Sitting of 9 February 1871

Preamble
The House met at half after One of the clock.
A Message from Her Majesty, by Sir Augustus Clifford, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod—
"MR. SPEAKER,
"The QUEEN commands this Honourable House to attend Her Majesty immediately, in the House of Peers."
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, with the House, went up to attend Her Majesty:—
And having returned;—

NEW WRITS DURING THE RECESS.
Mr. SPEAKERacquainted the House, that he had issued Warrants for New Writs, for Surrey (Western Division), v. John Ivatt Briscoe, esquire, deceased; for Shrewsbury, v. William James Clement, esquire, deceased; for Surrey (Middle Division), v. Hon. William
52
Brodrick, now Viscount Middleton; for Colchester, v. John Gurdon Rebow, esquire, deceased; for Newport (Isle of Wight), v. Charles Wykeham Martin, esquire, deceased; for Meath County, v. Matthew Elias Corbally, esquire, deceased; for Durham City, v. Robert Davison, esquire, Judge Advocate; for Newry, v. William Kirk, esquire, deceased; for Limerick County, v. Right Hon. William Monsell, Postmaster General; for Norfolk (Western Division), v. Hon. Thomas De Grey, now Lord Walsingham.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
Right Hon. William Monsell, for Limerick County; Charles Cavendish Clifford, esquire, for Newport (Isle of Wight); Sir Dominic D. Corrigan, baronet, for Dublin City; Lee Steere, esquire, for Surrey (Western Division); Viscount Newry, for Newry; Douglas Straight, esquire, for Shrewsbury; Sir Richard Baggally, for Surrey (Middle Division); John Robert Davison, esquire, for Durham City; Alexander Learmonth, esquire, for Colchester; George William Pierrepoint Bentinck, esquire, for Norfolk (Western Division); Sir Robert Collier, for Plymouth.
NEW WRITS ISSUED.
For Galway County, v. Hubert De Burgh Canning, commonly called Viscount Burke, Chiltern Hundreds; for York City, v. Joshua Proctor Brown Westhead, esquire, Manor of North-stead; for Ripon City, v. John Hay, commonly called Lord John Hay, Chiltern Hundreds.
Ordered, That a Committee of Privileges be appointed.
OUTLAWRIES BILL.
Bill "for the more effectual preventing Clandestine Outlawries," read the first time; to be read a second time.

THE QUEEN'S SPEECH FROM THE THRONE.
MR. SPEAKER reported, That this House has, this day, attended Her Majesty in the House of Peers, when Her Majesty was pleased to make, by Her Chancellor, a most gracious Speech from

53
the Throne to both Houses of Parliament; of which, Mr. Speaker said, he had, for greater accuracy, obtained a Copy:—
And Mr. SPEAKER read it to the House.

ADDRESS TO HER MAJESTY ON HER MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
MR. J. G. C. HAMILTON: Mr. Speaker—Sir, the House must, I am sure, be impatient to hear the great events which have happened in Europe since it last met, and their effect on the policy of this country, discussed by those in whose opinions it is in the habit of placing confidence. I can only suppose that it is a wish to pay a compliment to the country to which I belong, and the constituency which I represent, which has led to my being entrusted with my present honourable duty. In fulfilling that duty, I feel that I have every reason to appeal to the forbearance which the House always shows to those who are not in the habit of addressing it.
In proposing that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty in answer to the gracious Speech which she has been pleased this day to deliver from the Throne, I am sure I express the feeling of this House when I say that the presence of Her Majesty in person has been a great gratification to Her Parliament and people, and has added lustre to the opening of our Session.
The announcement which Her Majesty has been pleased to make of the approaching marriage of Her Royal Highness the Princess Louise must have been received by this House with the deepest interest, as it is an alliance so likely to promote the happiness of one of the Royal Family, and bind it still more closely to the hearts of the people. The presence of members of the Royal House in these islands can but add to the loyalty of their inhabitants; and I think we, for our part, have every reason to congratulate ourselves when they have no home but this country, when here are their pleasures, here are all their interests, and that thus they are made one with the nation in sympathy and feeling.
