Lords Sitting of 5 February 1880

Preamble
THE PARLIAMENT, which had been Prorogued successively from the 15th day of August, 1879, to the 1st day of November; thence to the 19th day of December; thence to the 5th day of February, 1880, met this day for the Despatch of Business.
The Session of PARLIAMENT was opened by THE QUEEN in Person.

THE QUEEN'S SPEECH.
Her Majesty, being seated on the Throne, adorned with Her Crown and Regal Ornaments, and attended by Her Officers of State, (the Lords being in
2
their robes)—commanded the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod, through the Deputy Lord Great Chamberlain, to let the Commons know "It is Her Majesty's Pleasure they attend Her immediately, in this House."
Who being come, with their Speaker;
THE LORD CHANCELLOR,taking directions from Her Majesty,delivered Her Majesty's most gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, as follows:—
"My Lords, and Gentlemen,
"IT is with much satisfaction that I again resort to the advice and assistance of my Parliament.
"My relations with all the Powers continue to be friendly. The course of events since the prorogation of

3
Parliament has tended to furnish additional security to the maintenance of European peace, on the principles laid down by the Treaty of Berlin. Much, however, still remains to be done to repair the disorder with which the late war has affected many parts of the Turkish Empire.
"A Convention for the suppression of the Slave Trade has been concluded between my Government and that of His Imperial Majesty the Sultan.
"At the close of your last Session I expressed my hope that the Treaty of Gundamak had happily terminated the war in Afghanistan. In conformity with its provisions, my Envoy, with his retinue, was honourably received and entertained by the Ameer at Cabul. While engaged, however, in the exercise of their duty, he and those connected with the Embassy were treacherously attacked by overwhelming numbers, and, after an heroic defence, were almost all massacred. An outrage so intolerable called for condign chastisement, and my troops, which, pursuant to the stipulations of the Treaty, either had withdrawn or were withdrawing from the territories governed by the Ameer, were ordered to retrace their steps. The skill exhibited in the rapid march upon Cabul, and in the advances upon the other lines of action, reflects the highest credit upon the officers and men of my British and native forces, whose bravery has shone with its wonted lustre in every collision with the enemy.
"The abdication of the Ameer and the unsettled condition of the country render the recall of my troops impossible for the present; but the principle on which my Government has hitherto
4
acted remains unchanged, and while determined to make the frontiers of my Indian Empire strong, I desire to be in friendly relations alike with those who may rule in Afghanistan and with the people of that country.
"My anticipations as to the early establishment of peace in South Africa have been fulfilled. The capture and deposition of the Zulu King, and the breaking up of the military organization on which his dynasty was based, have relieved my possessions in that part of the world from a danger which has seriously impeded their advancement and consolidation. In Basutoland, a native outbreak of considerable importance has been effectually quelled by my Colonial forces; while the Transvaal has been freed from the depredations of a powerful Chief, who, having successfully resisted the former government of the country, had persistently rejected our attempts at conciliation. I have reason to hope that the time is now approaching when an important advance may be made towards the establishment of a Union or Confederation under which the powers of self-government, already enjoyed by the inhabitants of the Cape Colony, may be extended to my subjects in other parts of South Africa.
"Papers on these and other matters will be forthwith laid before you.
"Gentlemen of the House of Commons,"I have directed the Estimates of this year to be prepared and presented to you without delay.
"My Lords, and Gentlemen,"
The Commission which, at the close of the Session, I informed you I had issued to inquire into the causes

5
of agricultural depression throughout the United Kingdom, is pursuing its labours. In the meantime, the serious deficiency in the usual crops in some parts of Ireland has rendered necessary special precautions on the part of my Government to guard against the calamities with which those districts were threatened.
"With this view, they have called upon the authorities charged with the duty of administering relief to make ample preparations for the distribution of food and fuel, should such a step become necessary, and they have also stimulated the employment of labour by advances on terms more liberal than those prescribed by the existing law.
"I feel assured that you will give your sanction to the course which has been adopted where it may have exceeded the power entrusted by Parliament to the Executive Government.
"A proposal will be submitted to you for providing the funds required for these exceptional advances on the security of the property administered by the Church Temporalities Commissioners.
"I trust you will be able to resume the consideration of the Criminal Code, and of the Improvement of the Law of Bankruptcy.
"Bills will be laid before you, for enlarging the powers of owners of Settled Land, for consolidating and amending the Lunacy Laws, and for simplifying the practice of Conveyancing.
"I commend to you these and other measures which may be submitted for your consideration, and I trust that
6
the blessing of the Almighty will attend and direct your labours."
And then Her Majesty retired. And the Commons withdrew.
ROLL OF THE LORDS—Garter King of Arms attending, delivered at the Table (in the usual manner) a List of the Lords Temporal in the Seventh Session of the Twenty-first Parliament of the United Kingdom: The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

SAT FIRST.
The Duke of Portland, after the death of his cousin.
The viscount St. Vincent, after the death of his father.
The Lord Chelmsford, after the death of his father.
The Lord Lawrence, after the death of his father.

SELECT VESTRIES.
Bill, pro formâ, read 1ª.

THE QUEEN'S SPEECH. ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
The QUEEN'S SPEECH reported by The LORD CHANCELLOR.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, in rising for the first time to take part in the debates of your Lordships' House, I must confess to a feeling of great embarrassment, addressing as I do noble Lords who have had much experience in the debates of this and the other House of Parliament, and in an Assembly which has earned for itself the highest reputation for debating power; but I am encouraged to proceed when I recollect that during the few years I have had the honour of a seat in your Lordships' House, I have observed that great indulgence has been afforded to those noble Lords who have been placed in the position which I now occupy, and I can only express a hope that you will not make any exception in my case. My Lords, before I proceed to discuss the topics which are to be found in the gracious Speech from the Throne, I may, perhaps, be allowed to congratulate your Lordships on the fact that Her Majesty has been again graciously pleased to open her Parlia-

7
ment in person, and I cannot but think that the lustre which is thus conferred upon our deliberations will be a material benefit to, and be greatly appreciated by, her people. During the preceding Parliament I believe that Her Majesty was only once able to open Parliament in person; but during the existence of the present Parliament there have been three several occasions upon which Her Majesty has honoured us with her presence, thus affording fresh proofs of her ability and desire personally to perform the functions of her exalted station. My Lords, Her Majesty commences by expressing her satisfaction at having again to resort to the advice and assistance of Parliament, and I feel confident that your Lordships will yourselves feel glad that there is no longer any occasion to turn to the newspapers to see that formidable heading "Parliament out of Session," which has given rise to such torrents of eloquence which, in Scotland, culminated in a Niagara. The next point in Her Majesty's Speech contains the gratifying announcement that Her Majesty's relations with all the Powers continue to be friendly. That appears to me to be a matter of unusual congratulation, when we reflect that two years ago he would have been a bold man who would have predicted that Her Majesty's Speech on the present occasion could have contained such an announcement. And, my Lords, I cannot help saying that it is mainly to the spirited conduct of Her Majesty's Government at that time that we are not now deploring a general war in Europe. Her Majesty goes on to say that the course of events since the Prorogation of Parliament has tended to furnish additional security for the maintenance of European peace on the principles laid down in the Treaty of Berlin; and when I remember the statements which have been made as to the enormous armaments of Continental Powers I read this paragraph with considerable satisfaction, because I cannot help looking back to the statements that have been made by the Chancellors of the two Empires of Germany and Austria as to the probability of maintaining the peace of Europe; and I cannot believe that either that Power which stood by us so manfully during the recent crisis, or that Power at whoso capital the Treaty of Berlin was made, and whose Chancellor presided at the Congress, will
8
either of them be the first to do anything which would be likely to do endanger the peace of Europe. My Lords, I may allude to the gratifying fact that the Bulgarian Province has elected its Prince, and that the whole of the territory which was occupied by Russian troops has been evacuated, and that during the six months which has just elapsed no disturbance whatever has taken place in that territory, a proof of the continued development of the principles laid down in the Treaty of Berlin. Before leaving this part of the subject, may I be allowed to ask your Lordships, not only as legislators, not only as Members of this or that political Party, but as Englishmen and citizens of the British Empire which extends over one-seventh of the whole world, to join with me in congratulating ourselves that England has once more resumed that position in the Councils of Nations to which she is justly entitled by her wealth, her commercial importance, and the enterprize of her people. My Lords, in a remarkable work which has recently been published, the Autobiography of Prince Metternich, that great diplomatist has reduced the principles of politics and diplomacy to these very simple terms—
"Each State, besides its separate interests, has also those which are common to it with, other States; and history teaches us that whenever the separate comes into conflict with the general interests of the State, and the latter are neglected or mistaken in the zealous and extensive prosecution of the former, this is to he regarded as an exceptional or unhealthy condition, whose development or speedy amendment ultimately decides the destiny of the State—that is, its impending decline or its recuperative prosperity."
My Lords, I do not consider it would be possible, even if it were desirable, to limit the policy of England within the narrow bounds to which some of our politicians would confine it. It has been a matter for congratulation to past generations that this Island is divided from the Continent by a single streak of sea; but I believe that that satisfaction will cease to be an inheritance of posterity, if they are reminded by it that it has been made the limit to those great opportunities which have been afforded to England of being the pioneer of humanity, civilization, and Christianity. Much remains to be done in the Turkish Empire, in consequence of the late war by which she has been ravaged. We cannot but be aware that a great war cripples even

9
the most powerful of nations; and although it must be apparent that up to the present moment Turkey has been unable to make any great movement in the way of reform, I do not think that we can say that no steps have been taken for the amelioration of the condition of her population, when we see that certain judicial reforms are to be proposed, which are thus communicated to the Ambassadors at Constantinople by the Turkish Minister—
"We can easily understand that the judicial system was faulty at the foundation, and that no amelioration whatever in Ottoman society could he hoped for, except by a radical reform of our judicial regime."
And he afterwards adds—
"To enter immediately after its disasters as courageously as it has done on the path marked out by the modern law was an act of which the significance and the consequences deserve to he highly appreciated. Unfortunately, the vicious condition amid which Ottoman society contends with an energy worthy of the sympathy of the civilized world prolongs a state of things but little suitable for the putting an end to abuses which long custom has resulted in causing to he viewed as if inscribed in the internal and international law of the Empire."
Here, at any rate, we have that which must precede any reform—an admission that the existing state of affairs is utterly bad. That Her Majesty's Government have not been unmindful of Turkey I think is shown by the paragraph in which She has congratulated her Parliament that a Convention has been made with the Sultan for the suppression of the Slave Trade, which no doubt will, with other Papers, be shortly laid upon the Table of the House. I must now refer for a moment to matters in India; and, in the first place, I will call your attention to the Treaty of Gundamak, because it is on the basis of that Treaty that the policy of Her Majesty's Government is founded. It contains two important provisions. The first is that which relates to the dealings of the Ameer of Cabul with foreign States, which were to be in accordance with the views of the British Government; and the second relates to the Khyber Pass and the district that is to remain permanently under our protection, and the other districts which, have been assigned to us temporarily and are not to remain permanently in our hands. Prom the opportunity which our Envoy had of judging of his character, I think we were per-
10
fectly justified in treating Yakoob Khan as a Prince capable of governing Afghanistan. Yakoob Khan was the son of Shere Ali. When Shere Ali left his capital, Yakoob Khan was nominated by him as his successor. My Lords, our Envoy, Sir Louis Cavagnari, had ample opportunities of judging of the disposition of Yakoob Khan. He tells us that he believed him to be sufficiently clear-sighted; and we have not only the evidence of Sir Louis Cavagnari upon the point, but in an interesting work, entitled Travels in Central Asia,the writer tells us how he visited the city of Herat, and saw Yakoob Khan, who, at the age of 16, alone of all his Court and Ministers, had sufficient acuteness to detect the European, under M. Vambiry's disguise of a Dervish. I think this shows that we, at least, were justified in dealing with Yakoob Khan as a man who was capable of taking his own part and of governing the Afghan people. The desire of the Indian Government was that Afghanistan should be erected into a friendly and independent Power; and so much was this the case that, in a despatch from the Indian Government, it was said that—
"We might have made a much more rapid advance; but we had serious cause to apprehend that, by thus precipitating the downfall of Shore Ali, we might irretrievably shake to pieces all the independent materials of government in Afghanistan, bequeathing to Shere Ali's successor no stable basis of authority, and placing ourselves in a position from which we could not afterwards retire without surrendering to anarchy and civil conflict a State which it was our object to strengthen and consolidate in the manner most conducive to peacable and friendly relations with it."
Well, my Lords, the Government have been pursued by singular misfortunes. In the first place, Shere Ali fled from his capital, and died, and we were thus pro-vented from treating him as the Ruler of the country; and, secondly, Yakoob Khan disappointed our expectations. But it cannot be said that the Indian Government were not fully prepared for the eventualities which followed upon Shere Ali's death, for they had carefully considered British interests in Afghanistan, independently of Afghan rule; and in another despatch the Indian Government say—
"Nor do we disguise from ourselves that the practical value of the Treaty mainly depends upon the character and disposition of the Ameer

