office. In answer to the statements of this deputation the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) made a speech which I believe appeared to the country to be the embodiment of good sense, and to be a true example of that moral courage which, disdaining sensational topics, explains to others less well-informed how things really are. The country, therefore, had a right to believe that the policy of neutrality and abstention from helping the Turks was unchanged. In the meanwhile, Parliament had been further prorogued to the 17th of January —to this day—and the country was surprised some days—I think a week— before Christmas by a communiqué to all the newspapers that this meeting was to be for the transaction of Public Business. No explanation was given of the object of the meeting; but the supporters in the Press of Her Majesty's Government announced that it was in itself in the nature of a warning to Russia—in short, 0110 of those numerous little demonstrations of "benevolent neutrality" which have added so little to our dignity or strength, and which have had no practical result, excepting, possibly, to irritate Russia, and certainly to encourage the Turks. But not many days ago the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Carnarvon) made a speech which produced a great effect. It was on the lines of that which the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) had made to the deputation to which I have alluded—it could only be taken as the opinion of the Cabinet, though probably expressed in stronger language than would have been held by some of his Colleagues. The noble Earl gave no reason for the unexpected stop of summoning Parliament thus early— nor from this speech could it have been guessed that the Government proposed at the eleventh, or rather the twelfth, hour, to ask Parliament to help them to prepare for precautions against a contingency unexpected by them. But to-day we have the reasons given by Her Majesty's Government, and which they have placed in Her Majesty's mouth, for assembling Parliament on this day. They are two— I have thought fit to assemble you before the ordinary time of your meeting in order that you might become acquainted with the efforts I have made to terminate the War now devastating Eastern Europe and Armenia, and that I might have the advice and assistance of my Parliament in the present state of public affairs. The second is a good and laudable reason for assembling Parliament; but, as regards the first, judged by the light of the subsequent passages in the Speech, and without further explanation which I have no doubt whatever Ministers following me will give, it is inconsistent with fact. It seems impossible that on the 18th of December the Cabinet should have decided to assemble Parliament in order to inform them of their efforts to terminate the war, when it would appear from the Speech that the only transaction had been a general appeal from Turkey, upon which we did not act; and as to the separate appeal which came from Turkey, on which we did act, it only came some 10 days after the resolution to assemble Parliament had been taken. The explanations which will be given will no doubt dissipate what now looks as if, in so serious a document as a Speech from the Throne—which was possibly under the consideration of the Cabinet for more than one sitting—it was nothing but an afterthought. With regard to the general Circular of the Porte, it is said that it was rejected by a majority of the Powers. I may ask whether England was one of that majority, or whether the phrase is a euphonious way of expressing that Her Majesty's Government, whom even some of their own Members have described as always leading Europe in the negotiations on the Eastern Question, were in a minority of one. However that may be, it is satisfactory to learn that Her Majesty's Government are able to speak with some hope of an approaching peace. Whether that peace has been promoted or delayed by the efforts of Her Majesty's Government we shall be better able to judge when we know something of the facts. But the important point which is approached with so much care and caution in the Speech is the demand upon Parliament for assistance to prepare against unexpected occurrences. We are told that the interests of the Queen's Empire have been defined by Her Majesty's Government—I presume in the despatch of the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) to Prince Gortchakoff—and that as long as those interests are not threatened this country will adhere to the neutrality which it has proclaimed. Now, in answer to these definitions of our neutrality, assurances were given by Prince Gortchakoff which were received by Her Majesty's Government, so far as I am aware, without one word of dissatisfaction. Now, either these assurances were considered satisfactory or they were not. If satisfactory, in what respect have they lately been invalidated? If unsatisfactory, or deemed not to be worthy of credit, why did you not then ask Parliament to enable you to take precautions, instead of deferring to this moment—when the whole affair is virtually at an end—unless, indeed, by this new demonstration you encourage Turkey to prolong a struggle which will more completely destroy her, and which will afford grounds to Russia to increase her demands. But if there are altered circumstances, how is it that we are informed of them on this particular day? If on the 18th of December they appeared urgent, why did you delay asking for the necessary means for a whole month? If they were not urgent, why could you not let things take their course, and by the further Prorogation to the end of this month avoid all the unnecessary alarm that has been excited, the further depression that trade has suffered, and the damage which has been inflicted upon the revenue. The noble Earl who moved the Address stated—I think accurately—what he believed to be the general conclusions of the country on this matter; whether they are wise or unwise I do not say. He observed that there was great jealousy of Russia—which I quite admit; that there was great discontent with the Turkish Government—which I quite admit; that there was great admiration of the qualities of the Turkish soldier—which I quite admit; and he coupled with these three things a strong desire for neutrality and to avoid war. It is perfectly-clear that the demand which you now make runs counter to this desire, and will excite a great deal of feeling in the country. But I would put the matter on broader ground than that. Is it advisable, if even you are able—as you undoubtedly can by the majorities you have in both Houses of Parliament—to obtain the means for a great increase of your material strength? How far will such increase of your material strength be neutralized by the moral loss you will sustain from the opposition you will provoke and the excitement you will produce, not merely among one Party, but also among those who are perfectly uninfluenced by Party considerations in this matter? I may be asked whether I am indifferent to British interests. I believe there is no man in this House who is in the slightest degree indifferent to British interests. It is impossible that any of us, and more especially those of us who are statesmen, should be too watchful of British interests; but it is possible to talk a little too much about them. There are two things which may be safely said of British interests. One is that, like the possessions of the Queen and like the commerce of this country, they extend nearly over the whole world. The other is that in very few cases indeed are those interests isolated, and several form the interests of some other country. The very multiplicity of these interests makes it possible to put them in different categories. The noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) stated, with absolute truth, that the greatest interest of this country is peace. It is a mere truism to say so. No one can gainsay the declaration, considering that we are the greatest commercial and industrial country of the world. But is the interest of peace confined to ourselves? Is it not desirable for Germany, for Prance, for Austria, and for Italy? Is it not a necessity for Turkey; and of the greatest importance to conquering, but impoverished and bleeding Russia? Therefore the interest of peace is one of which we cannot claim a monopoly, but which belongs to the whole world. Our material interests, from their very multiplicity, must be considered in different classes or categories. There are some which deserve the watchful care of our Government, which ought to be fos- tered by diplomatic persuasion and even pressure, but for the maintenance of which—keeping in view their relative importance—it would be madness to go to war. There are others which we share with other countries, which may properly be maintained even at the risk of war, if we receive the moral and material support of countries as much or more affected by them as ourselves; but which, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer put it so well last year, are common interests, for the maintenance of which we are not to be called upon to bear the exclusive burden. There are, again, vital interests, for which, with Allies or without Allies, at all risks and at all hazards, a Government would fail in its duty if it did not call upon all the great though latent powers of this country and struggle to the bitter end. And that country would be ill-advised, however strong in military resources, that would "with a light heart" think they could with impunity engage in a contest with this country when united and convinced that they are justified by a sound policy, by justice, and by necessity. Now, my Lords, there is one point which strikes me as singular, though it is possibe that a satisfactory explanation can be given of it. We have been constantly told— circumstances seem to indicate it—and I, for one, believe it—that since the beginning of this war there has been an understanding between Russia and Germany and Austria, as to the limits beyond which the Russians would not try to carry their demands. If this be the case, it seems hardly possible that our diplomacy has been so helpless that we have not been able to obtain confidential communications from one or both of those Powers what those terms are. We are told in the Speech that Her Majesty's Government's relations with all Foreign Powers continue to be friendly—which I am glad to hear; but it would, indeed, be a state of isolation if we could obtain no knowledge of the agreement which has been entered into, and which, considering the circumstances, military power, and geographical position of the three Empires, must so greatly influence the decision which will be arrived at. I should like Her Majesty's Government to tell us whether they have this knowledge or not—though I do not ask them to tell us what that knowledge is; but it clearly makes all the difference whether they possess it or do not, and whether the demands of Russia are such as really affect British interests or are not. If they are not, the Government certainly ought not to have met Parliament with a flourish of this sort, that they were bound to summon Parliament to obtain additional assistance. There is one thing which I am glad to note—namely, that the language of the Speech as to the necessity of preparation for precautions against unexpected occurrences only applies in the case of the prolongation of hostilities. Therefore, I draw this conclusion—that it is possible that if hostilities are not prolonged there will be no necessity for any such demand. The Papers promised will show whether peace has been promoted or delayed by the action of the Government. The cessation of those hostilities depends upon the perception of the Turks that they are unable to defend themselves, and that they cannot expect succour from elsewhere; and, on the other hand, on the conviction of the Emperor of Russia that his reputation, which now stands high, must depend before the world and in history on the fairness and moderation of the terms which he exacts beyond those safeguards to the Christian subjects of the Porte which by all his declarations he is bound to obtain. I am glad to hear, and I am happy to believe, that in giving effect to Her Majesty's Speech, we do not bind any side of the House to any particular policy laid down in the Speech.

THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD

My Lords, the noble Earl who has just addressed you as a Leader of a Constitutional Party has not ventured to find fault with the Government because they advised the Sovereign to call Parliament together at this period. The course he has taken is what might have been expected from one occupying the position of the noble Earl. But, at the same time, the noble Earl has used every means his skilful rhetoric could dictate to impress upon your Lordships that the assembling of Parliament was unnecessary and might have been very prejudicial. My Lords, I think your Lordships will agree, if you take a calm view of the circumstances which were existing and had occurred before the Government determined so to advise the Sovereign, the summoning of Parliament was not an unreasonable act, but one, indeed, quite justified. The noble Earl has referred to the state of affairs in the theatre of war at the time when Parliament was prorogued. It is unnecessary for me to call your Lordships' attention particularly to that point. Your Lordships will recollect that when Parliament was prorogued Her Majesty, in Her Gracious Speech, while regretting the existence of that war, promised Her Parliament that no efforts which Her Majesty could use would be wanting on Her part, if opportunity offered, of using Her influence for terminating that war. The Government left Parliament with that engagement. The circumstances that then existed were most unpromising for any attempt by negotiation or amicable interference to terminate the contest. But as time advanced—at a later period in the autumn—particularly after the fall of Plevna—a very great change occurred in those circumstances. The course of the war was favourable to Russia in Asia as well as in Europe. That equality which for a time seemed to exist between the rival combatants had entirely disappeared, and it appeared to the Government, watching these affairs with an interest which the House, I am sure, will give them due credit for, that events were ripening to a degree that afforded a probability, as time advanced, of terminating, by the friendly influence of the neutral Powers, that terrible contest.

My Lords, the noble Earl has referred to the circumstances under which we felt it to be our duty to advise Her Majesty to call Parliament together for the transaction of Public Business three weeks or a month earlier than usual. It was on the 12th of December that the rumours had reached us from the Porte, which ultimately took the form of an appeal to the signataries of the Treaty of Paris, to assist the Porto in arriving at peace. I understood the noble Earl to say that it was impossible from the dates that the meeting of Parliament on the advice of Her Majesty's Government could have been influenced by the diplomatic movements at Constantinople; but if he recollects he will find that on the 12th of December the first effort was made by the Porte with that object, and Parliament was summoned for Business on the 22nd. Therefore, it must appear to your Lordships that it was mainly on the great change which had occurred in the diplomatic position of affairs that we were induced to believe that Parliament should be called together. I think the noble Earl made some distinction between the first appeal by the Porte to the signataries of the Treaty of Paris, which were unsuccessful, and the appeal of the Government of Turkey—which was made to a certain degree on our suggestion—I believe it was simultaneously made by the Government of Turkey-—to Her Majesty's Government to interfere alone individually in consequence of the previous failure. But of course we were not ignorant of what had been going on in Constantinople; we were not ignorant of the change of temper there, and we had the opportunity of considering, long before the absolute diplomatic act occurred, what was the course we ought to recommend. The noble Earl wishes to know whether we refused the first appeal to the Porte, and whether we were in the majority or minority of the signataries who on that occasion expressed their opinion. Well, my Lords, the Papers which have been laid on the Table will give the noble Earl all the information he desires on that point; but, speaking generally, with reference to the step taken by Her Majesty's Government simultaneously with the second application of the Porte, I think I can recollect that every signitary to the Treaty of Paris had expressed assent, and, I believe, on the direct appeal and application of Her Majesty's Government. Therefore the noble Earl must know by our forwarding that appeal and knowing the temper in which it was accepted, we showed ourselves hopeful that it would be successful. We should have been very happy if it had been agreed by all the other Powers to act in concert to effect that object. The noble Earl therefore cannot be surprised that, when the first opportunity had failed, and we thought there was still a chance of a more favourable result, we should endeavour to act in perfect conformity with what we had done before, and in conformity with the language of the Queen's Speech on the Prorogation of Parliament. We accordingly did intimate to the Emperor of Russia that Turkey was anxious for peace, and thus opened communications between the two Powers on that point. I think the noble Earl must agree that this was a natural, a Constitutional, and a beneficial act. The noble Earl asked —"Why, if you had made up your minds that Parliament should be called together to consider urgent affairs, did you not call it sooner? You waited a month." It was not exactly a month, but I will not quarrel about a few days' error in the calculation of the noble Earl. But the noble Earl must know that you cannot call Parliament together at the will of a Minister at 24 hours' notice. You must call it together when there will be a fair chance of an adequate attendance in both Houses. At that period of the year Members are much scattered in different countries, and have many peculiar engagements which it is necessary to fulfil. The whole economy and life of the country are disturbed by the summoning of Parliament at an unusual period; and, besides, Christmas —when hallowed interests and associations must be attended to—formed part of the month. I think, therefore, if the noble Earl had been himself acting under similar circumstances, he would have considered what would be the most convenient period for Parliament to meet, and would have agreed with us and taken the same course. If he felt it to be wise and expedient to assemble Parliament, he would also feel it wise and expedient that Parliament should be assembled under circumstances which afford the least inconvenience to its Members, and which give fair assurance that both Houses shall be adequately represented when matters of State import and urgency are thus to be brought forward.

Well, my Lords, then the noble Earl said he challenged again the consistency of the policy of the Government; and really, what with reading extracts from newspapers, or referring to newspapers as authorities—

EARL GRANVILLE

I did not read extracts.

THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD

I beg the noble Earl's pardon—some of his expressions seemed to be borrowed from those lucubrations to which he referred, but by constantly harping on newspapers he has certainly made out a very strong case. If all the extreme Liberal organs which—because upon this question they do not agree with the noble Earl—are dubbed conveniently Conservative journals, and other authorities of that kind, are to be marshalled as authentic and documentary evidence that the English Government has adopted a particular policy, he can have no difficulty in proving his case, or, indeed, any case.