That portion of Her Majesty's Speech which relates to our foreign policy speaks of a most momentous period. Though measured only by a few months, events
54
have occurred in it which may influence the history of this world for ages to come. Two nations, both our allies, both of whose rulers have sometimes given us cause to regret their policy, but still more often to sympathize with it, have struggled for the mastery. They have fought until there can have been but one feeling amongst us, of heartsoreness at the terrible carnage. It is not so much when one thinks of those who have died a soldier's death, fighting for their country; but when we think of the widowed wives, the starving children, the burnt homes, one cannot but wonder whether the maxims of our common Christianity have not been utterly forgotten. There is now a lull in the storm—God grant that it may be a sign of the end. Let us hope that the victors may show that magnanimity which is sure to be its own reward; let us hope, also, that when our sister Assembly across the Channel meets, under far different circumstances to those in which we meet to-day, proposals of peace will be laid before it which it may honourably adopt, and that the peace so concluded will be both immediate and lasting.
We are informed, Sir, that during the Recess Her Majesty's Government have followed the policy which was announced in the Speech at the close of last Session—that they have done their best to maintain the rights and strictly perform the difficult duties of neutrality, and that they have endeavoured to prevent an enlargement of the area of the war. They have also watched anxiously for an opportunity of procuring peace, and with that view have endeavoured to bring the combatants into communication. I sincerely hope that peace will result from their action. When, however, we see a war waged so fiercely as the present one, when not only two Governments but two nations are determined, the one to claim a large cession of territory, of which the other is equally determined not to yield one inch, the interference of neutrals becomes absolutely impossible. My own opinion on this point is a most decided one; I believe that at no period in this war would it have been possible for this country to interfere actively either on one side or the other. Granting this, it would, I think, have been beneath our dignity to offer remonstrances which might not have been received, and which

55
could scarcely have been compatible with the neutrality which we professed. In the interest of civilization also it was our duty to do our best to limit the area of the war as much as possible, and any active interference on our part would have had an exactly contrary effect. The position of neutrals must have been felt as irksome by many; but I think this might have been prophesied, and is seen in every situation of life. When a contest is going on, those who by conviction are neutrals feel prompted, some from generosity of disposition, others from the mere love of fighting, to take part in the fray. The combatants themselves, especially the weaker one, naturally appeal for help to the bystanders. The result is that neutrals, however justified in their neutrality, must expect to be blamed, certainly by some amongst themselves, and by one or both of the combatants. The time, however, Sir, has, I hope, now arrived when it will be possible for us to interfere actively in the hope of procuring peace; and if we are successful, I hope the peace will be a lasting one—not a mere patched-up agreement, but a peace which will restore tranquillity to Europe. The negotiations will be arduous, all the more so that France has hardly yet decided who is to have a right to speak in her name.
Her Majesty expresses her regret that she has been unable formally to accredit her Ambassador to the Government of Defence; but to lay too much stress on this point would, I think, be unwise, as it would imply that this country had a claim to control the choice by another country of its own Government—a claim which I believe we should most certainly repudiate. The Government have always, I believe, been ready to treat with the French nation by whoever it might be represented.
Her Majesty has congratulated the King of Prussia on his acceptance of the title of Emperor of Germany—a title testifying to the greatness and importance of his kingdom. I hope he will be led to think that greatness sufficient, without making an addition to it, to guarantee him against foreign aggression.
Communications from different foreign Powers have led to the holding of a Conference, which is now sitting. Generosity to a great nation, must, I think, be a sufficient reason for wishing
56
that France should be represented at it. No agreement come to without her knowledge and concurrence, could, I think, possibly be permanent. So far as we ourselves are concerned, I believe we may feel confident that the Government and the noble Earl who holds the seals of the Foreign Office will act as is his wont in a manner both courteous and dignified, and at the same time jealous of the honour of his country. I hope and believe the result of the Conference will be to uphold the performance of their duties by contracting Powers, and show that treaties are not made to be broken.