11
and his successors. Relations established with Afghanistan under the present favourable conditions, and with the most promising prospects, may, of course, be again impaired either by the disloyalty of Afghan Princes or by the alienation of their unrequited confidence. In cither case complications may arise against which no present precautions on our part can completely guarantee our successors in the government of India. We have, therefore, been careful to secure for British interests and influence in Afghanistan a position substantially independent of the personal caprices of any Afghan Ruler; and for the effectual maintenance of the position the Treaty provides strong material guarantees, by the territorial conditions which place the British Power in permanent command of the main avenues from India to Cabul."
Well, what were the facts? All Englishmen were horrified to hear that most sad history of the death of Sir Louis Cavagnari. Notwithstanding the gallant defence made by him and his followers, they were overwhelmed by numbers, and almost the entire Mission was sacrificed. Orders were immediately given to Sir Frederick Roberts to commence his advance. We held the Khyber Pass and other positions which, in 1841, we had neglected to secure; and we were thus able, within six weeks, to re-occupy Cabul and to avenge that massacre. The brave conduct and the admirable disposition of our troops was the theme of universal praise. The Nawab Sir Gholam Hussein Khan, a man who, perhaps, is better able than anyone else to judge, expressed the opinion that he knew of no combination of insurgents which was carried out under circumstances so favourable, and no defeat so overwhelming as that which was inflicted upon them. He also expressed his distinct belief that we should not have any further trouble in that respect. I earnestly hope that his expectation may be realized. I cannot help going a step further, and noticing with satisfaction the terms in which Her Majesty has referred to the conduct of her Native as well as British troops. Her Majesty has graciously observed—
"The skill exhibited in the rapid march upon Cabul, and in the advances upon the other lines of action, reflects the highest credit upon the officers and men of my British and Native forces, whose bravery has shone with its wonted lustre in every collision with the enemy."
My Lords, I will not attempt to predict what the future policy of Her Majesty's Government is to be. We have heard a great deal of prophecy lately with regard to it; but of one thing I am certain, and
12
that is, that it would not be possible to withdraw our troops from Afghanistan. Were we to do so, we should not only produce a bad effect upon the minds of the Natives, but also in the minds of those independent Princes who have been so much impressed at the boldness of our policy and the success of our arms. We should also run the risk of leaving those Afghans who had befriended us at the mercy of anyone who might happen to get the upper hand in the country. Turning to South Africa, let us see what has taken place there. The Zulu power has been broken up, the Zulu Chief captured, and the whole country separated into different Governments. An insurrection headed by Secocoeni and Moirosi broke out on the borders of Basuto Land; but all these matters are now set at rest. Her Majesty goes on to observe—
"I hope the time is not far distant when an important advance may be made towards the establishment of a Union or Confederation under which the powers of self-government, already enjoyed by the inhabitants of Cape Colony, may be extended to my subjects in other parts of South Africa."
In reply to a despatch from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, urging the adoption of the Confederation Act of 1877, Sir Bartle Frere's Ministers say—
"The whole of the South African communities are anxiously awaiting the result of the war on the Natal and Transvaal Frontiers. Pending its settlement, Ministers cannot but feel that to submit general proposals for the establishment of a South African Union, or Confederation, to the Capo Parliament would be to invite the Legislature to commit itself to unknown responsibilities. In the event of the war now raging on those Frontiers being concluded and peace established on a satisfactory basis, it will afford Ministers great pleasure to submit to the Legislature proposals of the nature referred to in the despatch, in full confidence that they will meet on the part of the Parliamentary Representatives of this Colony with a favourable reception."
There is now no danger from the Native Tribes, and I very much hope that Ministers will be able to carry out those views which they express in that despatch. Having now touched upon the topics in Her Majesty's gracious Speech relating to external affairs, I will ask your Lordships to follow me while I refer briefly to those more immediately affecting domestic questions. Her Majesty refers to the appointment of the Royal Commission issued to inquire into the causes of Agricultural Depression throughout the

13
United Kingdom. I can only hope that by the time the Commission has completed its labours and made its Report the circumstances which have called it into existence may have ceased to trouble us. Two distinguished agriculturists have recently returned from America, and I have no doubt that the information they have gained there may lead to very important results. Before I leave this subject I should like to express my satisfaction at the manner in which the landowners in this country have come forward during this crisis, and the efforts which they have made to alleviate the sufferings of their tenantry. I believe that the tenant farmers of England, with whom I wish to express my deepest sympathy, will begin to realize that the oft-repeated statement that the interest of the tenant and the landlord are bound up together is not a mere sentiment, but a reality. Her Majesty goes on to deal with what has taken place in Ireland. I think, my Lords, I am right in saying that the crops in that country have at least been equal to, if not better than, those in this country; but, on the other hand, the distress has been far more widely spread; and if such is the case, then I think it be-hoves the Government to give the subject their immediate and most anxious consideration with the view of devising measures of relief. I will not pursue the subject further, because the noble Lord who sits on my left, and who proposes to second the Motion for the Address which I have the honour to move, will deal with the question at length; but I cannot sit down without adding my tribute of appreciation of the noble effort which has been made by the illustrious lady who occupies the highest position in that country for the immediate alleviation of the distress. I can only say that I earnestly trust that the hope she held out of being able to avert a famine may be fully realized. With regard to the measures that are promised to us by the Government, two of them—the Criminal Code Bill and the Bankruptcy Bill—have already been laid upon the Table of this House, the former having undergone fresh and minute re-consideration at the hands of the distinguished Judge who originally prepared it. The Bankruptcy Bill has already been fully explained to the House by the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, and I
14
believe it is admitted on all sides that some relief is needed in that direction. Since the present Government came into Office they have carried several measures of great utility, such as the Summary Jurisdiction Act and the Artizans' Dwellings Act; and I trust that an Act for the Amendment of the Lunacy Laws may be added to that list. I am thankful that Her Majesty's Government have taken in hand the Land Question. If any statement can be devised which, while maintaining the principle of the Law of Entail, will yet give relief to those owners who feel that the burdens on their estates are greater than they can bear, and those others who think that by sacrificing a small and possibly outlying portion of their estates they may materially improve the value of the remainder, I am sure it will be welcomed by the majority of your Lordships. With regard to the Bill for the simplification of conveyancing, any measure which will diminish the expense and will shorten the time occupied by the transfer will be very cordially received by your Lordships. It only remains for me to express my thanks for the kind indulgence which your Lordships have been pleased to extend to me, and to assure you that it has been the means of very materially lightening the anxious task of addressing your Lordships for the first time. I beg to move that an humble Address be presented to for Majesty in reply to 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 informing us that Your Majesty's relations with all the Powers continue to be friendly, and that the course of events since the prorogation of Parliament has tended to furnish additional security to the maintenance of European peace, on the principles laid down by the Treaty of Berlin, although much still remains to be done to repair the disorder with which the late war has affected many parts of the Turkish Empire.
"We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that a Convention has been con-

15
cluded between Your Majesty's Government and that of His Imperial Majesty the Sultan, for the suppression of the Slave Trade.
"We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that, in conformity with the provisions of the Treaty of Gundamak, Your Majesty's Envoy, with his retinue, was honourably received and entertained by the Ameer of Afghanistan at Cabul, but that, while engaged in the exercise of their duty, he and those connected with the Embassy wore treacherously attacked by overwhelming numbers, and, after an heroic defence, were almost all massacred.
"We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that, an outrage so intolerable calling for condign chastisement, Your Majesty's troops, which, pursuant to the stipulations of the Treaty, either had withdrawn or were withdrawing from the territories governed by the Ameer, were ordered to retrace their steps; and that the skill exhibited in the rapid march upon Cabul, and in the advances upon the other lines of action, reflects the highest credit upon the officers and men of Your Majesty' s British and native forces, whoso bravery has shone with its wonted lustre in every collision with the enemy.
"We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that the abdication of the Ameer and the unsettled condition of the country render the recall of the troops impossible for the present; but that the principle on which Your Majesty's Government has hitherto acted remains unchanged, and that, while determined to make the frontiers of Your Majesty's Indian Empire strong, Your Majesty desires to be in friendly relations alike with those who may rule in Afghanistan and with the people of that country.
"We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that Your Majesty's anticipations as to the early establishment of peace in South Africa have been fulfilled; and that the capture and deposition of the Zulu King, and the breaking up of the military organization on which his dynasty was based, have relieved Your Majesty's possessions in that part of the world from a danger which seriously impeded their advancement and consolidation.
"We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that a native outbreak of considerable importance in Basutoland has been effectually quelled by Your Majesty's Colonial forces, while the Transvaal has been freed from the depredations of a powerful Chief, who, having successfully resisted the former government of that country, had persistently resisted all attempts at conciliation.
16
"We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that Your Majesty has reason to hope that the time is approaching when an important advance may be hade towards the establishment of an Union or Confederation under which the powers of self-government, already enjoyed by the inhabitants of the Cape Colony, may be extended to Your Majesty's subjects in other parts of South Africa; and we thank Your Majesty for directing that Papers on these and other matters shall be forthwith laid before us.
"We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that the Commission appointed to inquire into the causes of agricultural depression throughout the United Kingdom is pursuing its labours; and also for informing us of the special precautions which Your Majesty's Government have deemed it necessary to take in view of the threatened distress in Ireland, and of the moa-8ures which the course they have adopted will render necessary.
"We humbly assure Your Majesty that our careful consideration shall be given to the measures which may be submitted to us, and that we earnestly trust that the blessing of the Almighty will attend our labours and direct our efforts."
THE EARL OF ROSSE: My Lords, in rising to second the Address that has just been moved by my noble Friend on my right, I think I need not refer to the paragraphs in Her Majesty's Speech relating to foreign affairs, beyond congratulating the House upon the maintenance of peace. Passing over those topics, I will confine my remarks to the paragraph which deals with agricultural depression, and especially to the state of Ireland. My Lords, when I see in the papers columns headed "State of Ireland," such as have appeared lately, I think it rather ominous; it looks as if there was some special interest at work, and that, in fact, she is in a disturbed state. For the last few years, both in Ireland and in England, there has been, no doubt, a gradual diminution of prosperity. We have seen trade decline on this side of the Channel; we have seen the manufacturing districts far from flourishing; and various events have happened which have shown a diminution of that rapidly-increasing prosperity enjoyed some years ago. We have heard, during the last year especially, that the agricultural interest of this country was specially affected. Farmers