My Lords, I did not expect to hear again to-night of the Andrassy Note or the Berlin Memorandum. I thought that that part of the controversy had terminated, as I showed it ought, in the last Session of Parliament. The policy of the Government might have been erroneous, might have been infirm; but at any rate I think I may say it was not a vacillating policy. Whatever our policy may have been, it was open to the challenge of the noble Earl and his Friends. If we did wrong in accepting the Andrassy Note, or in rejecting the Berlin Memorandum, why did not the noble Earl and his Friends in the other House of Parliament challenge our policy, and take the opinion of Parliament upon the question? We have a right to infer that so far as our policy is concerned up to the end of last Session, that policy was accepted and sanctioned by the noble Earl and his Friends. I say again, that our policy may be erroneous or may be feeble. Those are fair issues for Parliamentary discussion. Bring forward your Motions; argue upon those issues, and we will fairly meet you, and let the Houses of Parliament and the country decide upon the question. But you have no right to assume that ours is a vacillating policy unless you can produce facts to establish such a statement. You cannot—you have no right—to make such an accusation depend merely on surmise and innuendo and anonymous communications. Why, the noble Earl knows very well that there is not the slightest evidence that there has ever been any difference between my opinions and those of my Colleagues whom he has quoted with approbation and sympathy. I say that from the very first there never has been any hesitation by Her Majesty's Government as to the course of policy which they would pursue with regard to these great occurrences taking place in Eastern Europe. Our policy was not a hasty policy. It was not dependent merely on the Russians crossing the Pruth, or because some occurrences suddenly brought about a state of affairs which might not have been anticipated. Long before the war commenced—long before my noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury) attended the Conference at Constantinople, we had foreseen the possibility of the great struggle occurring. We had to consider what was the duty of English statesmen and what was the character of those British interests which might be affected by such a war, and what was the course we ought to pursue. We came, after long deliberation, to the conclusion that it was for the interests of this country to observe in that war a neutrality. In arriving at that conclusion it was not merely the value of the fortress of Kars or of the port of Batoum that we alone considered. We had to take a large view of the then existing circumstances —we had to consider the policy and the condition of many other countries; and we arrived at the unanimous decision— not a hasty one, but a unanimous decision—that it was our duty to observe a policy of neutrality in case of war between Russia and the Ottoman Empire. Well, I will say that from that policy we have never swerved. And I want to know what is the evidence that the noble Earl can bring forward that can fix upon any Members of Her Majesty's Government that we ever hesitated in observing that policy? Now, your Lordships will agree that if our policy was vacillating—if it was ambiguous, if it was deserving of suspicion, the noble Earl and his Friends had their legitimate and Constitutional opportunity of bringing these circumstances under the consideration of Parliament. They did not do so, and therefore we have a right to assume, if it were only for the convenience of debate and to promote the expeditious conduct of Public Business, that, having such an opportunity and not only losing it, but forfeiting it —willingly forfeiting it—the noble Earl and his Friends could not impute any misconduct on that account—at least until after the Prorogation of Parliament. Well, what happened? Nearly the last day—nearly the last hour before the Prorogation—though I do not like extracts, I will read to your Lordships a short extract of what I said on that occasion. It was on the Motion, afterwards withdrawn, of a noble Earl (the Earl of Feversham) upon the subject of the war. It was the opinion of the noble Earl that we should take some active interference in the war. I find that I used these words—the extract is from the authentic source, and it is literally correct. I said that— With regard to our policy I will only say that having been clearly expressed it has bee consistently maintained. Without entering into an unnecessary discussion I may remind your Lordships that when this cruel and destructive war began Her Majesty's Government announced that they would adopt a policy of strict, but conditional, neutrality. The condition was that the interests of the country should not be imperilled. And subsequently I said— A communication was made to the Russian Government which more precisely defined what, in our opinion, 'British interests' were held to consist of; and to this communication Her Majesty's Government received a reply which I think I am authorized in describing as conciliatory and friendly. The Government have no reason to doubt that Russia will in an honourable manner observe the conditions which were the subject of that correspondence; but, however that may be, in any case the maintenance of those conditions is the policy of Her Majesty's Government."—[3 Hansard, ccxxxvi. 668.] Now, I want to know what right has the noble Earl to assume that I have used expressions on the subject of the policy of the Government which are contrary to that statement, which was made while he was sitting facing me.

EARL GRANVILLE

I used no such expressions as the noble Earl has attributed to me.

THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD

No —you did not use words precisely to that effect, but you used a great many words which, when added up, amounted to a sum which conveyed to the House a meaning almost exactly the same.

My Lords, the noble Earl went out of his way to make a further allusion to another statement with respect to our policy which I made in the course of the year. Now, I must say I am free from the imputation during the last six months of appealing to my countrymen in any extraordinary manner. I conceive that one of the greatest charms of life is not to make speeches and write letters. I did not write a single letter on public affairs during the last six months, and I only made one speech upon politics, and that upon an occasion which by the custom of the country may be called a Con- stitutional occasion. I did not press myself forward. It was an assembly I was bound by the courtesy of public life to attend, and, attending, I was bound to express the opinion of Her Majesty's Government on public affairs. What did I then say? The noble Earl says that speech raised agitation in the country. I distinctly remember—not having that speech here—that on that occasion I spoke in the presence of all my Colleagues, and that I said that the policy of Her Majesty's Government remained as it had been from the first, that it was completely unchanged, that it was a policy of conditional neutrality; from that policy we had never swerved, and that nothing could induce us, so far as we could see, to swerve. All my Colleagues were present and have entirely agreed to that declaration. That was the only time I opened my lips during the last six months on the state of public affairs until I address your Lordships to-night. I am taunted with the fact that the Russian Ambassador did not attend at the Guildhall, and that other Ambassadors also lost their dinners —almost the cookery of the civic festival was criticized. I believe some persons have made that one of the grounds of the charges against the conduct and policy of Her Majesty's Government. Now, my Lords, let me say one word upon a point on which the noble Earl has dwelt much, and that is "conditional neutrality"—a neutrality conditional upon British interests being regarded and maintained. The noble Earl says, quoting a very felicitous remark of my noble Friend the Secretary of State (the Earl of Derby), whose absence we deplore on this occasion, that the greatest of British interests is peace. Well, that was a felicitous expression, but it was an expression of rhetoric; but the noble Earl takes it to be a statistical fact, as if he found it in a Blue Book. The noble Earl thereon says that if peace is a British interest, it is also a European interest—it is an Austrian interest, it is an Italian interest, it is a French interest—in short, it is a universal interest. But the noble Earl rode off upon a mere trick of rhetoric, because we know very well when we talk of "British interests" we mean material British interests—interests of that character which are sources of the wealth or securities for the strength of the country. We do not want to be informed that the cardinal virtues are British interests. We possess and endeavour to exercise them, but they have not that peculiar character which the British interests that we refer to possess. Then we are told that it is a contracted and selfish view of affairs to suppose our interests peculiar to this country, or, if they are peculiar, that we ought to be silent on the subject, and put them away in a corner. All I can say is, that if our conduct in this subject in defining what this country is interested in brings the imputation of selfishness, selfishness cannot be justly imputed to England alone. I do not know that there is any other country that has not very frankly declared that it has acted, and is acting, on the same principle. I do not know whether it will be on the Table to-night; but it will be seen in a few days by the noble Earl that, in a document which I am authorized to quote, there is a definition by an eminent statesman of what the position of Austria is at this moment. I read yesterday with great interest Count Andrassy's description of the situation of Austria. He says— The situation of Austria is a position of conditional neutrality, and our business is to watch over Austrian interests. It does not follow, however, that these expressions, which, according to the noble Earl, we first introduced into diplomatic language, have been very unsuccessful, for they have been adopted in a marked manner by a Power which is deeply concerned in these transactions. Germany, also, in her language, has used expressions which are no more free from selfishness than the expressions used by the English Government. When Prince Bismarck says that not the blood of a single Pomeranian peasant shall be shed in this war, do the noble Earl and his Friends sympathize with the expression? You may admire it; but you cannot say it is one entirely free from a sentiment of selfishness. What is the case with regard to France? France deplores what is taking place in the East—France feels that it would be agreeable to her to exercise herself an influence in the settlement of these vast questions; but she says that such is her position at present that she really can think only of herself, and cannot interfere. Well, these are all cases in which, I think, the noble Earl will find that selfishness which he imputes to the language of Her Majesty's Government.