I am sure it is the wish of the country and of this House that our relations with America should be satisfactory. Questions have arisen between the United States and the Dominion of Canada on different subjects. They relate principally to matters of detail, and a Commission has been appointed to which they as well as the Alabama question will be referred. I hope the result will be a satisfactory settlement.
This country has always taken such interest in, and has made so many sacrifices for Spain, that we must, I am sure, rejoice in the prospect of her having a stable Government under a member of the House of Savoy.
The House will scarcely be surprised to hear that the inquiry into the outrages in Greece by its Government and tribunals has not been carried on in a thoroughly satisfactory manner. The melancholy events which took place last year give this country every right to insist that even-handed justice should be done.
The Chinese Government have shown every wish to give satisfaction for the outrages which were committed in one of their cities. It is a proof of our improved relations that this is likely to be secured by diplomatic action alone.
The House will have been glad to learn from the Royal Speech that, notwithstanding the frightful war that has been raging in Europe, our own relations with foreign Powers are satisfactory. Papers on the subjects to which I have referred will be laid before the House.
The condition of trade and industry is, with the exceptions which are within the personal knowledge of hon. Members, satisfactory, and consequently the Revenue is flourishing. In the present

57
state of affairs, however, we must look for larger Estimates.
There is much in the subjects to which I have attempted to draw your attention which reminds me of an old proverb, which I only allude to because I saw it paraphrased the other day by the Prime Minister of one of the neutral Powers. He said that—"To secure peace we should be prepared to ward off aggression." I believe Her Majesty's Government will endeavour to be so prepared; but this will involve great military reform and probably increase of expenditure. The armies of Europe are no longer collections of armed men selected for the defence of their country, and which before acting offensively must be increased in number and organized for the field. If this were so now, our old plan of Ministers coming down to this House in the time of danger, and asking for their 20,000, 50,000, or 100,000 men, and power to call out the Militia, might be sufficient. They are, on the contrary, armed nations, ready, at a moment's notice, to defend themselves, or what affects us more closely, to strike a blow whilst the word which provokes it is scarce spoken. Whole classes amongst them devote their lives to the science of war. Every requirement of the State, learning, trade and manufactures, are made to give way to the one object of having an overwhelming army. In our insular position and with our great naval power, it is, I hope and believe, unnecessary for us to follow their ruinous example. The House will, however, I believe, agree with Her Majesty's Speech that the lessons of military experience afforded by the present war are numerous and important. We have seen, I think, that young soldiers are as good or better than old soldiers; that well-drilled men dismissed to their homes and called out again when required are not only cheap but efficient soldiers; that it is absolutely necessary for officers to devote themselves more than they have been in the habit of doing to the science of their profession; and that it is too late to organize an army when war has already broken out. When war was declared in July last France had to bring her soldiers from one corner of the country to another to join their regiments; the stores from another corner and the officers from another; all according to orders, sent to each from the War Office. In
58
Germany, on the contrary, so soon as its army was mobilized, drilled men, who had returned to their homes, went to the nearest town where arms and stores were ready for them, and well-trained officers ready to enrol them according to a pre-arranged system, and, so soon as they had been organized, to constitute them into an army. And all this was done by a Government which is acknowledged to be the most economical in the world. How different are the facts in this country! We have a regular Army under its own officers, pensioners under theirs, Militia under one command when embodied, and another when disembodied, with Yeomanry and Volunteers partly under the War Office and partly not, and all these have no connecting link between them except one solitary Staff officer, who has to look after some 20,000 men, and he did not exist a year ago. Though we have, I believe, 400,000 men or more in the country, what can they do with such an organization. To take an instance of the present state of things. Supposing there happened to be in a country town 10 disembodied Militia sergeants on full pay doing nothing, and in the same town a detachment of regular soldiers, recruits, or some Volunteers in urgent need of drill and instruction, no human being that I can find out could order those sergeants to give that instruction. I will only add that whilst other nations have made their armies more and more local, we have made ours less so.