17
were giving up their farms, in consequence of not being able to make sufficient profits to pay the amount of their rent; but in Ireland the state of things is reported to be far worse than in England and Scotland. As long ago as October the Government began to make inquiries as to the condition of the state of things in Ireland. A Special Report was sent to the Local Government Board, and appeared in the daily Press, and there was no doubt that the state of things was serious, though not so bad as at the time of the Famine. The Report stated that the general average of the harvest appears to be inferior, and the crops deficient and below those of last year; the oat crop, however, is reported to be good and plentiful. It also states that fuel is scarce, that the turf or peat had suffered much from the excessive rains, that great want was anticipated in Munster, and that the farmers were in great difficulties owing to the banks and loan companies having refused to make further advances of money. In Con-naught the Report stated that the largest amount of distress was to be expected, and on the West coast there would be considerable local distress. The poor rates, however, were not excessive, and the Report gives a list of 45 Unions where the poor rates are 3s.in the pound and upwards, and in three only above 4s.At that time the number relieved in the workhouses was rather in excess of last year; it has averaged about 11 per cent over the corresponding period of last year; the total number of indoor and out-door paupers was 84,000 as against 77,000 at the corresponding period of last year, an increase of about 10 per cent. Since that date pauperism has still been slightly on the increase. From the Report which has been made to the Lord Lieutenant it appears that, on January 25 last, the total number of in-door and out-door paupers in Ireland was 105,000 against 94,000 at the corresponding date last year, and there was a larger increase in October. But, in order to form a correct judgment on the present state of things, we have only to compare the total of 105,000 with the numbers during the Famine, when there were more than 900,000, or nearly 1,000,000 of indoor and out-door paupers in Ireland, so that it is a great exaggeration to say that our present position can at all be compared with the Famine time. As to
18
the cause of this depression, the Report remarks that the crops have been less than they were in 1871 or 1872, and that the value of the potato crop was only about half, or less than half, of the average. There had been a pretty general depression from 1876 to 1879. The bank note circulation has decreased between December, 1876, and December, 1879, from a total of £7,750,000 down to £6,250,000. The total of bank deposits and notes has decreased in the same period from £42,000,000 to £36,750,000; but it should, at the same time, be borne in mind that the last figure is still twice as large as in 1863, and three times as large as in 1848. It is quite clear, from the circumstances I have already referred to, and which I wish more fully to dwell upon, that shopkeepers have been in the habit of advancing small sums to tenants, and they have given credit to a very large amount since the passing of the Land Act. When the country is prosperous everything goes on smoothly, and the tenant does not really see his true position; but when we come to depression, when everyone finds more difficulty in earning a livelihood, or in paying the just demands made upon him, then the pressure is felt, and the banks and shopkeepers begin to withhold the credit they have so freely granted up to that time. The landlords, in every case, have given time, which is a most just thing. As I have said, the depression is attributed to the bad potato harvest, the loss of hay through floods in the Valley of the Shannon and many other places, the bad barley harvest, the inferior condition of the hay, and the unusual amount of disease amongst cattle. I am afraid those misfortunes will be severely felt in many parts of the country. There are, however, one or two circumstances on which we may congratulate ourselves. The autumn has been remarkably dry, and, as far as fuel is concerned, the present position of the poor is far less serious in most places than it was some years ago, when coal near a railway cost from 40 s.to 50 s.a-ton, while now it is the fair and moderate price of 25 s.a-ton. Then the diminution in the numbers of the agricultural labourers from Ireland to the harvest in this country has contributed to the prevalent distress, and especially in the Western counties, from which the harvesters chiefly came, the result being that there is in those parts a considerable

19
excess of the supply of labour over the demand. In the West of Ireland, where the population principally consists of the labouring class, the emigration has been so much smaller—7,000 less than last year, and those who did go earning smaller wages—that the loss in wages is estimated at £100,000. I am very glad that Her Majesty's Government have been fully alive to the necessity of guarding against all emergencies. Your Lordships are aware that, by various Acts, sums of money can be lent at a low rate of interest, in order to encourage tenants to improve their estates by useful works in the distressed districts; and in order to provide work for the people, and to alleviate the distress in a profitable and legitimate manner, large sums are being lent to landed proprietors. The additional privileges of the postponement of interest for two years was granted by a Circular issued in November; and, by a Circular issued last month, loans to the total amount of £250,000 at 1 per cent, instead of 3½ per cent interest, will be granted for unskilled labour only. That is a course which I can heartily commend, as it is calculated to furnish relief without pauperizing those receiving it. My Lords, from my own observation, and from what I hear on all sides, there is no doubt whatever that the authorities in Ireland are doing their best to meet the difficulties in which the country is placed, and the very useful work has been commenced with energy. But it must be borne in mind that these measures, which are exceptional in their character though no-cessary at the present moment, are not designed to be permanent. "Wages now in Ireland have fallen rather; and in my own neighbourhood, where the rate of wages in winter has been 1s.8d.for several years, it is now 1s.4d.to 1s.6d.per day. Much has been done to reclaim waste lands, and I strongly advocate a continuance of that as a means of increasing the prosperity of the country. I may say that in the West of Ireland the people have been thankful for the valuable assistance sent to them. As to the political aspect of the question, I must regret that, when all who have the true interests of the country at heart are doing their best to meet the difficulty, hard words and misstatements calculated to disturb the country should have been uttered. In 1869, Mr. Gladstone's
20
Government passed an Irish Land Act; but no improvement as regards the tranquillity of the country seems to have resulted from that measure. Now, it appears to be the object of some people to create what is called a peasant proprietary, which seems to mean peasant proprietors with their estates deeply encumbered. That is a proposition which can hardly be looked upon with favour, especially when the question comes on, where is the money to come from? The country would hardly be more prosperous or more content were there no landlords. I will not detain your Lordships longer, but will simply second the Address. [See page 14.]
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, having been in this House for many years, I have observed that the usual practice for a person in my position, who speaks early in a debate upon the Address, is this: He pays a compliment to the Mover and Seconder, when it is deserved. He makes some very general observations on the legislation which has been promised in the Speech from the Throne, adds some remarks upon what has passed during the Recess, and asks some questions as to the present and future policy of the Government. But, before I attempt to perform any part of this duty, you will allow me to express, for myself and for my noble Friends around me, how completely we agree with the remarks of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Onslow) as to our satisfaction that the health and strength of Her Majesty have enabled her to arrive here to-day, amid the acclamations of the people, on one of the most important and graceful occasions for Her Majesty's presence among her subjects. Now, with regard to the attempt usually made to get information out of Her Majesty's Government, I am obliged to confess that of late years I have not been very successful in obtaining answers to the questions which I have put, and which appeared to me to relate to matters of great public interest. Nevertheless, I hope to be more fortunate in getting some information which the public await with great anxiety. With respect to the Mover and Seconder of the Address, I can, with the greatest sincerity, congratulate the noble Earl who moved it on the facility and clearness of his speech, which appeared to mo the more agreeable because there

21
was added to it a little flavour of Party spirit. With reference to the Seconder of the Address, it is not the first time the noble Earl has spoken in this House. Some time ago there was a speech made by him full of matters about the country to which he belongs; and on that occasion I had an opportunity of complimenting him on the hereditary claims he has to the respect of this House. With regard to the legislation promised in Her Majesty's gracious Speech, I have this to remark—that on the opening of the six last Sessions the promise of legislation has on each occasion been small, and even that small promise has not been kept. That legislation has been impeded by Parliamentary obstruction, and by wars and rumours of wars, is true; but I have always doubted whether Her Majesty's Government much regretted it—whether they did not wish by a masterly inactivity to show a brilliant contrast to the legislative energy of their Predecessors. It seems, however, that I was wrong, and that they were only concentrating their efforts on the last Session—that, like the Irish postboy, they were reserving their trot for the avenue. The Secretary of State for the Colonies told us the other day that this was to be a Session of real work. No one denies that the Government have the legal right to keep a Parliament together for seven years. But it is a question whether it is right, especially in a Conservative sense, to put the utmost strain upon the Septennial Act, particularly when there are a host of new and important issues upon which the constituencies have had no opportunity of giving an opinion. I own there are temptations in this case. The large majority which insures the existence of a Government which is considered by them necessary for the safety of the Empire—their misgivings as to the result of the General Election—these are temptations, and, if I am right with respect to their wishes on the subject of legislation, it would be a pity to lose a Parliament so admirably fitted to do nothing. But that the Government really expect to carry an extended list of important measures I can hardly believe. Judging by former averages, one or two is all that they can hope for out of the whole. There is, indeed, one measure not announced in the Queen's Speech, but which, I am told, will appear in the
22
shape of a Private Bill, on which I heartily congratulate your Lordships. It may possibly prove to be the most useful measure of this Parliament. I called attention last Session to the miserable supply of water in the Metropolis for the extinction of fire. A noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown), who had often, without any encouragement from the Government, brought the whole subject before your Lordships, announced his intention of asking your Lordships to agree to a Resolution on the subject. Mr. Cross, however, told us that he intended to take the matter in hand, and deprecated further discussion in this House till he could make his statement. I believe that he fulfilled his pledge, and has been successfully working on the lines of the excellent Reports of the Society of Arts. With regard to any retrospect as to what has happened during the Recess, I have this difficulty. It has been usual during a Recess for the Opposition, who have plenty of leisure, to make frequent extra-Parliamentary speeches, and for Ministers, who are more fully occupied, to speak at much greater intervals, reserving themselves for the meeting of Parliament. The present Cabinet, small in numbers, and, perhaps, not the worse for that, contains most distinguished orators. In 1878, a week had not elapsed after the Prorogation before Cabinet Ministers were beginning to harangue the Provinces. In 1879 the majority of the Cabinet have done more of what is vulgarly called "stumping the country" than any previous Administration has done daring all the Recesses of any one Parliament. I am bound to say that Her Majesty's Opposition have not been remiss in doing their duty iii this respect, and the result is that the people are constantly hearing both sides of the subject. That does not diminish the importance of discussing these matters fully in Parliament; but it takes off the gloss which might otherwise here belong to them. Some Members of the Government have complained of the use of strong language; but I am quite sure that that is a feeling in which the Prime Minister does not share. We all know with what ridicule he has treated such mealy-mouthed objections to strong language on vital questions; and, therefore, though he may approve his friends and supporters in calling the Opposition unpa-

23
triotic enemies to their country, and men who wish to break up the Empire abroad and bring about revolution at home, he could hardly consider them as compliments, or that they hardly gave to the Opposition that monopoly of abuse which is attributed to them. Among the subjects discussed has been the depression in the trade and agriculture of the country, and the state of foreign affairs. As regards agriculture, I am a little surprised that not one word of sympathy is expressed in the Queen's Speech as to the depression under which the whole agriculture of the United Kingdom is suffering at this moment. As regards trade, leading Members of the Government have spoken in the most decided way as to the impossibility of reverting to Protection, direct or indirect, as a mode of relieving distress. But in declaring that a return to Protection was impossible, I regret certain language which has been held by some Members of the Government. I regret I do not see the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) here tonight, not only on account of his indisposition, which I hope is not serious, but on account of the reference I intend to make. The noble Marquess, speaking in a town which is supposed to be the head-quarters of Free Trade, took credit as a Freetrader for having reduced the duty on a single article in the Indian tariff at a time when the Indian Debt was being increased. He went on, still as a Freetrader, to deplore the walls of Protection which he found surrounding most of the great countries of the world, and then suddenly, and apparently to the astonishment of his hearers, he ox-pressed the deepest regret at the complete manner in which Sir Robert Pool and his successors had adopted Free Trade as far as we wore concerned, instead of retaining the duties on a number of articles which might have enabled us to haggle with foreign Governments, varying as we went along our own import duties according to the fancies and prejudices of the States with which we were dealing. Now, my Lords, the noble Marquess is, I am sure, very anxious, as he stated, to persuade foreign countries to reduce their tariffs, and he finds no doubt a difficulty, from the fact of our having few reductions left to make, in dealing with statesmen who believe that to reduce a duty is to confer a benefit upon us and not upon the in-
24
habitants of their own country. But has he reflected upon the immense difficulty which language such as his, and such as the much stronger expressions used by the first Legal Adviser of the Crown in the House of Commons, throws in the way of our diplomatic agents when endeavouring to obtain a reduction? Secretaries of State and First Law Officers of the Crown cannot make public speeches exclusively for home consumption—hey get published abroad; and is it not certain that a Protectionist foreign statesman will say—"I believe the reduction of duties is dangerous to the industries of my country; but I am also convinced that they have proved to be so even for those of Great Britain, for do I not find some of the most important personages of your Government expressing extreme regret that for 30 years the freedom of your commerce has been complete? Either it has been an advantage or it has not: and it is perfectly impossible that it should be an advantage if your ablest men are of opinion that it would have been wise to exclude our goods because we did not admit yours." I presume it is from some practical experience of the difficulty of meeting such arguments that the Under Secretary of State has, I am glad to see, been employing language which is entirely opposed to the regrets expressed by his Chief. The advantages of Free Trade for this country have not been more clearly shown by our extraordinary industrial prosperity during the quarter of a century following the Repeal of the Corn Laws than by the fact of our having suffered less in the recent time of depression than other countries afflicted with Protection. That this is so is proved in a striking manner by the Board of Trade tables, which show that while there has been hardly any diminution in the amount of goods which we have exported, the value of those goods has only fallen 8 per cent; whereas the decrease in the value of our imports has been more than 30 per cent. A year ago I stated that the Government had for two previous years been seeing bits of blue sky not visible to the unofficial eye; and I asserted my belief that if they only stuck to their text they would, at last, find themselves in the right. I believe that the revival of trade has been retarded by the want of political as well as commercial confidence; but the tide