EARL GRANVILLE

I beg pardon for interrupting the noble Earl; but I have never used any word or words imputing selfishness.

THE EARL OF BEACONSEIELD

No; you only deplored the contracted sense in which we conceived and expressed our policy and the object which we wish to secure. But your Lordships can judge what was the value of the noble Earl's observations if they did not involve this charge of selfishness.

My Lords, the noble Earl has made some remarks upon the grant which he contemplates from Her Majesty's Speech we are going to ask Parliament to supply Her Majesty with. Parliament being called together at a moment somewhat unexpected, and obviously in order to appeal to it for its support, the noble Earl seemed to argue that we were bound to describe the character of the military operations which might occur to justify this urgent appeal. Well, my Lords, I must decline to enter into any controversies of that kind. I think it is enough for us to say that Her Majesty's Government, pursuing the same policy which they have pursued from the first, and having brought about the commencement of negotiations which, I trust, may be successful in their result, but which may not be successful—that they have, in these circumstances, a ground upon which they can fairly appeal to Parliament and say—"Our policy is before you; it has been before you; we have not swerved from it in the slightest degree; but it is still our unshaken opinion that there are British interests which concern deeply the welfare of this country—interests which are sources of its wealth and securities for its strength, and which may be endangered if this contest goes on; and if you approve our policy, if you approve of a policy of neutrality which shall be conditional upon guarding those interests, we appeal to you with confidence that you will at least give us the means by which that guardianship may be upheld." I hope that in what I am about to refer to I do not misrepresent the noble Earl, who is always accusing me of misrepresenting him, when I say that the noble Earl deplored the state of isolation in which Her Majesty's Government has, by their management of affairs, placed this country. Well, that, my Lords, is a very serious charge, and no doubt if it were a true one it would be more than a serious charge for us; it would be a great injury to the country. But I think that on such a subject we are bound to examine and scrutinize with great impartiality before we adopt a conclusion so adverse not only to the abilities and the influence of Her Majesty's Government, but which, if true, would be injurious to Her Majesty's realm. I do not see, I confess, at the best that the noble Earl—or those who share with the noble Earl his opinions on the subject of isolation—I do not see that he has on this subject of isolation in any way stated facts to establish his opinion. The noble Earl, when he touched upon this subject, went back again to that unfortunate Berlin Memorandum. It appears that the rejection of the Berlin Memorandum was the commencement and the operative cause of our isolation. Now, in the first place, never wishing to have to mention the Berlin Memorandum again, I will say that that Memorandum was a document which ceased to exist because England refused to sanction it. That does not look like isolation or want of influence. Well, then, if there be any act which can prove national concert—if there be any arrangement in the world which can demonstrate national concert clearly and completely—surely it is a Conference. And what happens? Why, the very Power which you say has become isolated in consequence of its refusing to sanction the Berlin Memorandum is the Power that not only joins a Conference of the Great Powers, but proposes that Conference Is that a want of influence? Is that isolation? Well, if you really take a general view of what has occurred in all these transactions, the only Power that has done anything—and it has done much—has been England—England, which you say is so isolated; England, whose conduct defeated the Berlin Memorandum; England, whose suggestion called into existence the Conference. I should like to know whose influence it was that obtained the armistice for Servia? It was isolated England. It was this country in a state of isolation which effected that which could not be otherwise effected. And let me also ask you this—which is the Power which at this moment has secured the commencement of a hope for peace to Europe? Why, mighty Germany and anxious Austria, and France husbanding her resources, and the other Great Powers, have all declined, when the Porte appealed to them, to interfere in a task then beset with difficulties, and which might be considered, judging from their language, as hopeless. Yet isolated England did interfere, and the moment she interfered we had the commencement of these negotiations. No doubt the negotiations are most difficult—probably more difficult negotiations never were commenced; but they are real negotiations, which I have expressed my more than hope may lead, after, no doubt, surmounting many obstacles, to a suspension of this terrible conflict. But whether they are successful or not, what is the Power that has originated them? What Power had fanned the flame of hope, even when it was expiring, and at this moment has brought about a state of affairs which engages the thoughts of all the European Cabinets? Why, it was the Power which you say is isolated. The fact is there are two Powers which have withdrawn from the European concert. Those Powers are Russia and Turkey. Turkey was recognized as belonging to the European concert. Turkey, by her rash and reckless conduct, repudiated her position and lost it. Then Russia, which, in my opinion, was bound in every way by the most solemn Treaties to take no action without first conferring with the signataries of the Treaty of Paris, came forward, and she also quitted the European concert. England never quitted the European concert. It is not England that is isolated—no, my Lords, that is not our position; and in the attack which the noble Earl has made he has represented and re-echoed the attacks which have been made elsewhere —partly, no doubt, from ignorance, partly, no doubt, from thoughtlessness; but in a great degree by means of mechanical agitation. The noble Earl who represents this opinion has, in my mind, completely failed in the charge which he wishes to establish against Her Majesty's Government. I will, however, make this remark, as the subject of isolation has been brought forward. There are two kinds of isolation. There is an isolation that comes from decay, that comes from infirmity, that is a sign of impending insignificance—and all those symptoms which denote a falling or an expiring State. But there is also an isolation for a State which may arise from qualities very different—from self-confidence, from extreme energy, from abounding resources, and, above all, from the inspiration of a great cause. This country has before this been isolated. In the early years of this century it was isolated; but how and why was it isolated? It was isolated at the commencement of this century because among the craven communities of Europe it alone asserted and vindicated the cause of national independence. It was a great cause which your forefathers then maintained; and however depressed trade may be, whatever may be the circumstances brought forward to enervate the national mind—whatever may be the considerations introduced to prevent you from acting as your forefathers then acted—it may be your duty to follow in their footsteps. If that cause were again at stake, if there were a Power that threatened the peace of the world with a predominance fatal to public liberty and national independence, I feel confident that your Lordships would not be afraid of the charge of being isolated if you stood alone in maintaining such a cause and in fighting for such precious interests. My Lords, I rose after the noble Earl (Earl Granville) to vindicate the Government of which I am a Member from the charges which I think are unfounded. I do not think that the noble Earl has proved that in calling Parliament together we took a step which was unwise or unnecessary. I do not think the noble Earl has proved that the policy of the Government with regard to affairs in Eastern Europe has over been inconsistent from that which we have declared again and again. It has never swerved from our original conception and determination as to the course we ought to pursue. Nor do I think that the noble Earl has been successful in his sneers against British interests. I believe that this country thoroughly understands what are British interests, and that it will support the Government of the day if they find it necessary to take measures to secure those interests. I do not think the noble Earl has at all successfully established his position that this country is in a state of isolation. It is in a state of which it has no need to be ashamed. I believe that in the councils of Europe the influence of this country is felt, and greatly felt. May God grant that in the negotiations which are now proceeding that influence may increase! If it does increase, I will say on the part of the Government—and divided in our councils though they are said to be—I feel that lam expressing their unanimous opinion, their unanimous sentiment—that that influence will be exercised for the greatest interests of humanity. It will be exercised for the termination of these hostilities; it will be exercised in every way for the procuring of a peace which will be stable and enduring. But if we are called upon to vindicate our rights and to defend the interests of this country; if our present hopes and prospects are baffled; if there be circumstances which demand that we should appeal to Parliament again and again for means to vindicate the honour of the realm and to preserve and maintain the interests of the Empire, I am sure that Her Majesty's Government will never hesitate to take that course.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