I am no preacher of panic; on the contrary, I think that the alternate fits of over-confidence and terror to which this country is a victim are a disgrace to it. But I believe that great reforms are only made amongst us when the public attention and interest are excited. This is now the case; let us therefore go thoroughly into the question and get the efficient army we most undoubtedly pay for. Holding these views, I am glad to see it stated that a Bill is to be introduced for the better regulation of the Army and the auxiliary Land Forces of the Crown.
I regret that I should have taken up so much of the time of the House on these subjects, which, I hope, will not occupy a proportionate portion of the Session, and that time will be found to pass the important measures of domestic legislation promised in the Speech.

59
The University Tests Bill stands first, and will, I hope, become law. During the last two Sessions so much time has been occupied by Irish legislation that the House must be glad to find that the state of that island shows a gratifying contrast with its state in the preceding winter, with, I am sorry to say, some partial and painful exceptions. The alteration of the status of the Church there renders an Ecclesiastical Titles Bill absolutely necessary. So much of the prosperity of this country depends on the existence of good feeling between employer and employed, that the House will be glad to see that the Government intends to deal with the question of Trades Unions. There is another Bill—the Mines Regulation Bill — which I should have liked to see mentioned, but which I am glad to hear is not forgotten. The Courts of Justice Bill will make an important improvement in the Appeal Courts of England. A Local Burdens Bill is to be introduced. The patience with which local taxation is borne, compared to the impatience to Imperial taxation, has always been a wonder to me. Now that the Government have taken the subject up, I trust they may be able to devise some plan by which local rates may be better managed, and some relief may be afforded. The Bill on secret voting will introduce an important reform into the machinery of our representation; and the Licensing Bill will be looked forward to with great interest. In one of the last paragraphs of the Speech it is truly said that an Education Bill is anxiously looked for in Scotland. It is many, many years ago since a Scotch Education Bill first appeared on the Table of this House, and many others have succeeded it; though some have been very near it, none have become law. I can only hope that Scotland may be rewarded by now getting an Education Bill that may be all the better for the delay. I trust the House will excuse me for suggesting the possibility that a few hours before midnight and even before Easter may be given to this and other Scotch Bills which are urgently required.
It only remains for me, Sir, to thank the House most sincerely for the kindness with which it has received what I have said; and before reading the Address—which I have endeavoured, however feebly, to induce them to adopt—I will express my belief that if the measures
60
proposed in it are adopted, and the policy suggested in it is followed, it will tend to the good government of our country at home, and to the security of our honour abroad. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty to convey the thanks of this House for Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech delivered to both Houses of Parliament:
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that in accordance with Her Majesty's promise to pay constant attention to the subject of neutral obligations, Her Majesty has maintained the rights and strictly discharged the duties of neutrality during the war unhappily prevailing between France and Germany, which we trust, with Her Majesty, may, under the influence of moderation and forethought in the councils of both parties, shortly be terminated:
"To thank Her Majesty for endeavouring to prevent the enlargement of the area of the war, and to contribute to the restoration of an honourable peace, and to assure Her Majesty that we rejoice that the sphere of the war has not been extended beyond the two countries originally engaged:
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that She has forborne from whatever might have been construed as gratuitous or unwarranted interference between parties, neither of whom had shown a readiness to propose terms of accommodation, such as to bear promise of acceptance by the other; and that She has been enabled, on more than one occasion, to contribute towards placing the Representatives of the two contending countries in confidential communication; though, unfortunately, until famine compelled the surrender of Paris, without any further result:
"Humbly to unite with Her Majesty in praying that the suspension in the constant accumulation on both sides of human suffering, which has been brought about by the Armistice now being employed for the Convocation of an Assembly in France, may result in a peace compatible, for the two great and brave nations involved, with secucurity and with honour, and likely therefore to command the approval of Europe, and to give reasonable hopes of a long duration:
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that, though She has been unable to accredit Her Ambassador in a formal manner to the Government of Defence, which has subsisted in France since the Revolution of September, neither the harmony nor the efficiency of the correspondence of the two States has been in the smallest degree impaired:

61
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that She has offered Her congratulations to the King of Prussia on his acceptance of the title of Emperor of Germany at the instance of the chief authorities of the nation, and to assure Her Majesty that, with Her, we trust that this event, which bears testimony to the solidity and independence of Germany, may be found conducive to the stability of the European system:
"To thank Her Majesty for endeavouring, in correspondence with other Powers of Europe, to uphold the sanctity of Treaties, and to remove any misapprehension as to the binding character of their obligations; and to assure Her Majesty that, with Her, we confidently trust that the result of the deliberations of the Conference (which it was agreed by the Powers, co-signatories of the Treaty of 1856, should meet in London, and which has now been for some time engaged in its labours), may be to uphold both the principles of public right and the general policy of the Treaty, and at the same time, by the revision of some of its conditions in a fair and conciliatory spirit, to exhibit a cordial co-operation among the Powers with regard to the Levant:
"Humbly to assure Her Majesty that we share in Her regret that Her earnest efforts have failed to procure the presence at the Conference of any representative of France, which was one of the chief parties to the Treaty of 1856, and which must ever be regarded as a principal and indispensable Member of the Commonwealth of Europe:
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that She has engaged in amicable communications with the President of the United States for the settlement of the several questions of importance which are not yet adjusted between the United States and the territories and people of British North America; and that She has suggested the appointment of a joint Commission, and agreed to the proposal of the President that this Commission shall be authorized at the same time, and in the same manner, to resume the consideration of the American Claims growing out of the circumstances of the late war:
"To concur with Her Majesty in hoping that the establishment of a Prince of the House of Savoy on the Throne of Spain, by the free choice of the popularly-elected representatives of the Spanish nation, will insure for a country, which has passed with so much temperance and self-control through a prolonged and trying crisis, the blessings of a stable Government:
"To join with Her Majesty in regretting that the inquiry which was instituted by the Government of Greece into the history of the shocking
62
murders perpetrated last spring at Dilessi has not reached a termination answerable in all respects to Her Majesty's just expectations; and to thank Her Majesty for Her promise not to desist from Her endeavours to secure the complete attainment of the objects of the inquiry:
"To assure Her Majesty that we learn with pleasure that the anxiety, which the massacre at Tien-tsin on the 21st of June last called forth, has happily been dispelled, and that it has been Her Majesty's earnest endeavour to provide for the security of Her subjects and their trade in those remote quarters, while recognizing the Chinese Government as entitled to be dealt with in its relations with this Country in a conciliatory and forbearing spirit:
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that, during these critical times, Her relations are as heretofore, those of friendship and good understanding with the Sovereigns and States of the civilized world; and for directing that Papers illustrative of the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in relation to the several matters on which She has touched, should be duly laid before us:
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that She has approved of a marriage between the Princess Louise and the Marquis of Lorne, and to assure Her Majesty that we trust that this union may be prosperous and happy:
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for acquainting us that the Revenue of the Country nourishes, and that the condition of trade and industry is on the whole satisfactory; and for directing that the Estimates for the coming year should be promptly laid before us:
"Humbly to assure Her Majesty that in reviewing the important lessons of military experience afforded by the present war, and in endeavouring to turn such lessons to account by efforts more decisive than heretofore at practical improvement, we shall not fail to bear in mind the special features in the position of this Country, so favourable to the freedom and security of the people; and if the changes from a less to a more effective and elastic system of defensive military preparation shall be found to involve, at least for a time, an increase of various charges, that we shall not grudge the cost so long as we are satisfied that the end is important and the means judicious:
"To assure Her Majesty that we shall give our anxious and impartial consideration to the Bill for the better regulation of the Army and the auxiliary Land Forces of the Crown, which She has directed should be laid before us, as well as to the work of general improvement in our domestic

63
legislation, including the several measures brought before us during the last Session of Parliament, but which the time remaining at our disposal, after we had dealt with the principal subjects of the year, was not found sufficient to carry to a final issue:
"To thank Her Majesty for informing us that the inquiry made by a Committee of this House into the question of Secret Voting is now complete, and that a measure on that subject will be placed before us on an early day; and to join with Her Majesty in trusting that the question of Primary Education in Scotland may this year be adjusted by the enactment of a just and effective Law:
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that the condition of Ireland with reference to agrarian crime has, in general, afforded a gratifying contrast with the state of that island in the preceding winter, although there have been painful, but very partial, exceptions:
"Humbly to concur with Her Majesty in thinking that after the great measures of the two last Sessions which have so recently passed into operation, and which involve such direct and pressing claims on the attention of all classes of the community, a period of calm is to be desired; and to join with Her Majesty in considering it wise to refrain from the discussion of any political question likely to become the subject of new and serious controversy in that country:
"Humbly to assure Her Majesty that we fervently join in Her Majesty's prayer that all our designs may receive the favour and aid of the Most High.
MR. MORLEY: Sir, I rise to second the Motion for an Address in Answer to the Speech from the Throne; and I also must ask for the forbearance of the House while I briefly perform that duty. I share in the general pleasure experienced by the presence of Her Majesty in opening the Session, and I am sure that the terms in which my hon. Friend the Mover of the Address referred to that presence will be responded to by every Member of the House, and will be accepted throughout the country. I feel convinced that the more Her Majesty shows herself among her people the more thoroughly will affection towards the Throne be rooted among her subjects.
Sir, the House has assembled at a solemn crisis, when, in the words of the Royal Speech,—
64
"The ravages of the war may be renewed, after but a few days more, unless moderation and forethought, prevailing over impediments, shall sway the councils of both the parties, whose well-being is so vitally concerned."
At such a moment I desire to abstain from uttering a word which might be likely to interfere with that unanimity which is so desirable in approaching the Throne on the first night of the Session. I believe that the conviction exists throughout the country that the Government has performed the promise they gave at the close of last Session, and that constant attention has been paid to the subject of our neutral obligations, and that they have employed their best endeavours to prevent the enlargement of the area of the war. My conviction is that the exertions of the Government in that direction have sent a feeling of thankfulness and a sense of security into thousands of homes throughout this country, and that we have been pursuing our commercial and other engagements in the conviction that the Government was keeping the country out of complications with the tremendous conflict which has been raging on the Continent; and I am sure that all will join in the prayer that the present suspension of hostilities may result in a peace compatible with the honour of the two great and brave nations which have been involved in strife.
The paragraph in the Speech which gives expression to a hope that the result of the Conference which has assembled with regard to the Treaty of 1856 will be—
"To uphold both the principles of public right and the general policy of the Treaty, and, at the same time, by the revision of some of its conditions in a fair and conciliatory spirit, to exhibit a cordial co-operation among the Powers with regard to the Levant,"
will, I believe, receive a hearty acceptance in every quarter. We must all greatly regret the absence of any representative of France from the Conference; but we must, at the same time, confess that for that absence France is not responsible.