25
has certainly turned, and although there may be danger from exaggerated speculation, I shall be surprised if, during the next few years, we have not additional proofs of the industrial superiority of a country enjoying Free Trade over those which interpose artificial obstacles in the way of its full development. I am glad to see that Ministers in France give no encouragement, at all events, to increased Protection in that rich country. With regard to agriculture, I am afraid the question of revival is one for the future and not for the present. Farmers have been ruined, landowners much embarrassed, and labourers suffering, though to a much less degree. The immediate cause has been the coincidence of a succession of bad harvests in this country with a succession of wonderfully good harvests in America, accompanied by a great depression among consumers of agricultural produce both here and in the United States. The First Lord of the Treasury said last year that this was the only interest which had suffered from Free Trade. I do not believe that Protection would have helped the farmer more than it did in the years when it still existed, while it would have been absolute ruin to the labourer. But the strain of competition has been great, and figures are given which threaten much more severe competition. One grain of comfort might be derived from the revival of one of those branches of industry to which I have alluded. Seven months ago there was not an expert in the iron trade who did not think it was doubtful whether we could compete with the American ironmaster in the neutral markets, and was not certain that we should never send a ton of iron or steel again to the States. For the last four months we have been doing the Americans that which Protectionists would call the injury of inundating them at their own request with iron. Is not this a lesson that we must not attach too much importance to the gloomy predictions even of the most experienced men in times of great depression? But of this we may be sure—that a competition which, has reduced the rent of land in the Eastern States of America to nil will make it necessary for us to make every effort to free British agriculture from all that may clog its most beneficial exercise. I am especially glad to have heard the announcement made in the Speech in
26
reference to a Bill for some alteration in the Land Laws. Forty years ago I formed my own opinion that the Land Laws of France and those of this country were alike in extremes—those of France in taking away nearly all freedom of testamentary disposition and making the partition of estates almost compulsory, and those of England in restricting sales, in making the transfer of land expensive, in cramping the liberty of the supposed possessor, in discouraging improvements by the landowner and the best cultivation by the tenant, and by making artificial difficulties in the way of either dividing or agglomerating estates. I believe that change is necessary, and that some change would be desired by farmers and would not really be objected to by landlords, whatever might be the feelings of some of their advisers. Those changes should be in the direction of simplifying titles; of making the presumption of law, both as regards the succession to land and the relation of landlord, conform, as far as possible, to right principle, and, without destroying freedom of contract, should give more liberty of action to the nominal landowner. I am quite certain that if the measure contemplated by Her Majesty's Government carries out some such principles as these, the measure will be one which we on this side of the House can approve. I should hardly venture to speak of the subject of distress in Ireland after the full manner in which the noble Earl opposite has referred to the subject. I am exceedingly anxious to hear from the Government the way in which they intend to deal with this question in detail. I hope they have not neglected the experience gained by Lord Russell's Government, and that they will use the means best adapted to relieve distress without in any way interfering with the general labour market. I think it is not possible to make sufficient provision, without deliberately breaking the solemn provision of an Act of Parliament passed not long ago. My Lords, I am not one of those who impute wickedness to Irishmen because they advocate Home Rule, if they think conscientiously that it would be for the public advantage. I deplore the fact that men of great ability and influence should waste their efforts upon what I believe to be a sterile agitation, instead

27
of profiting by our present institutions to join with Englishmen and Scotchmen in promoting measures for the welfare of our common country. I use the word sterile advisedly, and I need not argue in this Assembly that it is impossible for Home Rule, such as exists in Canada, could be established in the sister Kingdom. But if you talk of giving to Irishmen more power to do their own local work I entirely agree. I believe what is wanted is a thorough reform of the local governments of Ireland, and that we should then throw upon these reformed bodies the greatest possible amount of local duties and responsibilities. You would in this way relieve the Members of the House of Commons from an intolerable burden that now presses upon them. I regret the violent language used and the violent measures advocated by Mr. Parnell, and I do so on this ground. During the whole of this century there have been two parties in England and Scotland, one very jealous of Ireland and desirous of keeping a heavy hand upon it, and the other anxious to meet whatever was proposed by Irishmen and to act in accordance with their feelings, and even with their prejudices, so far as that could be done without a breach of principle. I believe that during the whole of that time the one party has diminished in strength and the other has gained ground in strength and in numbers; and I do fear that the violent language used by and the proceedings of persons like Mr. Parnell tend to create a re-action in this country, and to make it difficult to go on with those measures of amelioration connected with Ireland which most of us ardently desire. The noble Earl opposite alluded to a recent proposal of Mr. Bright. Mr. Bright is a very remarkable man, and has given much attention to the ills of Ireland, and has suggested measures for their removal, scrupulously endeavouring to make them consistent with a due regard for the rights of property. His proposal may be open to all the objections which have been raised, not only by the Conservative Party, but by men like Mr. Fawcett; but I think there can be no doubt of his honest desire to ameliorate the present state of things. Merely from the fact of agrarian propositions in a different quarter, I have seen Mr. Bright treated as if he were a revolutionary and
28
an agrarian Socialist. In my opinion it is the duty of both Englishmen and Irishmen to discuss questions of this kind calmly and in the spirit of the late Lord Bessborough—a man known and liked in this House, and still more known and liked in his own country of Ireland, for his singular calmness, firmness, and judgment, mixed with the greatest possible liberality in relation to subjects of this kind. Connected with the previous subjects there is a question which, we have been informed on high authority, is the strong point of the Government. Lord Carnarvon last year said that good government made good finance. He immediately apologized for having unintentionally borrowed the phrase from the First Lord of the Treasury. I am afraid that the First Lord owes another apology to Baron Louis, who is quoted by all the contemporary memoirs as having used this expression at the time of the Restoration; and Baron Louis probably owed apologies to the Ministers of Henri Quatre and Queen Elizabeth. The maxim is so obvious that it must have occurred to many minds. That in a time of unusual depression we have been spending an unusual amount of money there is no doubt; that greater expenditure means a certain pressure upon trade and a greater pressure upon those who are employed in re-productive labour, no one can question. The great question is this: Whether the objects of Her Majesty's Government and the results which have attended their policy justify the evil of an increased expenditure. Her Majesty's Ministers have spoken a good deal on foreign affairs; but they certainly have not given those accurate detailed explanations with regard to their policy which we might expect in Parliament. They have chiefly confined themselves to some vague general declarations as to England having risen in the scale of nations, and that sort of thing; and then they turn round upon the Opposition, and adopt a peculiar mode of proceeding. They imagine a foreign policy adopted by the late Government, and it is much easier to do this in consequence of the foreign policy of the late Government having been seriously questioned in Parliament. Then on this assumed policy they proceed with the greatest satisfaction to throw stones and sticks at us. I see the noble Lord opposite the Under Secretary of State for War

29
(Viscount Bury) laughing; hut it is exactly what he did when he went to Nottingham a short time ago. He there made a most eulogistic speech in favour of the foreign policy of the present Government, and then he proceeded to find the most severe fault with one act of the foreign policy after another which had been pursued by successive Liberal Secretaries of State. The noble Lord has great advantages in discussing these questions. We know that he has a mind open to conviction on political subjects. He has the advantage not generally possessed by noble Lords on this side or on that side of the House. He has been able to study these questions from different points of view. Unlike the knights of old, he has been able to see both the silver and the gold sides of the shield. What, however, puzzles me a little is how he can throw such blame upon acts done at the Foreign Office in the time of Lord Palmerston, Lord Clarendon, Lord Russell, Mr. Gladstone, and myself, when I fancied that during the greater part of that time he appeared to be a supporter of those public men. Now, I do not object to his giving his more or less fixed opinions to the electors of Nottingham. But I have a right to claim that a Member of the Government, speaking with official authority, should to particular as to his facts. He told Nottingham that the late Government had abandoned the Black Sea to the Russians. What are the facts? One of the conditions of the Treaty of Paris was the neutralization of the Black Sea. It was not one of the conditions recorded by Count Buol and Lord Clarendon as thought necessary at the Conference of Vienna by the Powers of Europe as a condition of peace. It was an afterthought of M. Drouyn de Lhuys. Lord Palmerston thought this provision would have the practical effect of giving time to Turkey to recover the naval position she held before the unfortunate destruction of her Fleet at Sinope. He did not think it could be permanently retained. He never thought that condition could last. What was the opinion of Mr. Gladstone on that subject? He denounced it in the strongest manner as a condition to which it was impossible that a great military Power could be subjected, seeing that it deprived Russia of the right of defending its own coasts and its own
30
trade. I do not expect to convince the noble Lord by citing Mr. Gladstone's opinion; but the noble Earl the Prime Minister thought it a most humiliating condition, and he was supported by the noble Marquess the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who, with his usual fertility, gave several illustrations of the absurd injustice of the condition. France told the Emperor of Russia that, in her opinion, that condition ought to be modified; Germany did the same; Austria followed Germany; and Italy followed Austria; and we were left alone in our silence. Prince Gortchakoff, in an awkward and discourteous manner as regarded the co-signatories of the Treaty of 1856, denounced the duty of the Emperor to be bound by it. We called upon Europe to join with us in repelling what seemed to us an offensive assumption. Baron Brunnow tried day after day to obtain from mo some inkling of what would be our course if the retractation was made. I positively refused to give that information until that fact was accomplished. The most ample retractation was made—one that has been quoted with effect by Her Majesty's present Government—and then, and not till then, all Europe agreed not to abandon the Black Sea to Russia, as the Under Secretary of State stated at Nottingham, but to substitute for it another arrangement. It was to admit not only Russia, but Turkey also, with her magnificent Fleet, to the Black Sea, and to give the latter the power which she did not then possess of calling in her maritime allies even in time of peace. The Turkish Ambassador stated that was the very thing that Turkey wanted. It is an arrangement which no one can pretend was of the slightest advantage to Russia in the last war. I remember a conversation in this House on the subject. I described the alternatives which we might have adopted, all of which seemed to me to be bad. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) following asked whether another had not suggested itself to me—namely, to do nothing. The suggestion did not occur to me, and, at all events, it has not been adopted by him in a somewhat similar case. When Russia claimed Batoum, which she has now got, the noble Marquess was not satisfied in doing nothing. He secretly engaged with Russia to join Europe in giving sanction to their possessing the

31
best port in Asia Minor. I really think the noble Lord has given me a fair locus standi to come forward to do what I have never done before—defend the Foreign Office. We have been attacked for having during the late Administration said so little about foreign affairs. It is a fault which cannot be imputed to the present Cabinet. I doubt whether any former Administration ever talked so much. It has its advantages, but they are hardly of a lasting character. In the long run it does not give strength, and when so much is said it is almost impossible for Ministers not to contradict one another and even themselves. We all remember, when the Treaty of Berlin was signed, Her Majesty's Ministers told us they had saved Russia going to Constantinople—which I do not believe at all—that they had brought back peace with honour, that they had led Europe, and that they had saved Europe. It was pointed out the other day that the secret Memorandum was necessary to induce Prince Bismarck to hold the Conference at all. It is said that when Russia endeavoured to deviate from the line traced in it, he kept her to the point. It is said that when the British Plenipotentiaries, frightened by the storm raised by the publication of the secret Memorandum, tried to withdraw from the concession they had promised respecting Batoum, Prince Bismark held them to their bond. Could anyone doubt that Prince Bismarck had an important hand in the Treaty? Well, did he talk of saving and leading Europe? No, he minimized his share, his interest in the work; he described in the humblest illustration the nature of his work. I have some doubt whether the real strength lay with those who had talked the biggest. The First Lord of the Admiralty the other day said that it was now known that when England said that a thing was not to be done, all the power and strength of England would be exerted to prevent it. I do not know any such a thing. It happens that at the end of Mr. Gladstone's Administration I said in this House—and I said it without contradiction and without the fear of contradiction—that we had never said one word to which we had not adhered. Is it possible to say this regarding this very Treaty of Berlin? Read the celebrated Circular of the noble Marquess.
32
Could anything be stronger than the objections stated in it to the San Stefano Treaty? As to the annexation by Russia of Bessarabia, the acquisition of the important harbour of Batoum, the strongholds of Armenia, the indemnity from the Turks—not one of these objections has been met by the Treaty of Berlin. It is true that the noble Marquess says that those who think so cannot ever have read the Circular, because there is a sentence in the Circular—"These results arise not so much from a single Article as from the operation of the instrument as a whole." And we are told that the political and military supremacy of the Sultan in Eastern Roumelia will compensate for all the other objections; but even if this were so, which no one can think, what does the supremacy of the Sultan in Eastern Roumelia amount to? He cannot garrison the impregnable barrier, and he has not sufficient interest with the Governor of Eastern Roumelia to obtain the dismissal of Militia officers who insult him. Now, my objections to the Berlin Treaty are not great; there are great faults in it, but it was a tolerable arrangement under the whole of the circumstances. But what I object to is the singular inconsistency of the Treaty with the big words you used. The Circular had created great enthusiasm among certain classes of the supporters of the Government. The Treaty of Berlin was an immense disappointment to these. And this disappointment drove the Government into the most indefensible Convention that England has made during this century—a Convention which, while it destroys the proud boast of a Conservative statesman that England is strong because she fears nothing and wants nothing, throws upon us and our survivors indefinite liabilities under all possible contingencies, without giving us the slightest additional means of carrying out those engagements or of reforming the Turks. With regard to these two Treaties, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government a few questions. We know that Turkey has fulfilled her engagements towards Russia and towards Austria. What progress has been made with respect to the concession, which the Prime Minister described in Knightsbridge to be so great, to Greece? Are the other Powers agreed on the subject? Are we acting