My Lords, I listened with great delight to the ringing cheers with which noble Lords opposite greeted the conclusion of the speech of the Prime Minister—not only because that brilliant display of imagination—that corruscation of fireworks— deserved some tribute from them, but for another reason. Your Lordships' House is generally represented as being rather a "still pool," unruffled by the winds of passion, and through which even the strong currents of political feeling are seldom seen to run. But, my Lords, for my own part I have always held that if there were a question raised concerning the interests and honour of England, we would see that the House of Lords is an Assembly which can be deeply moved. My Lords, we admit on this side of the House that we are met together upon an occasion which concerns deeply, and which may concern more deeply, the honour and interests of England. We do not blame the Government—we are rather grateful to them—for having assembled Parlia- ment in this great crisis in our national history and in the history of Europe, and for having put into the mouth of the Queen words to the effect that she desired to have its counsel and advice at the present great juncture. I confess I listened to the speech of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Beaconsfield) with great disappointment. It was very able—it was very brilliant—but I think I am not wrong in saying it was nothing to the purpose. It scorned to have boon intended by him as a reply to some anticipated bitter, narrow-minded, personal attack upon the Government from my noble Friend behind me (Earl Granville), and he could not change the programme of his speech to suit the observations which were really made. My noble Friend behind mo, with that suavity of manner and acuteness of intellect which characterize him, said a few things, but surely in no offensive manner, surely not in any aggrieved Party spirit, indicating that he and his Friends had not perfect confidence in the consistency of the Government. And what did the noble Earl do? He spent half an hour in answering accusations which were never made. He talked with contempt of the Press; but it was to the Press he was looking when he made that speech; and it was from the Press that he had gathered the charges he answered, and not from the speech of the noble Earl (Earl Granville), which had been delivered, in fact, for the purpose of affording the Government an opportunity of making those statements upon great questions of public policy which your Lordships have a right to expect when we are called together at a great crisis in the history of Europe. We expected to hear from the Prime Minister some definite declaration of what he proposed to do. But the Prime Minister has only filled our ears with the east wind. He has answered imaginary attacks, and told us nothing. The noble Earl's principal answer was directed to the accusation of disunion in the Cabinet. Now, I have had some experience of stories of disunion in Cabinets, and know what they are worth generally. I never believe them. But the stories of disunion in the present Cabinet are not of the usual kind. They are founded—and not unfairly founded— upon the words of Ministers themselves and the language of their own supporters in the journals which are in their interest. [A noble LORD: What journals?] Oh! it is all very well to talk with such supreme contempt of the Public Press. Have we no relations with the Public Press? Are the Editors of newspapers never to be found in the antechambers of Ministers? How comes it that the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) never opens his mouth upon the Eastern Question but he is violently abused by the Conservative Press which is understood to represent the sentiments of other Members of the Government? I wonder how the noble Marquess likes the way in which he was treated by the Conservative Press when he was absent at Constantinople. ["Name!"] Name? I name all the Ministerial journals — every one of them. Foremost among them is The Daily Telegraph; then come The Morning Post, The Standard, and others. Will noble Lords deny that The Morning Post is a Conservative paper, or that The Standard is a Conservative paper? There are others which, although not supporters of the Government on its general policy, support it on the Eastern Question. And I say this—that not a word falls from the noble Marquess but which is vehemently attacked by the Conservative Press. I am almost ashamed of having boon led into these observations, but I have been led into them by the extraordinary speech which the noble Earl at the head of the Government has just delivered. If there have been rumours of disunion in the Cabinet, the Government themselves are responsible for them. Even their recent speeches lead to this. I will remind your Lordships of two Ministerial speeches which have recently been delivered. The first is that of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War at Edinburgh, who talked about drums and fifes and all sorts of things in a most warlike tone; the other was by the noble Lord the Postmaster General (Lord John Manners), who made warlike allusions to "the laurel of unquestioned victory being intertwined with the lily of lasting peace." When your Lordships come to contrast these speeches with the speeches of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (the Earl of Derby), and the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Carnarvon), surely it will not be denied that a very material difference of tone is observable. But, my Lords, even had the noble Earl not spoken to-night I should have been compelled to offer some words, if not of protest, at least of explanation to the House before assenting to the Address in answer to the Speech from the Throne. I do not intend to enter into the merits of the Eastern Question. But the Queen's Speech dwells so much upon the despatch of May 6, by the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby), defining what the Government mean by "British interests," that really the two documents have to be taken together—we cannot understand the Speech without referring to the despatch. But that despatch has never been criticized in this House. Now, the Government are fairly entitled to say that the despatch having been laid on the Table of the House during last Session, and no opposition having been expressed to it, we are committed to a general approval of its terms. If it is understood that the approval is general and nothing more, I have no objection to that interpretation of our conduct. But if we are called together to be consulted by the Crown, it is well that we should be perfectly open and candid. I will now say something, therefore, about the Government definition of "British interests." It is very easy to invent vague terms of this kind, in which all men concur, though in reality they may be divided by the most essential differences of opinion. I do not say that this is the case here, but I will say there is considerable danger of it. There are four things in this definition of "British interests," of which we have heard so much from the noble Earl opposite, in which, with some explanation, we may all cordially concur. Among the points in this despatch which are declared to touch British interests and honour, there is no mention made of "the integrity and independence of the Turkish Empire." The absence of those terms is one of the most important features in this despatch, and in the sentiment which it implies I do most cordially concur. There is not one word of a determination to uphold the integrity and independence of the Turkish Empire; and I rejoice at it—because if the Government have made up their minds to support the integrity of the Turkish Empire as it is conceived and provided for in the Treaties of 1856, they must have inserted it in that despatch. The absence of such a statement is, therefore, a most significant and a most satisfactory feature in respect of the policy of the Government. I now turn to the Suez Canal. That question was treated slightly by my noble Friend who moved the Address (the Earl of Warncliffe), because he said the Canal was in no clangor. I do not mean to dwell upon this subject, but I wish to say that no one is more heartily with the Government than I am in declaring broadly that England never will permit, at any cost, that any Power in Europe shall interfere with her direct access to India. I have no sympathy with the language of those who talk with bated breath about our conquests in India. We are not ashamed of our conquests in India. We do not require that any excuses should be made for the men who made those conquests. We are proud of the men who conquered India for us, and we are proud of the great military and civil services by which that Empire has been so successfully governed. There is no sacrifice which this country will not make for the maintenance of our dominion in India, because it concerns our national pride and our honour—and also, I think I may say, because of the conviction which we may justly entertain—which I hold in the strongest manner—that the conquest of inferior by superior races is not an evil to the world—on the contrary, it is one of the great causes and sources of the progress of the human race—a cause and a source of progress which has been conspicuous in times past, and which will continue until the whole world is governed by civilized nations. I next come to an important point upon which your Lordships have derived no information from the noble Earl opposite. I refer to the question of the Straits. The noble Earl talked of calling Parliament together to take counsel of it, but he has given us no advice. Of course the noble Earl as the Prime Minister of the Government must observe a certain reserve, but we have been called together to vote perhaps large sums to increase our Naval and Military Forces. I think the Prime Minister might have given us some indication of his opinion with respect to this point—but all the information we have in regard to the question of the Dardanelles is contained in the despatch of the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby), who states that— The existing arrangements made under European sanction which regulate the navigation of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles appear to us wise and salutary, and there would be in their judgment serious objection to the alteration in any material particular. I am bound to say I do not concur in the literal interpretation of that paragraph. If it is meant that the question of the Straits is a European Question, and that we will not submit to any settlement in which our opinion is not consulted, then I concur; but if it means that the present rule which has boon established with regard to ships of war is one that should not be altered, I do not concur. The present rule in respect to the passage of ships of war through the Dardanelles is not a rule in favour of Europe, but in favour of Turkey. It is a rule established in the interest of the independence of Turkey and not for the interest of Europe generally —and what I want to point out is this— that the moment Turkey ceases to be an independent Power the value of that rule, whatever it may be, to the rest of Europe ceases—or if Turkey should be so weakened by the war as to became practically a vassal State, and under the dominion of Russia, then I am not pre-pared to affirm that the present rule is one which it is for our interests to maintain. On the contrary, I shall be prepared to maintain that a material alteration will be required. But surely it cannot be that it is on account of this Dardanelles Question that we are going to increase the Estimates? Russia has frankly admitted that this is a European Question, and that no permanent settlement could be made without the question being submitted to Europe. I now come to the third point—Constantinople. With regard to that city, Lord Derby's words in the despatch of May are these— That the vast importance of Constantinople, whether in a military, political, or commercial point of view, is too well understood to require explanation; it is therefore simply necessary to point out that Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to witness with indifference the passing into other hands than those of its present possessors a capital holding so commanding a position. What do these words moan? Do they mean that however much the Turks may resist the arms of Russia, Russia is to be precluded taking possession of Constantinople as a military and temporary measure, or do they mean that the ultimate possession of Constantinople is a European Question? If the latter, I heartily concur; if the former, a grave question arises in respect of the policy of the British Government. It is most inexpedient that the question whether we should enter into a war, solitary and isolated, should be placed in the hands of Turkish Pashas — nothing can be more injurious to the honour and interest of England; but that will infallibly be the result if we make the military occupation of Constantinople a question of peace or war. When we talk of Constantinople "remaining in the hands of its present possessors," we had better recognize the fact that no part of European Turkey will long remain in the hands of its present possessors, if by that description we mean the present governing Power. The noble Mover of the Address gave us an abstract of the state of feeling of the people of this country on the Eastern Question—an abstract which, though inadequate and imperfect, was by no moans unfair. In that abstract he admitted the general detestation of the ruling classes of Turkey. But it is these classes that constitute the Turkish Government; and is it for our interests and honour that we should say that Constantinople or any territory should remain in their hands? On the contrary, it is directly in the teeth of them. Therefore, I must make a grave exception in regard to both Constantinople and the Dardanelles in agreeing to the Address in reply to the Speech.