I cannot pass the reference to the misunderstanding between this country and America without some notice. It would, I believe, be difficult to overrate the importance attached out of doors to the desire that all matters in dispute between this country and the United States should be settled on terms fair and reasonable, and that an end should thus be put

65
to the misunderstanding which has so long existed. There is abundant evidence that among the native Americans there exists a feeling of strong affection towards the "old country," and that the continued hostility which has been exhibited towards this country is chiefly confined to those of alien birth. I confess myself to be one of those who believe mistakes to have been made on both sides, and that it is due to ourselves, as well as to our Transatlantic kinsmen, that we should show a disposition to make amends for any injury we may have done them, if any such can be shown to have arisen from intention or from our default. There can be nothing unworthy or undignified in showing a desire to avert even the prospect of a suicidal war, or in placing two great nations, allied by race and language and by sympathy, on those terms of uninterrupted amity, which every Member of this House must desire to see established. It may even be regarded as a subject of congratulation that the dispute as to the Fisheries is so pressing as to have led to the appointment of a Commission, by which, on the invitation of the President of the United States, all matters in dispute between the two countries may be considered and disposed of.
I cannot leave the subject of Foreign Affairs without turning to the other side of the picture, and asking whether nothing can be done to lead to the establishment of some international tribunal, to which might be referred misunderstandings between one country and another, which, although serious in their results, are generally trifling in their origin. I should be glad to know, too, whether we cannot do something that might lead to a system of general disarmament, by which a constant source of danger would be at once removed, so that we might all breathe more freely, and not be continually exposed to the danger of witnessing or being engaged in conflicts and slaughter, against which our civilization so strongly revolts. Our commerce, our civilization, and, above all, our Christianity alike protest against the enormous wickedness and inhumanity of war. It may be Utopian, in face of the war now raging on the Continent, to hope that the common sense of the world will ever be strong enough to adopt such a plan of settling the disputes of nations;
66
but I speak under the influence of the agony and desolation to which the people of France have lately been subjected, and I cannot help pressing the subject on the attention of the Leaders on both sides of the House, and I believe all will agree that some attempt at least should be made in this direction.
I join most heartily with my hon. Friend (the Mover) in his congratulations on the approaching Royal marriage. I think it a matter of national congratulation that Her Majesty should, by sanctioning the marriage between a daughter of the Royal House and one of her distinguished subjects, have cast aside a custom more honoured in the breach than the observance, and that Her Majesty, by approving a marriage dictated by the heart's affections rather than by reasons of State expediency, should add another example in the Royal Family of domestic happiness and virtue.
With reference to the condition of our trade and industry, I believe that the great industries of this country were at no time better employed since the panic of 1866 than they are at this moment, although the effects of that panic have since that time hung over us like the poison of the Upas tree. No doubt the profits of trade have not been so large as in former years; but we have, during the past year, done a very considerable trade, and with some few exceptions the commerce of the country has been satisfactory. The Returns of the Board of Trade show that our exports during the 11 months ending 30th November last, exceeded those of 1868 by £18,000,000, and those of 1869 by £8,000,000, notwithstanding the interruption of our large transactions by the war between France and Germany; in the case of Germany showing a falling off of £3,000,000.
At the same time, while it is satisfactory to know that trade is prosperous and that there is a larger amount of employment in the manufacturing districts than has been the case since the panic of 1866, there is a melancholy reverse to the picture, and it seems that there are large portions of our population who have sunk into a state of chronic and apparently hopeless misery. Still, it is the opinion of those connected with the Poor Law that we are at last really turning the corner with regard to the condition of our very poor, and that our prospects are undeniably more hopeful

67
than they have been for a long period. This subject is one which deserves, and no doubt will receive, the attention of the House; for with constant occupation for our workpeople, there is always a class, large in number, barely existing, and almost always at starvation point. The subject is one which requires to be dealt with, and I earnestly recommend it to both sides of the House as a question, the solution of which would be most beneficial, why such a painful and dangerous state of things should exist. Should inquiry be determined upon I shall be most glad to give my zealous co-operation.