33
with them? Again, what progress has been made in carrying out the Treaty respecting Montenegro? I entirely agree with the Mover of the Address in what he said on the subject of the Convention for the suppression of the Slave Trade, and I hope it will be more effectual than the promises in the same direction hitherto given. I would also like to know something about that mysterious incident, the demonstration with regard to the persecution of the missionary and his assistant, and the menaces, if any, which were used by Sir Austen Layard, and what was the ultimate success of the measures which he took? With regard to Cyprus, if Lord Salisbury had been here, I should have liked to know whether the internal administration has profited by the strange expedient of placing it under his personal superintendence, rather than committing it to the care of the Colonial Office, so full of traditions? I will venture to ask the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Beaconsfield), whether the steaming in during the healthy time of the year of men-of-war into the pestilential harbour of Famagosta, and steaming out again as soon as possible, is a fulfilment of the pledge which was to have been redeemed eight months ago as to an available port for all our commerce, and whether it will contribute much to the establishment of a place of arms? There is a long paragraph in the Queen's Speech about South Africa. I entirely join with the noble Mover in rejoicing that the war is ended. The fact of its being at an end does not in the slightest diminish my regret—I may say, my indignation—that it ever was commenced. Two Ministers have lately laid great stress on the fact that the Government not only did not sanction, but forbade the war, and they greatly deploredit. But the war was either just or necessary, or it was not. If it was just and necessary, why did the Government forbid it? If it was not just and necessary, I can conceive no more deplorable proof of weakness—nothing of a worse example—than that a war should be begun and carried on with varied disaster and success, at a great cost of blood and treasure, with the perfect acquiescence of a Government which deplores, but does not prevent it. It is true that a third Minister has since declared that now the war is over, and successfully, he thinks
34
that the Government were wrong and Sir Bartle Frere was right. As Papers are promised, I presume they will give us the grounds for the promise which has often been held out to us of a speedy Confederation, and the mode in which it is proposed to settle the country. This Speech does not announce, like a previous one, that the annexation of the Transvaal has been received throughout the Province with enthusiasm. I presume the Papers will show whether Sir Garnet Wolseley's declarations were the result of instructions from home, and, if not, whether they have been approved. There are two paragraphs in the Speech from the Throne on a subject upon which the interest of the country is deeply concentrated. Forty years ago a dreadful disaster happened, the worst that has happened to this country during this century. The bitter lesson was taken to heart by the East India Company, by successive Advisers of the Crown, by successive Viceroys and distinguished Anglo-Indian soldiers and administrators. It was only after the accession of the present Government to power that a change of policy was decided upon, a policy not announced, but carefully concealed from the people of this country. What has been the result? Let anyone take up the account by the historian Kaye, or the statesman soldier Sir Henry Durant, and shut his eyes to the dates, and he will fancy that he is reading step by step, with the great exception of the incompetency of some British officer, every incident of the present day. In the same way I read in the newspapers of the last year of the easy overrunning of Afghanistan by our troops, of the fanaticism excited by our advance, of the massacre of our gallant Representative, the difficulty in which we found ourselves, and which is indicated in the Queen's Speech, of remaining or going away. I can hardly help fancying that I am hearing the very words which the late Lord Lawrence, with not a grain of that Party feeling which may excite some of us, and with almost tears in his eyes for that India which he loved and had served so well, prophesied in conversation to me, as he did in public, the certain results of the step so falsely taken. What is the present position of things? We have some 45,000 British troops there—more are hurrying up from Bombay; we hardly

35
do more than hold our own; we have spent millions in destroying the only Government; the outlying Provinces north and west are in complete anarchy; and all this has been done not to prevent Russia invading us—because that the Prime Minister said was almost impossible—but to destroy the possibility of Russian intrigue. Is it possible to imagine more completely playing the game of Russia or any Power that wishes to intrigue? What the country want to know—and I do not speak merely of the Opposition, thoughtful Conservatives are just as anxious as we are—what we want to know is, what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government? Sir Michael Hicks-Beach pledges the Government to take such measures as will revive the prosperity of the Afghans. The First Lord of the Admiralty says that the policy of the Government is to refrain from annexation except when circumstances absolutely compel them to resort to it, not only for their own preservation, but for the interests of the people annexed. Sir Stafford Northcote says it is a policy of self-defence, and not a policy of annexation. It is a policy which, aims at securing India from vain alarms of movements and invasions from outside. It must be exceedingly difficult for Sir Stafford Northcote to define a policy which is at once consistent with the principles he has publicly laid down about the folly of going beyond our former Frontier and the policy which his Colleagues have initiated. Lord Lytton says that it is not the acquisition of territory, but the firm establishment of durable foundations for the future good behaviour of India's Afghan neighbours. Her Majesty's gracious Speech indicates that the troops are to remain until this wild country is settled, and it adds—which really in a State document sounds like a joke at this moment—that it desires to remain on friendly relations with the Rulers who no longer exist, and with the people whose hatred they have so deeply stirred. It is not for me to say that the Government have no policy. But so ignorant is every Peer in this House who is not in the Cabinet of their views, and so accustomed are we to surprises, that I doubt whether there is any one of us who would be much astonished if they heard that the Government had decided either to withdraw to that scientific
36
Frontier of which we have heard so much, but the definition of which is not known to us—the Annexe to the Treaty of Gandamak having been steadily withheld from us—or that they had decided to retain Cabul and Candahar; that they were marching on Herat, or adding a fresh guarantee to our stock with respect to Persia. Surely, my Lords, Her Majesty's Government should give us not vague generalities, but some clear indication of what their policy is. I must make one remark upon the reckless way in which boasts are made even in the Speech from the Throne. The march upon Cabul is described as rapid. The murder of the gallant Cavagnari was on the 3rd of September. The orders to advance were on the 6th, and the distance was 82 miles. How long do you take to make this march?—just one month. The distance from Lundi Kotal, the post on the scientific Frontier in the Khyber, to Cabul, is 157 miles. The order to advance was given on the 6th. The force reached Jellalabad, 52 miles from Lundi Kotal, on the 13th of October, and was, therefore, more than a month in marching 52 miles. These were marches at a pace which a snail would not call rapid. The fault was not in the least that of the officers; it was that of the arrangements and want of preparations of the Indian Government, whom the Government insisted upon our thanking at the end of the Session. My Lords, there are two subjects to which I must allude, though it is with the greatest pain that I do so. A charge has been made by Bishop Colenso of acts done by our countrymen in defiance of all the laws, not of peace, but of acknowledged warfare. I need not say that Bishop Colenso is an important witness, from his position, his high character, and his knowledge of the country. But his sympathy with the Natives, which does him so much honour, his detestation of a war which has appeared to him unjust, unnecessary, and un-Christian, is so strong that it may have warped his judgment in judging of evidence. I devoutly wish that this may be the case. Another Memorial has been presented to the Prime Minister, in calm and almost judicial language, denouncing certain acts committed by the British authorities in Afghanistan contrary to the laws of civilized warfare, and certain to be followed by dis-

37
grace and dishonour, and asking for an inquiry. The noble Earl will, I have no doubt, be prepared to say what knowledge he has of these facts, what inquiries have been made, what have been the results, and what course the Government have taken with reference to this matter. The President of the Board of Trade (Viscount Sandon) speaks lightly of struggles unto the death. It is a phrase he uses in every speech of his, and it is a grave question whether such struggles are imminent upon us. The noble Viscount is reported to have stated at Liverpool the other day that our neighbours had enormous Armies, and were trying to injure us in all directions. This is most portentous information, even if true, to be blurted out for the first time by a Cabinet Minister in an electioneering speech. The first part of the intelligence is superfluous—the second is perfectly new to me. Germany, France, Austria, and Italy have all enormous Armies. Are they all or any of them trying to injure us in all directions? And if only one was meant, and that Russia, I wish to know what are the attempts that Russia is known to be making since August last, when the Prime Minister solemnly announced that the Emperor of Russia
"has fulfilled his engagements-with dignity and honour, and is at this moment cordially operating with this country and the other Powers of Europe in a policy the object of which is to secure and maintain the general peace?"
If Viscount Sandon is right, why did the Prime Minister lull us into a false security in August, and why does he tell us in the Speech to-day that the relations of the Queen with Foreign Powers are all friendly? However, whether we are to have a struggle unto death depends much upon our own policy. If our foreign policy is to be conducted on a system of jerks and surprises; if when we touch the Eastern Question we sanction the material advance of Russia, and at the same time make ourselves equally detested by Russians, by Slavs, by Turks, and by Greeks; if in another Continent we carry on a bloody and inglorious war, which, Ministers tell you, they not only did not order, but actually prohibited and which they openly deplore; if in that Continent you annex settlers of a European race—a race as obstinate as ourselves—and after
38
promising them freedom, announce that you mean to govern them despotically and to govern them for ever; if in India you disregard all the lessons of experience and all the best recent advice, and pour out blood and treasure on a mountainous district, which you absolutely manure as a hotbed for hostile intrigues, and which it is equally difficult to remain in or to retire from; if you think to govern the whole world by phrases—defiant phrases periodically produced, now in a dead, now in a living language, and which daily collect around them an increasing flavour of ridicule—I do not know that a struggle unto death may not be nearer than is supposed. But if, on the other hand, your policy is firm and conciliatory, not saying more than you mean to perform, and if you adhere to what you say; if you jealously protect yourself from real injury and insult; if, while requiring respect, you fully respect the rights of others; if you show that you do not covet the lands of others, but throw all the weight of your influence in the European Councils in favour of justice, of freedom, and of peace, I have such confidence in the geographical position, the maritime resources, the accumulated wealth, the free institutions, and the spirit of this people, that I do not believe that it will be the interest or the wish of our neighbours to engage us in a struggle, or that the struggle, if it came, would be a struggle unto death.
THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just addressed us has given us a very picturesque description of the rhetorical campaign carried on during the Recess. According to the noble Earl, scarcely a single leading Member of either of the two great Parties in the State has not played a part more or less distinguished in those efforts of eloquence. One alone was wanting, and that was the noble Earl himself; but to-night he has certainly made up for all the deficiencies of the Recess. The noble Earl has shown us that he has been a careful and a brilliant critic throughout the Recess of all those efforts of eloquence that we have heard. The noble Earl has given us an article, a summary, a literary production of no ordinary character, full, I conclude, of plain Whig principles. He has, I think, placed before us in a very able manner—and cer-