My noble Friend (Earl Granville) did not find fault with the Government for calling Parliament together—the responsibility for that must rest upon the Government; but it cannot but be feared that, at the moment when negotiations have begun, the summoning of Parliament may have the effect of exciting the Turks to offer increased resistance, in the hope that they may obtain aid from England. That most able and most venerable man (Viscount Stratford de Redcliffe), whose knowledge of the Turk is founded on personal observation extending over a period of more than 60 years, in his letter in The Times of this morning, says that oven the general desire for peace is likely to have a most unfavourable effect upon the Turkish Government, ready as they are to catch at any, even the most slender hope of obtaining assistance or encouragement from without. Depend upon it, the summoning of Parliament— unless the Government have a very definite programme, and know very well what they are about—and the excited speech from the head of the Government which we have heard tonight—talking about "national independence"—will have put a spoke in the way of peace. Depend upon it, the Prime Minister's language will be so interpreted; and you have made it extremely probable that the Grand Duke Nicholas will find the Turkish Pashas much more difficult to deal with on account of the observations made by the noble Earl tonight. It is a great misfortune to Europe and the world that this matter has been taken into the sole hands of Russia—that she has been almost compelled to take up the sword alone in the cause of the subject populations of Turkey. I agree with an opinion expressed at the time of the Crimean War—that whilst in Asia Russia is decidedly a civilizing Power, in Europe we have nothing to expect from her in the way of civilization. We can expect nothing from Russia with one exception—we owe to Russia nothing but her sword; and whose fault was it that that sword was drawn? I maintain—as I did last year —that the war might have been prevented by firmness on the part of Hoi-Majesty's Government; but, by deliberately sacrificing the European concert, you made this war a necessity to Russia. The noble Earl (the Earl of Beaconsfield) has spoken much in answer to some fancied accusations of the noble Earl (Earl Granville) behind me. He has answered very keenly on the question of isolation. It is true my noble Friend did put some pertinent questions which the noble Earl has taken care not to answer. My noble Friend asked what you know as to the agreement between the three Imperial Powers. Do you know anything? I strongly suspect you do not. As to the Government preventing or breaking up the European concert, you ask us how we prove it. It has been proved over and over again. But what is the use of our proving what we can take out of your own mouths? Do not you know the terms of the despatch in which the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) refused the Berlin Memorandum? I apologize to the noble Earl for mentioning that document again; but when you tell us in loud and triumphant tones you are not isolated, it is necessary to recall the facts. The noble Earl (the Earl of Derby), in that despatch, said— I have to point out to your Excellency that Her Majesty's Government have, since the out-break of the insurrection in Bosnia and the Horzegovina, deprecated the diplomatic intervention of other Powers in the affairs of the Ottoman Empire. But this diplomatic interference was the sole object of the European concert. You deny vacillation; but, again, in this matter you went round like a whirlwind. You instructed the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), and he did interfere most vehemently in Turkey's affairs. You did it, too, with throats of violence. It is very true that the violence was not to come from you; but you traded on threats of the coercion of Russia, and you warned Turkey that she must expect no assistance from you. I say the result of the conduct of the Government from beginning to end has been the absolute isolation of England. You have not a single Ally at this moment in Europe that you can rely on for seconding your policy, so far as we know. I shall be delighted if the Papers placed on the Table to-night show that we are in hearty accord with the other Powers; but I should accept it as a new and most unexpected revelation. A great deal has been said about the motives of Russia. I apprehend the motives of Russia are very much like the motives of other people—very mixed motives; but if the motives of Russia are purely selfish, they, at least, cannot be worse than the motives which you have yourselves avowed. What have we hoard to-night? An elaborate defence of selfish motives from the noble Earl at the head of the Government. He not only said it was British interests we cared for, but he went further, and put the doctrine in a still grosser form; he spoke of material interests, money interests, the interests of commerce and wealth; but as to moral interests, we had nothing to do with them. I appeal to noble Lords opposite to say what they would think and feel if Russia wore to avow such sentiments? Let us suppose that there should be a great public dinner at St. Petersburg, given by the Lord Mayor—if there is one—and Prince Gortchakoff to have attended and declared that Russia would look after Russian interests and no other—meaning her material interests; what would be said here by the Press of this country and by the Members of the Government? I will not describe what would be said; but all that, in such a case, would be said of Russia ought to be said of you—and you deserve it, for a baser doctrine I have never heard maintained in Parliament than has been laid down by the Prime Minister—that we ought to look only to our own selfish and material interests, and to nothing else—as if there were no moral interests concerned, or as if we had nothing to do with it. The noble Earl the Mover of the Address implied that there was a suspicion of Russia—