39
tainly, all will admit, in a very agreeable manner—some of the sayings of his opponents, mixed up with some of their doings, though hardly introduced into discussion to-night with the usual fairness which distinguishes our debates; for certainly I did not expect we should be called upon to vindicate the negotiations that terminated with the Treaty of Berlin, a subject which has boon brought most fully before your Lordships' House before, upon which your Lordships have given your opinion, and in a manner, with numbers present, and with power of debate and discussion, which, I think, should be considered, in this Parliament at least, conclusive as to the judgment which can be formed upon those events. I would not have touched upon that subject now, even in a cursory way, had it not been for two or three authentic anecdotes of the noble Earl's—I will not say invented for the occasion, because I am sure he has some authority for them beyond his own fancy—which I cannot pass over without notice. I will not dwell upon his charge, repeated more than once, that we described the Balkans as "an impregnable bulwark and frontier," when such an epithet was never used, and could not be used, by anyone who had any knowledge of the facts. What was said at the time—and what, I believe, is perfectly justified by circumstances—is that the Balkans were "an intelligible frontier," not "an impregnable frontier," and everyone acquainted with these matters will, I think, agree with that. The noble Earl, in speaking of the Treaty of Berlin, connected it with the Turkish Convention. Accurately speaking, it was not part of the negotiations of Berlin, nor does it appear in the Treaty; but the noble Earl, noticing the guarantee given to the Porte as to Asia Minor, says—
"It is well known—I believe there is no doubt about it, he says—that it was in consequence of the general discontent that was felt in England, when the results of the Treaty of Berlin were made known, that Her Majesty's Government then had recourse to this Convention in order to distract public attention and obloquy."
Now, if the noble Earl will only look at the date of the Treaty—of the Convention with the Sultan respecting Asia Minor—he will see that that instrument was negotiated and signed before the
40
labours of the Berlin Conference had ceased, or, indeed, I believe, before they had even commenced. The noble Earl says he has often asked questions which have not been answered. I have endeavoured to-night to make a catalogue of his questions, so as to answer them categorically. The noble Earl wishes to know what has been done with regard to the delimitation of Montenegro. Well, that is a business which is not concluded; but I should think that at no time have the prospects of its being concluded in a satisfactory manner been more hopeful than at the present. Upon that point I can speak with some confidence. The noble Earl next wants to know what we have done about Greece. Well, I consider the policy of Her Majesty's Government respecting Greece to be one which, if it were fairly challenged by the noble Earl, we should have no difficulty in defending. But it is very difficult to meet questions which are not preceded by any statement of facts, or by any detailed argument from which you may infer the object of those questions. I do not wish to go into the difficulty respecting the settlement of the Greek Frontier under the Treaty of Berlin; but I may explain that at present the state of the case is this. On the 17th of last month, after long and protracted negotiations, the suggestion made by the French Government, which had been for some time under the notice of the Powers, was brought under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and in consequence of it we made a proposition which, in our opinion, and in the opinion of others, gives us every reason to hope that the affair may be shortly concluded. That was the 17th of last month. Of course, it is not in my power, at the present time, to go into any detail on the matter. When a proposition is before the Powers, nothing can be more irregular, and no step can be taken that is more calculated to injure the chances of success, than that we should enter into the discussion of the conditions which are matters of diplomatic deliberation. But I do say this—that I look forward with confidence to a settlement of that question; and I am sure that when all the Papers respecting it are placed before Parliament they will be such that no British Minister need be ashamed of laying on the Table of the House. The noble Earl wants informa-

41
tion upon the question of the missionary. Now, the question of the missionary is, I hope, not one of such importance as the noble Earl would make it. I hope he will find that the general result is of a satisfactory character. There are Papers to be placed upon the Table which will give the noble Lord all the information he desires. I may take this opportunity of saying that Papers will also be presented forthwith upon the affairs of Central Asia and the settlement of boundaries and other matters under the Treaty of Berlin, which will show that no ordinary pains have been taken, not only by Her Majesty's Government, but by all the signatories to the Treaty of Berlin, to carry into effect arrangements conducive to the maintenance of general peace. The noble Earl then comes to what he calls the unjust and unnecessary war in South Africa, and says he cannot understand how a war can be at the same time unjust and yet necessary. "Well, I will not enter into any controversy about words; but the noble Earl seemed to be very dissatisfied with the condition of affairs, and wanted to know whether there was any prospect of this scheme of South African Confederation being carried into effect; and, without entering into any controversy on the question how a war can be just that is unnecessary, I would refer for one moment to the conviction which the noble Earl seems to entertain, that there is no prospect of any scheme of Confederation being carried into effect in South Africa. I will read to the noble Earl a telegram recently received from Sir Bartle Frere, under date January 27. It is as follows:—
"My Ministers, having considered the subject of your despatch dated the 11th of December, have informed me that they are willing to deal with Griqualand West and Kaffirland. They propose a Conference to draft details for the union of all the South African Colonies—the Capo to be represented by the Governor and six members; Natal, Transvaal, and Griqualand West, each by three; totol number of representatives at Conference, 15. A practical solution of many difficulties is offered by this Minute. To-day's mail takes a despatch on the subject."
I think that telegram is a sufficient answer to the noble Lord so far as South Africa is concerned. Well, then the noble Earl comes to the case of Afghanistan. I must confess to being at a loss to know exactly what the noble
42
Earl wants us to tell him. He addresses to us a question which does not appear to me to be founded upon fact, or to have any character of reality. He assumes certain opinions and imputes them to the Chiefs and Sirdars of Afghanistan. He informs us that the whole country is against us; whereas those who have studied the question on the spot know that only a very limited portion of the population is against us. Then he wants to know what the Government are going to do? Well, that is a question which it is difficult to answer, if only in this sense—that it concerns matters which are in an unfinished state. You must consider the question of Afghanistan first of all with reference to the British Empire, and, secondly, with reference to Afghanistan itself. So far as the relations between this country and Afghanistan are concerned, our policy is perfectly clear. It was adopted after due consideration, and, as we believed, with complete and perfect knowledge, and no mistake has been made in carrying it into effect. It is true that a great disaster has occurred, but to such contingencies human affairs are always subject. As regards Afghanistan, what we aimed at was to secure an adequate and powerful Frontier for our Indian Empire. That we obtained, and we obtained it in a very short time, with brilliant military success; and, having obtained that, we negotiated the Treaty of Gandamak, which described and sealed that policy. It is unnecessary to recall to the notice of noble Lords the terrible circumstances which have for a moment prevented that policy from being carried into effect. No doubt it is possible, in applying the same principles which have always influenced us, that circumstances may occur to alter some details of the scheme which were not contemplated at the outset. But our policy remains the same. It is a policy opposed to annexation—a policy in favour of the people of Afghanistan being governed by their own Chief, or Chiefs—they can decide who these should be—but which, at the same time, retains our powerful and adequate military Frontier. That is our policy so far as England is concerned. As regards Afghanistan, we must be guided by circumstances over which we have not always entire control. It is an error to suppose that Afghanistan, generally

43
speaking, was governed in past times by one individual. On the contrary, the grandfather of Yakoob Khan was, I believe, the first Ruler that collected under his power all the tribes of the country. It may be necessary that we should restore Afghanistan to the state in which it was previous to the accession of Dost Mahomed in that respect. That is possible. The noble Earl does not suppose that we are sitting down with our hands in our pockets all this time. Although we have our English interests first of all to look to—that is to say, the security of our Indian Empire—our next object is to have prosperous, happy, and contented neighbours. Well, we are taking those steps which we think are wise, and which, in our opinion, are the best calculated to bring about the results which we desire. But these are things which cannot be done in a day. You cannot settle them as you would pay a morning visit. If you have got a vast country full of warlike populations, and those populations ready to enter into any engagements provided you meet their particular wishes, it is not always easy to ascertain how far the gratification of those wishes may tend to the tranquillity of the country. If we sanction in any way the position and authority of individuals, we take upon ourselves a great responsibility if we make a choice in which the great body of the people have no confidence. It is a work of labour to bring a country like Afghanistan, in its present state, into a condition of tranquillity and prosperity. But there are in that country all the elements of peace and prosperity, and the noble Earl is labouring under a most erroneous impression in supposing that the great body of the people there are opposed to us. In reality, not one-tenth are opposed to us. I am not talking of those who are merely controlled by our regiments. I am talking of those people who really represent masses—the great Chiefs and the great tribes who have placed themselves in confidential and friendly communication with Her Majesty's Government, and from whose declarations, and a wise calculation of the motives which actuate them, we have a right to infer that they are sincere in their desire to bring about a settlement of the country. I believe such a settlement will be brought about,
44
and that we shall have in Afghanistan a neighbour on whom we can depend, on the whole, for its tranquillity and its desire for commercial intercourse; and that that result will be accomplished totally irrespective of the great object of strengthening our Frontier, while it will be highly favourable to the Afghan people themselves. I now come to another part of the question which the noble Earl has noticed. The noble Earl has alluded to the cruelties imputed to Her Majesty's troops in the course of the war in South Africa. Now, all I can say is, that I have seen no evidence which goes to establish a charge of that kind. I do not believe it. The noble Earl has spoken of the Afghan Memorial which has been submitted to me, and asked—What has been done in consequence? I wish the noble Earl could have quoted the answer I made to that document. With regard to the Memorial, it may be, perhaps, that some noble Lords present are more or less entitled to its paternity. At all events, I can see in it a remarkable similarity to the tone of many remarks on Afghanistan to which I have listened in this House; and I observe that those who sign it are generally familiar names on the subject. There are two Bishops, which I always expect. That Memorial imputes the most criminal and cruel conduct to British soldiers, and my answer to it is this—I ask the Memorialists to give me the documents upon which they found these statements. In no instance have I had any such documents. Here are charges of a most extraordinary kind—charges imputing, I say, to a British General cruelties of a criminal character; but there is not the slightest documentary evidence upon which those accusations are based. The Memorialists speak of something which they had read in newspapers; and I find that they are always ready to give credit to those anonymous statements which favour their own views. In those newspapers there are telegrams from places where, no doubt, the most accurate information could be obtained; but whether the authors of the telegrams ever reached those places seems to me to be matter of great doubt. At all events, not the slightest evidence has reached me to justify any of the charges which have boon made. Ono person accused of having acted with unnecessary cruelty is Sir Frederick

45
Roberts. Now, I do not know Sir Frederick Roberts, except by his public conduct; and I believe no one can deny that, irrespective of his skill, he has shown himself to be one of the bravest of men personally. As a general rule, I have not found that those who are brave are cruel. I think not. I may add that I mentioned the subject to a person who has a very accurate knowledge of Sir Frederick Roberts's character, and asked him what sort of a man he was, and whether he was a man who would be likely to act in his position with extreme harshness. The reply was—"He is one of the most merciful men." Here is a man with a tremendous military responsibility, who has shown great skill in his profession, although the noble Earl sneers at the march to Cabul. Here is a man of whom we have not the slightest information which would justify a single statement of the Afghan Memorial, and yet this is the manner in which he is treated by his countrymen. Her Majesty's Government have, of course, taken stops to ascertain the truth in this matter; but it is a very disagreeable thing to institute such inquiries with regard to such a man as Sir Frederick Roberts. In making the inquiry I, however, expressed my disbelief in those allegations. I believe the whole affair will turn out to be like other atrocities—it will serve its purpose, be stigmatized and forgotten. My Lords, I will say nothing about the friendship which Her Majesty maintains with other Powers, which I think the noble Earl has professed to doubt, or seemed to consider inconsistent with the declarations in the gracious Speech. I can only say that the language of the gracious Speech is, in my opinion, accurate language, and it is sincere language, both on the part of Her Majesty, and also as expressing the reciprocal feeling of other Powers. I do not know why the noble Earl has taken upon himself to question the sincerity of that declaration. Certainly he referred to some speeches at an election. A new school of rhetoric has been brought into the House. Our old style is quite worn out. We are now called upon to answer what in somewhat barbaric language are termed "extra-Parliamentary utterances," and not to conduct our discussions upon mutual information afforded by sides of
46
the House, and by means of which much misapprehension was prevented. The area under the old system was, no doubt, more limited; but then it was, I think, adequate. But we are now to be called upon to answer persons who are making speeches upon the hustings at elections—
EARL GRANVILLE: A Cabinet Minister.
THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: And the noble Earl questions the language of what must be one of the most solemn documents of public life—the gracious Speech from the Throne—because he says a Cabinet Minister is away, and has spoken in a manner that does not agree with it. If that be so, it appears to me that the noble Earl ought to have drawn the inference that the Cabinet Minister was wrong, and had not acted properly in expressing himself in the manner to which the noble Earl objects. But the noble Earl did not do that. He took the contrary course. He wanted to make out that Her Majesty's Ministers were insincere. Another point which the noble Earl noticed was the measures respecting Ireland. The noble Earl wants to know why we ask for an indemnity; and he said that the Treasury could have obtained the £500,000, or whatever the sum, without violating a solemn Act of Parliament. The noble Earl will, however, see from the Papers which will immediately be laid before Parliament that he has altogether misconceived the position. We are not asking for this indemnity because we violated any Act of Parliament in taking the money. The Act under which we have obtained this money for the relief of Ireland is an Act which gives to the Government power to that effect. There is no violation in taking the money; the violation for which we require the indemnity is that under the Act of Parliament which allows the Ministry to take this money and devote it to Ireland a fixed rate of interest is required, which it would not always be possible to pay; and, therefore, we have availed ourselves of our privilege as Ministers at a moment of crisis like the present, and we have drawn out a certain amount, which we have been obliged by the exigencies of the case to lend at a lower rate of interest than that prescribed by the Act, and we came to Parliament to indemnify us for that. I think, therefore, the noble Earl will find that his