THE EARL OF WHARNCLIFFE

I said there was some suspicion as to the disinterestedness of the Russian motives.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

The noble Earl implied suspicion of Russia. It is no use concealing it—everyone has it more or less. The main motive of Russia in undertaking the war was the impulse of the movement on the part of the population which even the Government of Russia could not suppress—the motive of sympathy with their co-religionists in the East of Europe. That was a very natural movement—taking mankind as they are—a most powerful motive. Why go out of your way to discover others? The desire to deliver their co-religionists who were suffering under the most debasing tyranny was one of the most powerful sentiments, and that was the main motive of Russia to this war. Placed as Russia was, they could not, like Her Majesty's Ministers, put off the consideration of the condition of the subject populations of Turkey for an indefinite period, waiting for the hopeless reform of that most execrable Government. I say that Russia, under the circumstances, was justified in her action, and if at this moment there be a prospect of freedom to the populations of the Provinces of Turkey, it will be due to that feeling on the part of Russia, which— call it sentimental, humanitarian, illogical—what you will—has been never- theless one of the most powerful motive forces in the history of the world. But, then, I hear it said that the freedom of nations ought never to be bought by foreign interference. My Lords, is this forgetfulness, or is it hypocrisy? Do we not remember our own case? Do we not remember that day when one of our harbours was filled with the ships of Holland; and a foreign deliverer landed on the shores of England? Now, with regard to what should be done in the future. If I thought my humble advice would induce Her Majesty's Government to alter their course in any respect, I should implore them to do this—to recognize facts and to act upon them. Do not lot them deceive themselves, and talk nonsense about national independence as applied to Turkey. Turkey as an independent Power is gone—is gone never to recover. And why is Turkey gone? Because she deserved to die. I am not ashamed to own humanitarian sentiments. I think the welfare of several millions of men is a British interest. As one of the survivors of the Cabinet that waged the Crimean War, I will never cease to witness in this House that we have undertaken obligations to the subject populations of Turkey which we can never repudiate. We have bound ourselves to take some charge of their interests in the extreme circumstances that have arisen with regard to the Government of Turkey. If we believe in nothing else, let us at least believe in that new gospel—the doctrine of Darwin in the survival of the fittest— in that process, beneficent in its ultimate results, but often terrible in its operation, by which nature eliminates everything which is too bad to live. We cannot prevent its destruction. Let us not attempt to prop up the phantom of the Turkish Empire; rather let us devise some scheme for the just government of its subject populations. Look at the evidence before you—look at Paper No. 17 of last Session. Solong ago as l854, Sir Fen-wick Williams, who so gallantly defended Kars, told us that he believed no country in the world had suffered so much as Armenia had suffered from the tyranny of Turkey. The country was desolate, villages were going into ruin, and cultivation was given up. A similar account was given by Consul Taylor and Consul Zohrab at a much more recent date. The Queen's Speech refers to the war which is now devastating the East of Europe; but there are other devastating causes in operation. It was said— Peace hath her victories No less renowned than war; but of Turkey, and in Turkey, it may be said, Peace has her horrors yet more dread than war. That is the state of the great provinces of Epirus and Thessaly. I therefore trust that the Emperor of Russia will not agree to any terms, whatever the English Government may say, which do not secure for all the subject populations of Turkey a sufficient degree of autonomy or self-government to protect them against the systematic misrule of Turkey. I fully sympathize with the feelings of horror to which this war has given rise. Seldom in the history of the world has there been a war more cruel or devastating. But why has it been worse than other wars? Because of the barbarism of the Government with which Russia is fighting and the barbarism of the population under that Government. A savage Government will always succeed in making a savage people. Another reason is this—that in this war you have the knowledge and the tools of the most advanced civilization wielded by the hands of barbarians. These are the causes of the special horrors of this war. It is all very well to say that the horrors of this war are a great deal worse than the bad government of the Turks, I have hoard that said over and over again. But that remark applies to all wars that have ever been waged in the history of the world. The horrors of war are, so to speak, a congestion of horrors—they are always more horrible and striking to the imagination than the permanent miseries of bad government. But nevertheless the horrors of war are very often the only means of shaking off bad government. Alas! my Lords, that the birth of freedom should so often be a baptism of blood and fire; but so it has been always in the past, and so it will be in time to come. There is only one thing I would beg of the Government, and that is—that they will use all their influence that such a war shall never be repeated, and that can only be done by putting an end to the misgovernment of those "ruling classes" in Turkey, who have been denounced by the Mover of the Address.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, if the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) complains that the speech of my noble Friend behind me was addressed to observations which had not been made, I will retort by saying that the noble Duke's arguments and taunts wore addressed to principles which had never been laid down by my noble Friend. The noble Duke expended a good deal of elocquence in showing that it was not our business to maintain the national independence and integrity of Turkey. Not one word about the independence and integrity of Turkey crossed the lips of my noble Friend. The noble Duke commenced his speech by showing that the observations of my noble Friend were directed against matters on which the noble Earl (Earl Granville) had laid no stress, and which had not been made the subjects of attack upon the Government, and he proceeded to specify the two points of the disunion of the Cabinet and the isolation of England. Pursued, however, by a demon which compelled him to contradict his own assertions, he immediately, at great length and with great eloquence, dilated on the proof which he thought had been shown of that disunion and that isolation. On these points I will not follow the noble Duke; I will merely repeat what my noble Friend behind me has said—that the Government have not been isolated, and that we are not isolated now. I suppose my noble Friend will expect me to present him with a neat précis of the negotiations which may have passed between the Court of London and ail the other Courts, in the world. But I must entirely decline to enter upon such a task. There are in other countries institutions which I have sometimes envied, and which relieve the Government from the necessity of reticence; and if we had in this country such a thing as a secret Session the Government would have no reason to complain. But we know that every word we utter here goes to every corner of this country and to every Court of Europe, and we would rather submit to the taunts of our political opponents than say a word which could indicate matters which might be injurious to the public service. As to the disunion in the Cabinet, I was anxious to know on what grounds that charge rested, and as far as I could see there were only two — one was that Musurus Pasha had praised the Turkish Constitution, whereas I had condemned it; and the other was our old friends the newspapers. No doubt I have seen at work, since we have been in power, some distinguished professors of the art of Opposition. I believe when we were in Opposition we were not indolent and not deficient in ingenuity; but the idea never crossed our brains—I thank my noble Friend for the suggestion, and I may use it at a future time—to impute to the Cabinet of the day that they wrote all the leading articles of the so-called Ministerial papers. It is certainly a most ingenious device—that of putting into the mouth of political opponents that which they never said and never intended to say. The beauty of the thing is you cannot disprove it. Nobody knows who wrote those articles; they may all have been written by my noble Friend at the head of the Government; but it would be perfectly impossible, unless we could produce the persons who wrote them, to prove that they were not written by Members of the Cabinet. The noble Duke has been pleased to make considerable use of my name—he has told us that there are several Ministerial papers which make it a duty to abuse me whenever I open my mouth. I submit to my noble Friends whether this discussion of newspaper articles, Ministerial or otherwise, is likely to give credit or decorum to our debates. As for me, my acquaintance with newspapers is not so great that I can say whether The Morning Post abuses mo or not; but if it likes to abuse me I hope it will continue to do so. I am sorry to hear the suggestion of the idea of what is called a "Ministerial paper" from noble Lords opposite. It is an institution which exists in France, but does not exist in this country—where the newspapers are conducted with great ability and take independent views. I believe we have the phenomenon now of two or three extremely Liberal papers which support the Government on this particular Eastern Question. But the idea of representing them as binding the Government of the day is an idea borrowed from our friends in Franco, which I am sure will not improve the character of our deliberations. It has been said that the trade of the country has been fearfully depressed because we have opened Parliament at this particular time. My impression is that the depression which has affected the trade of the country has resulted from a combination of causes; but, at all events, Her Majesty's Government are free from the imputation that they have done anything to excite the Turks to resistance. When my noble Friend the noble Duke talks of exciting the Turks, I want him to consider what the effect would be of the discriminating and unsparing policy which he has just announced. The Turks undoubtedly have made bad use of their opportunities. I have little fault to find with the terms of condemnation used by noble Lords opposite towards that Power. I heartily and deeply sympathize with the subject races in the East; but I do differ from the noble Duke in this—I believe that this war has accumulated into nine short months more misery than would result from generations of Turkish government. True it is that war is the only ultimate cure for obstinate misgovernment; but war is righteous or unrighteous according as it is opportune or inopportune; and when there is no Power to direct it to a speedy and successful issue, and when the crimes or vices against which it is directed are not so great as to produce utter paralysis and recklessness, then the remedy is often a hundred times worse than the disease. The noble Duke is not satisfied without driving the Turks from every inch of ground in Europe.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