47
labours during all the speeches in the Recess have not furnished him with a catalogue of points which we have not been able to answer. I was glad to hoar the noble Earl use the expressions which he did with respect to Irish politics growing unfortunately out of this Irish distress. For the first time for a long while I have the satisfaction of agreeing with the noble Earl in his views; but I was sorry to find, at last, that the noble Earl was ready to suggest a great many changes as possible in the conduct of Irish local business, and so on. It is to be regretted these suggestions were not brought forward at a more favourable time, and at a time less open to be misconceived. It is very easy to talk of the House of Commons and of Parliament generally being over laden with business—to a great degree with Irish business—and that it would be very desirable that a great portion of Irish business should be transacted in Ireland. Well, I should like to know what this business is that is to be transacted in Ireland. It is so easy to say these things; but there is no business which, generally speaking, refers to Ireland which would not equally apply to England. There are the people of York, for instance. Why should they not transact their own business. ["Hear, hear!"] "Hear, hear!" says the noble Earl; but you may so go on until you have no Parliament at all. We should find the noble Earl in a short time coming to this point. Well, what is the present result? Why, it is avowed that there is to be a Parliament in St. Stephen's Green. The noble Earl, who has such intimate information of what is going on at an election that he takes down the words of a Cabinet Minister, knows very well that the Party called the Home Rule Party—that is, the Repeal of the Union Party—have defined their policy to be the revival of the Irish Parliament. The noble Earl will allow me, as he has quoted a Colleague of mine, to quote a Colleague of his, one who, although he displayed great sympathy with the new school, and although he was not prepared to be a Member of the Parliament in St. Stephen's Green—not yet prepared—still did not care how many friends he had who sat upon those benches. I wish to say, whatever may be the result of that election, I trust that England will understand what is the issue at the
48
present moment on this subject. I wish the country to understand that it means nothing else but the dismemberment of the United Kingdom. I do not care where a man sits in this House—whether opposite me, or on my own side—those who favour such a policy are false to their Sovereign and to their country, and will live, I feel confident, soon to regret the responsibility which by their conduct they are incurring.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: There was one declaration of the noble Earl who has just sat down which gave me the greatest possible satisfaction—the solemn declaration of the Prime Minister upon a most grave and solemn occasion that he did not believe the reports respecting the executions at Cabul. But, then, I confess my satisfaction at this declaration was very much qualified when he went on to say that he did not believe in them any more than he believed certain other reports of horrors. He referred, I suppose, to his celebrated speech in the House of Commons in relation to the horrors of Batak, which he ridiculed exactly as he has ridiculed this other matter to-night. It is perfectly true that the horrors of Batak were exaggerated; but I hope the noble Earl was satisfied that 3,000 men, women, and children were murdered in the village of Batak. When he tells us that the executions in Cabul have the same foundation as the murders in Batak, I can only say I hope not. But there was another remark of the noble Earl with reference to these alleged executions at Cabul which I listened to with the utmost astonishment. He said there was no foundation for them, except a few foolish newspaper paragraphs. The noble Earl must have been asleep. He cannot have read the Papers on this subject. Is he not aware that the India Office has published in this country a telegram from the Viceroy giving the Proclamation of General Roberts to the people of Cabul? Does the noble Earl know what the charge "against General Roberts is? Does he suppose that we have charged him with going there and instituting a general massacre? No such thing. He is accused of this—and I ask the noble Earl who will speak after me to answer this question—Whether General Roberts has not had shot by his orders men who had been guilty of nothing but the defence of their country? That is the

49
question which I ask. If General Roberts merely shot men whom he had good reasons for believing had act or part in the murder of Sir Louis Cavagnari and his suite, then I admit that he was justified in the act; but if he shot men who had done nothing but oppose the advance of the British troops in the invasion of the country, then I say the act was as infamous a one as was over committed by the Emperor Napoleon. That is the accusation. I must say I feel indignant at the way the noble Earl has treated the subject. I am not one of those who signed the Memorial. I did not sign it when asked. I said—"I do not know the facts, and I shall wait until Parliament meets to know the facts;" and therefore I did not sign it. But what is this Proclamation of General Roberts? First of all he spoke of those who had act or part in the murder of the English Mission, and then came the reference to those who opposed the advance of the British troops, and the Afghans were told that by opposing that advance they became rebels. Rewards were offered for information leading to the capture of any persons implicated in the attack on the Residency, and similar rewards were offered for those who had fought against the British troops since the 3rd of September. I say that this threat was an infamous thing. These men were defending their country; and do you mean to say that because they did not show obedience to the puppet you had under your care they were therefore rebels? Large rewards were offered for rebel officers of the Afghan Army. The noble Earl tells us—" That is all made up by a few scraps in the newspapers." I beg to tell him, in addition to the telegrams, we have the letters from officers in the Army, correspondents of the Press, who give us much better information than the Government give us. I do not know whether action was equal to the threat; but we have it in evidence that numbers have been shot and hanged for no other crime whatever than that they defended their country, which they had a right to do. I may express satisfaction at another part of the speech of the noble Earl. He was asked—by my noble Friend behind me (Earl Granville)—What is the policy of the Government with regard to Afghanistan?—and he replied that it was a very awkward question to be asked. I have
50
no doubt it is; but he answered it to some extent by saying—"We mean to go back to the principle laid down at Gandamak." My Lords, I am very glad to hear it. I think it is a foolish Treaty and Frontier; but of the various alternatives before you this, perhaps, does the least mischief. But my satisfaction was very much qualified by his saying that the policy of the Government must be governed from time to time by circumstances over which—and then he stopped. He was going to say by "circumstances over which we have no control." Now, what are the circumstances over which they have no control? One of them is the Viceroy. They have no control over him. I believe a great deal has been done by the Viceroy without the sanction of the Government—he is, indeed, the wild elephant which they cannot control. A great many of the violent actions of the Government were due to the fact that they had not been able to keep their Viceroy under control. If we are dependent on the Viceroy we shall not be able to go back to anything like the Treaty of Gandamak. What about the occupation of Candahar? That does not look much like going back to the Treaty of Gandamak. It is much more probable that the policy of the article in The Nineteenth Century is the policy to be pursued. Then there is another passage in the noble Earl's speech which I cannot believe—although, of course, I believe perfectly in his sincerity—and that is that we have not met with the hostility of the great bulk of the people of Afghanistan.
THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: Hear, hear!
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: The noble Earl cheers that. But does he know the country as well as Sir Henry Rawlinson? In that article in The Nineteenth Century the Chairman of the Political Committee at the India Office tells us, in three or four paragraphs, that we have earned the hatred of the great mass of the people of North and East Afghanistan, the most dangerous and difficult parts of the country. This debate is necessarily desultory, and I do not pretend to enter upon the great question of our policy. I have placed on the Notice Paper to-night a Notice that I shall on this day fortnight, or on Friday, the 20th, call the attention of the House

51
to the consequences which have followed the policy of Her Majesty's Government in the Afghan Question, and I shall then open the whole of that question in a manner which I trust will enable the House more freely and more fully to debate the whole question. Now, my Lords, I should now sit down, if it were not for one paragraph in Her Majesty's most gracious Speech from the Throne, which I cannot let pass without a word of remonstrance—
"The course of events since the prorogation of Parliament has tended to furnish additional security to the maintenance of European peace, on the principles laid down by the Treaty of Berlin."
Now, my Lords, I believe that statement to be entirely unfounded. I believe the progress of events since the Treaty has been such that we are at present in the greatest possible danger of war—a difficult, a discreditable, and, possibly, a disastrous war, arising out of the provisions of the Treaty. This is a very serious matter, on which I wish to say a few words to-night. My belief in this danger arises from the relations which the Treaty of Berlin bears to the Treaty of Paris. I had my humble share of responsibility for the Treaty of Paris; and I have always contended that by that Treaty the protectorate of the Christian population of Turkey was taken away from the claim of Russia and made over to the European Powers. They undertook by that Treaty a certain protectorate of the subject-populations of Turkey. At one of the Conferences which preceded the signing of the Treaty, Baron Brunnow said he wished one Article modified and extended in favour of the protection of the Christians, and he urged it upon this ground—that his august Master had special and particular reasons for it. The amendment was negatived by all the other Powers. The Representative of England (Lord Cowley) said he could not allow the claim which had been made to pass unnoticed—that of the Emperor of Russia to be the champion of the Christian populations of Turkey—and that England, Prance, and Austria had equal interest in their protection; and on that the special provision of the Treaty of Paris was made. But there is this difference between the Treaty of Paris and the Treaty of Berlin—the Treaty of Paris provided a means whereby war might
52
be avoided on the execution of that Treaty by prescribing that no one Power should, interfere with Turkey unless after a common consultation with all the Powers, and, failing such consultation, each of the Powers had a right of quarrel with Turkey. I quite admit the duty we undertook was vague, and especially the clause of the Treaty relating to the reforms proposed to be executed by Turkey. The doctrine which has been put upon the Treaty by the present Government is that Turkey was intended to be upheld in a particular strategic position. That is a monstrous doctrine, in my opinion an immoral doctrine, and one which is at variance with the whole spirit of the Treaty. It has been said by the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Cranbrook), that if we had coerced the Turks and a single life had been sacrificed, that would have been murder in the first degree, and he based that opinion on the clause which forbad our interfering in the details of Turkish affairs. That clause had nothing to do with the subject; it was confined to a particular communication made by the Turks, and it did not absolve us from the duty of protecting the subject-populations of Turkey. I want to point out the difference in this respect between the two Treaties. The Treaty of Berlin has gone a great deal further in assuming the protectorate of the Christian populations. No thanks to you for that. Every one of those clauses was taken from the Treaty of San Stefano; they were extracted from the Turk by the Russian Army, and they would never have been extracted by you. Finding them in the Treaty, and not daring to throw them out, you adopted them. The promises are given by Turkey, not to all the Powers, but to each, and there is no provision for common action before Russia or any other Power quarrels with Turkey and goes to war with her. Do you not see the enormous danger to which Europe is exposed? The time at which we may be exposed to war de-ponds upon the Turks. Is there any Member of the Government who believes that the promises of Turkey to reform will be fulfilled? They apply to the whole of Turkey in Europe. They are not vague and general, like the proposals of 1856, but definite and specific. The Treaty of San Stefano provided that

53
the fulfilment of the promises was to be seen to by a Commission; you struck out the words and left the matter in the hands of the Turks, knowing that the promises would then be nugatory. So long as the Turks do not fulfil those promises to Europe, each and every one of the Powers has a standing quarrel with Turkey, and may go to war with her at any moment. In Asiatic Turkey the condition of things is as bad as ever. The promises of the Turks are even more binding than in regard to Europe, and each one of the Powers may call for their fulfilment. The noble Earl spoke of the guarantee we had given on certain conditions; but he did not go on to say what they are. I have heard friends of the Government say that if Turkey does not fulfil her promises our guarantee fails. It would be well if it were so, and no doubt the Government may put any interpretation they like on the Convention. That, however, says the obligation is to depend, not upon the Turks reforming, but on the Turks giving a promise. They have given a promise; you have given your promise; and the Turks are doing nothing. You are bound to defend every bit of that territory from Russian aggression. You know that, in addition to general misgovernment, there is the danger arising from the incursions of the Kurds into Armenia. Russia may say to Turkey—"You promised to maintain order. You promised it to England under a separate Convention. We have nothing to do with that. You promised it to Europe and to us; and unless you keep these people in order we will do it for you; we will take possession of that part of Asia inhabited, by the Kurds, and we will keep them in order." What are you to do then? Are you to interfere with Russia? Remember, the secret of your Convention was the wish not to aid the population, that was a secondary object—but it was to keep Russia out of that part of Turkey. You are in this position—Russia has got an Army in the Caucasus of 150,000 men, and you have guaranteed Turkey that she shall not suffer for her broach of promise to you and the rest of Europe. I hope you will give instructions to the illustrious Duke who sits on the cross-benches (the Duke of Cambridge), to double the standing Army of Great Britain—which I have no doubt would be a popular stop with many classes in
54
Great Britain—but I do not believe that even that would be sufficient. What are your facilities for conducting these operations? You have aplace d'armes at Cyprus; but it is ridiculous now to mention the name of that island. What good can it do you? What, then, is the use of the noble Earl telling us that the Treaty of Berlin has been fulfilled? What do you mean? Russia has fulfilled it most loyally and faithfully; Austria and Germany has fulfilled it; but Turkey has not; and I say that under the obligations you have taken to Turkey England may be brought into war at any moment, and from causes over which she has no control. It would be most discreditable and dishonouring in England to defend Turkey with regard to any part of her territory, in the government of which she has failed to carry out the promises which she has given, unless you adopt the principle that, however horrible the government of Turkey may be, however ruinous it may be to the population over which she rules, you are determined in your own interests to maintain her in that position. I believe that is the secret doctrine of your own hearts; but I tell you it is a doctrine that the English people will not stand, and which you have not the power to sustain. I say that the paragraph is most inaccurate, and if it is sincere it is the sincerity of mere thoughtlessness. Neither of these Treaties—the Treaty of Berlin nor the Anglo-Turkish Convention—is really securing peace. I wish to ask the noble Viscount (Viscount Cranbrook) if he approves of the Chairman of Foreign Relations at the India Office publishing a paper which may be translated and sent over all Asia, and with regard to which he may be supposed to be in communication with the Viceroy. ["Oh, oh!"] I am not speaking without reason. Sir Henry Rawlinson has himself published letters written to him by Lord Mayo; and I think it extremely possible that he may be in communication with Lord Lytton. At any rate, the Chairman of Foreign Relations may be supposed to be in communication with Lord Lytton; and I want to ask the noble Viscount if he approves of a man in his position publishing recommendations that the British Government should annex Candahar and Jellalabad, deliver Herat to Persia, and enter into a Treaty of gua-