Not the Turks, but the Turkish Government.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Well, if you hold that end as your ultimate policy you will drive them to absolute desperation. What chance is there of the Turks accepting any peace if they are driven to despair? There is no surer incitement to a race to fight to the last than to tell them that in the resistance of despair lies their only hope of safety—and that is the message conveyed to them by the noble Duke. My Lords, it has frequently been asserted that our opinions have changed. That charge is not founded on fact. Undoubtedly we had a difficult and complicated duty to perform, and this complicated duty arose from the circumstance that England was already a party to Treaties, and that we had in past times pursued a policy of which the maintenance of the Turkish Empire was the life and soul. That time had passed. Opinion had changed, and events had proved that the hopes formerly indulged in were not founded upon any basis of fact; and the people of this country and the Government, recognizing the circumstance, were aware that it was no longer their duty to sustain the Turkish Empire by force of arms. Long before this war broke out, and before even the Bulgarian atrocities were committed, Her Majesty's Government had warned the Turkish Empire not to look to them for support. But they were not satisfied with that. They felt that reiterated warnings were necessary before old traditions could be set aside or an ancient policy departed from. Again and again in the Blue Books you will find warnings from the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby), reiterated to the Turkish Ambassador at London, reiterated to the British Ambassador at Constantinople, that the Turks must look for no assistance from England. That warning was conveyed in the strongest terms in the Instructions with which I was furnished when I went to Constantinople, and in the presence of the Plenipotentiaries of Europe I repeated it on the solemn occasion when the negotiations were broken off. That warning was again repeated when the Turks at a moment of extraordinary rashness neutralized and repudiated and stultified the efforts which we had been making with the rest of Europe to pass over this crisis without war. You may repeat insinuations and innuendos, and you may study leading articles until you really believe them to be State papers; but if you examine every word that has been uttered by every individual Minister, I defy you to find one single word which diminishes in the slightest degree the effect of the warnings which were repeatedly given, or which deviates by a single hair's breadth from the policy laid down in the noble Earls despatch. There is no doubt that the very fact that you are compelled to rely upon such uncertain grounds of proof shows how utterly baseless is the accusation which you are always striving to bring against Her Majesty's Government, that they are seeking or have sought to involve this Empire in war in defence of Turkish interests. But, my Lords, although our opinion has been undeviating and our language distinct upon the subject of the Turks, we have not—and this is, I take it, the point which makes us differ from our opponents—suffered the figure of the Turk to occupy the whole field of our mental view. Whatever may happen to the Turkish Empire its geographical peculiarities and conditions, and all the political results which flow from thorn will remain the same; and British interests as we have defined them in the noble Earl's despatch must, as well as the Turk, occupy a very considerable position in the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. The duties of humanity I am very far from disputing— indeed, I claim for this Government that we have made the strongest possible exertions to procure good government and peace for the Christian populations of the East—but I am not prepared to accept the new gospel which I understand is preached—that it is our business, for the sake of any populations whatever, to disregard the trusts which the people of this country and our Sovereign have reposed in our hands. The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) spoke a good deal about the motives of the Emperor of Russia. Now, I entirely concur with him in repudiating the very unwise accusations which are often made against the Russian Government and Emperor. I entirely concur with him in thinking that the Russian Government is very much like other Governments, and that when you know the motives which actuate most human beings in their position you probably know their motives also. I daresay there have been unscrupulous advisors in Russia—there have been unscrupulous advisers in all countries; but I certainly must express my opinion— and I do so in the full consciousness that it may draw upon myself some of the censure to which the noble Duke referred—that during the Conference at Constantinople the Emperor Alexander himself was actuated by a sincere, an anxious, an almost tormenting desire for peace, and that he accepted conditions which, from his point of view, I should have thought would have been the very extreme conditions that an autocrat could have accepted under the peculiar circumstances of the case, and considering the strong religious and race feelings around him. When the Conference had passed away the antipathies of race and the antagonism of creed were aroused, and they will drive all Governments, and an autocratic Government quicker than others, with a force which no individual can resist. I have felt it my duty to say this, not only because I acquiesce in all that has been said about the motives of the Russian Government, but also in order to indicate that when we ask Parliament to give us the power of taking precautions in case our interests are threatened, we are not doing so because we despair of peace. On the contrary, we hope that the humane instincts and the high prudence of the Emperor of Russia will overcome influences by which he is undoubtedly surrounded, and that an honourable peace may put a stop to this terrible and desolating war. It is not in any spirit of despair of peace that we shall ask you, if occasion arise, to help us to take necessary precautions. I am not going to follow the noble Duke into a discussion of each individual interest, or to define more narrowly than we have done already the precise circumstances upon which those interests depend. The noble Duke knows as well as I do that I should be departing from my duty if I did so. But we feel that the best intentions and the most powerful will have not always been able to control the caprice of armies in the flush of victory. The noble Lords opposite know that in Central Asia some four years ago the Imperial will was not only powerless to prevent, but powerless to retract, a step which the Imperial Ambassador had undertaken to avoid. Look again at our own history. We know the story about Nelson preferring to put the telescope to his blind eye; and there may be—and I do not doubt that there are—Nelsons in courage, and in wilfulness, too, in the Russian Army. Into these matters, however, I do not wish to enter more closely. I do not wish to examine what are exactly the circumstances under which the interests which have been defined will be threatened; but I know that the wave of war is approaching closely to the localities with which those interests are connected, and before the Parliament of England lies this alternative—If it does not trust the present Government, let it provide itself with a Government which it does trust; but if it does trust the present Government, let it confide to it the proper means for efficiently performing the great duty which its confidence has imposed upon it.

Address agreed to, nemine dissentiente, and ordered to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.