55
rantee with Persia against Russia? If that policy is followed, we shall be in a most dangerous position.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDrose to Order. The noble Duke's present course of observation was not fair to Lord Lytton.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: Is the noble Duke aware of this—which I believe' to be a fact—that in the course of last year Lord Lytton disapproved so much the policy of the Government that he wrote an elaborate paper, sent it home, and had it distributed among private individual Members of this House? I am told that there is in possession of Members of this House a document recommending measures much more severe and violent with regard to Central Asian politics than those approved of by the Government. This happened when the Government were considering the question of the Ultimatum to Shere Ali. They recommended that another appeal should be made to Shere Ali to see whether he would not give way. The decision of the Government was sent out on the 25th of October. The Cabinet declared that the Viceroy should be instructed to send another appeal to Shere Ali to get him to give way without war. What happened? The message was secret and sent in cipher. The Correspondent of The Daily News at Simla got possession of the substance of that telegram. He could not have got it except by communication with the Government of India. ["Oh!"] I do not know who the correspondent was, whether he was Mr. Forbes or not; but the telegraph was employed to raise excitement in India and England against the decision of the Queen's Government. "We are humiliated by the orders which have come from the Cabinet." This was the language of the Correspondent at Simla, not perhaps in the exact words, but in substance. That telegram from the Imperial Government could not have been communicated to the Correspondent of The Daily News except by the authority of some Member of the Government of India. In this way an appeal was made from Her Majesty's Government to the passions of the Indian Services, military and civil, which, as Sir John Kaye has said, are always in favour of war. Lord Lytton or his Government was responsible for that betrayal of political confidence.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I really must rise to Order. I think the noble Duke is making statements which ought not to be made in this House. I think the statements are not founded upon that just consideration which the noble Duke ought to show to Lord Lytton in this matter.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: Let me tell my noble Friend that if I have made a mistake in anything I have said to-night I shall come down and apologize for it; but I want evidence. I give you my evidence, and you must produce yours. Surely that is a fair bargain? My evidence is this—that in the published Papers presented to Parliament you have the Message to the Indian Government, and that next morning you have the substance of this telegram communicated to The Daily News.I do not say it was Lord Lytton who communicated the telegram; but some Member of the Government betrayed the Cabinet. I go farther, and say an appeal was made against the policy of the Queen's Cabinet, and when you had got a temporary heat in the Government of India you cannot be sure that the pacific appeal the Government meant to send to the Ameer was ever given to him. I only say the Members of the Indian Service, although they might be perfectly sincere in thinking the policy of the Government a humiliating policy, had no right to put their own opinion against that of the Government, so as practically to prevent a conciliatory message being given to the Ameer. In these circumstances, I repeat, we have no security whatever for peace, either under the Treaties already concluded or under the negotiations now proceeding.
VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: When the noble Duke told us, at the beginning of his speech, that he had not signed a certain Memorial because he was not acquainted with the facts of the case, I think he would have done exceedingly well if he had made his speech on the same principle, and had not ventured to discredit public servants by guessing about what was the state of their minds. I venture to appeal to those who have occupied any public office in this country whether on any previous occasion anyone who has held the Office of Secretary of State has ventured to impugn the character and conduct of a Governor General of India without having before

57
him the facts on which to found the charge? To guess at the state of mind of the Governor General, to guess that he would disobey the Government at home, to guess that he would bring that Government into discredit by following out a policy which he knew they disapproved, I tell the noble Duke that he forfeits his title to the name of a statesman when he adopts such a course, and is doing a wrong and an injury to a public servant, who is not here to defend himself. I will say more—I say that Lord Lytton has loyally obeyed the expressed wishes of the Government at home; I say that he has in the frankest and most open manner discussed the question of the policy of the present Government; and I should despise a Governor General who did not give the best reasons which he could for the policy which he desired to pursue, and I say that Lord Lytton has gone to the full extent of his duty in following the policy of the Government in every particular. With regard to the Ultimatum of which the noble Duke speaks, it is perfectly true that the Government of this country did desire to delay the war, and, if possible, to avoid the necessity of war, with Shere Ali. They did not rush hastily into war, but were anxious to give him the fullest time for consideration. But when, after the fullest consideration on the part of the Government, the Ultimatum was sent to Lord Lytton, without a moment's hesitation he obeyed it. And am I to be told that, because The Daily News Correspondent by some intrigue, or some means of which I know nothing, became acquainted with the substance of the telegram sent to Lord Lytton, it being obtained by the representative of a newspaper not in their interests—am I to be told that those who immediately took steps to carry out faithfully the policy of the Government have betrayed their duty by striving to raise public opinion in India against the Government? My Lords, such charges are utterly unworthy of the noble Duke. I should be the last man to say anything of the noble Duke beer hind his back which I would not say before his face; and I suppose the noble Duke would respect his opponents and treat them with fairness, and not impute to them discreditable conduct without such distinct evidence as would claim the consideration of your Lordships' House. The noble Duke has been told
58
that Lord Lytton did so and so; but he does not give the name of his correspondent or informant. If I were to get up here and state, in the noble Duke's absence abroad or elsewhere, I had been told the noble Duke had done so and so, without any more certain knowledge of the facts, I should be ashamed of myself. When the noble Duke makes charges against a public servant, who is in a distant part of the world, it is a point of honour that he should formulate those charges, and give due notice of them and enable the person accused to meet them. I will come now to other points to which the noble Duke has referred. In the first place, an imputation has been made as if I had something to do with articles published by Members of the Council of India. When I took Office as Secretary of State for India, what did I find? I found that Members of the Council had written publicly in their own names on this question of Eastern policy. Sir Henry Rawlinson, as everybody knows, had published a large book on this subject with the knowledge of the Secretary of State. Under these circumstances, I felt myself precluded from interfering. I do not hesitate to tell the noble Duke what I think on this subject, as he has asked for my opinion. I think it is a very great pity that Members of the Council of India should have entered in that way into discussions on political subjects connected with the India Department; but, as is perfectly well known, they have been allowed to do so, and the thing has not been confined to Sir Henry Rawlinson. Now, with respect to Sir Henry Rawlinson's article, I have not read it. Sir Henry Rawlinson asked me whether I would wish to see it in proof, and I said—"Certainly not. It is your affair, not mine." I thought I was not entitled to interfere in the matter. The Council of India hold an extremely peculiar position; they are not exactly like ordinary public servants. They hold an independent position; and I do not see how it is possible to control them any more in their writings than in their conversations. I felt that I was not authorized to interfere; and I did not think it would be consistent with my duty or with the dignity of the position I held that I should attempt to interfere where I had no authority. It will not be necessary for me, therefore, to enter into anything stated by Sir Henry Rawlinson,

59
because I am in no sense responsible. But, to the best of my belief, Sir Henry Rawlinson has not been in communication with the Viceroy on this subject, and I consider it impossible that such a thing could have taken place without my knowledge. I come now to another point. Strong language has been used, imputing to General Roberts conduct of which I am quite sure he will be found to be entirely innocent.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I referred to his own Proclamation.
VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: I think that when the noble Duke comes to see the Proclamation as it was really sent forth, he will find that it is of a rather different character from what he has supposed—that the expressions used and the measures adopted are not so strong as he seems now to think. I am not going now into the case of General Roberts, because when these charges were made against him he was called upon to state what he had to say for himself on the subject; and his reply not having yet been received, I think I should be doing him a grave injustice if I were to undertake his defence in any manner differing from that which he himself might adopt. The noble Duke has said that General Roberts has shot men who had been only guilty of defending their country. But I affirm upon statements received, not from General Roberts himself, but from others, that not one single man has been so shot. I have been shown private letters from gentlemen of the highest position and acquainted with the circumstances, stating that, in their opinion, if General Roberts had erred, he had erred on the side of mercy. I say nothing myself. I only wish the House now to see that there are two sides to the question, and I ask them to suspend their judgment until General Roberts has given us his own defence. As this is the first opportunity which I have had of speaking recently with regard to Afghanistan—for I am not one of those Members of the Cabinet to whom the noble Earl (Earl Granville) alluded as having spoken a good deal during the Recess—let me say that I have had the advantage of reading private letters from Sir Louis Cavagnari and Lieutenant Hamilton, which have given me the highest opinion of their ability and character as Representatives
60
of the Queen in Afghanistan; and I take this opportunity of saying that I feel that the country has sustained a very great loss in their death. The noble Duke must acknowledge that we have a solemn responsibility thrown on us by what has occurred in Afghanistan. There are those in Afghanistan who, to a certain extent, have sacrificed their position in order to help us. It is impossible that we should desert them or give them up to enemies who might wreak vengeance on them. But I think it is quite within our power, without adding essentially to our territory or to the charge of our territory, that such measures should be taken as will put us in a position to protect our friends. Considering that we are dealing with savage and barbarous tribes who are given to plundering, it is not improbable that we may have difficulties yet to encounter in Afghanistan; but there is no desire on our part to take any step which is not just and fair to that country. I feel confident that the Generals who lead our Army will not use their power unjustly against men who, from a sense of duty, have fought for their country; and I feel confident, also, that that has not been done hitherto. I now pass from Afghanistan to the remarks made by the noble Duke as to the Treaty of Berlin. And here I will say I am sorry my noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury), who is so much better qualified to speak on the subject than I am, is absent. The noble Duke appears to me, first of all, to put a strictly technical interpretation on the Treaty, and then to impute to us that we are trying to put upon it a new interpretation which was never put before. With regard to the Convention into which we entered with Turkey, I stated on another occasion, and in "another place," that that Convention is a conditional Convention, and it is not merely on the condition of making promises, but of fulfilling promises, that it exists. The noble Duke wishes us to say what we think Turkey will or will not do; but, in my opinion, our business is to induce her to do what is for her best interests. I do not despair that under legitimate pressure she may be made to redeem her promises, and may see it to be for her interest to act up to what she has undertaken. I object altogether to taking the line which the noble Duke wishes us to take. He quotes hypothe-

61
tical cases, and wants me to say what I should do if certain things occurred. Let the things occur, and then I will tell him what I will do; but until they have occurred, the matter must be left in that limbo of uncertainty to which all future events belong. The noble Duke may, however, rest perfectly confident that, in accordance with the desire expressed in the Speech of Her Majesty, the Government will do all that is in their power to give due effect to the Treaty of Berlin, and to maintain the peace of the world.
Address agreed to, nemine dissentiente,and ordered to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
The Earl of REDESDALE appointed,nemine dissentiente,to take the Chair in all Committees of this House for this Session.
COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES—Appointed.
SUB-COMMITTEE FOR THE JOURNALS—Appointed.
APPEAL COMMITTEE—Appointed.
House adjourned at a quarter past Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.