With regard to military matters, I am only a learner. I can only repeat what I hear in all quarters—and it is a conviction I personally share—that the efficiency of our Army does not correspond with its cost; and that as to both officers and men promotion ought to be secured by merit and not by money or favour. I trust that the House will not deal with the question in any feeling of panic, and be tempted under the influence of such a feeling to indulge in any large expenditure. Above all, if we have an increase in the Estimates we ought to take care to receive at the same time a guarantee that there shall be a corresponding increase of efficiency. If we must have soldiers let us have real soldiers, and the British taxpayer will not object to pay for them. But the House should bear in mind that it is very possible to have increased Estimates without increased efficiency.
I will now venture, with all earnestness, to appeal to Members on the other side of the House to assist in a settlement of the long-vexed question with regard to University Tests. There has never been less bitterness with reference to this controversy than now, and the moment is therefore, in my belief, one peculiarly suitable for arriving once and for ever at a final settlement of the question. The tests are most felt among the great middle class of the country. The middle class, in which the great strength of Dissent lies, has been rising in wealth and social influence for years past, and they appeal confidently to the Legislature to give them, on fair and equal terms, that higher cultivation which they feel they need, and which they know well enough how to employ, if the opportunity for its acquirement
68
were afforded them. It is only recently that I witnessed the reception given in the Senate House of Cambridge to Mr. Hopkinson, the Senior Wrangler, who has since become Smith's Prizeman, and who, because he has a conscience, is unable to avail himself of the prizes which are invariably offered by his University to those who secure his position. What the Dissenters desire are terms of equality, and it is with these terms alone that they will be satisfied. The fountain is large enough both for those who are now receiving from it and those who desire to receive; it is large enough for the whole nation. When these tests were first instituted there was scarcely a Dissenting place of worship in existence. There are now 20,000 Dissenting chapels, and the Dissenters demand their share of endowments which were originally intended to be national. I trust, therefore, that hon. Members opposite will be ready to join with the Government in securing the passing of this Bill. I am aware of the religious difficulty connected with this question, and I sympathize with it; but hon. Members must see that it is a difficulty which cannot be met by legislative enactment; it requires other arrangements, and hon. Members should see that these are made. University Tests once abolished, and a fair Burials Bill agreed to, the House will have disposed of the two last of a number of measures which used to be spoken of as "Dissenters' grievances." As matters stand, a Nonconformist who is also a Master of Arts is prevented from voting for a Member of Parliament for his own University—the only case, I believe, in which religious opinion is still a barrier to the exercise of the franchise in this country.
I know nothing of the principle of the Bill which the Government propose to bring in with reference to Trades Unions; but I hope it will be framed in a generous spirit. I am convinced that the combination laws have worked unspeakable mischief between master and servant, by introducing into a relationship the very life-blood of which is mutual confidence and respect, the elements of bitterness and strife. Let the common law be made strong enough to deal with lawlessness or oppression, whether manifested towards employers or fellow-workmen; but what the workmen object to

69
is legislation aimed specially at them, and I sympathize heartily with them in that objection—for combinations exist as much among masters as among workmen.
There will be wide-spread satisfaction at the mention for the first time in a Speech from the Throne of the Ballot Bill; and if I may presume to offer advice to the Government it will be to let the Bill be one which will really secure secret voting. No other measure will satisfy the country, or accomplish—what is so much desired—the securing to every voter, however humble, an opportunity of voting in accordance with his convictions. No other measure, again, will put a stop to the practice of canvassing, and to those scenes on the day of election which have made our electoral system a scandal and a reproach.
I entertain a strong conviction that benefits may be expected to follow from a change in our licensing system which shall place some restriction upon the extension of public-houses—for instance, by giving to the inhabitants of a district, in some safe form, a power of veto upon the granting of new licences. But to do anything effectual, the crime of drunkenness must be treated really as a crime, and not dealt with as a palliative of crime. Such a course of action will produce results in a very few years upon the condition of the people which everyone must rejoice to see; and I therefore hope the Government will deal with the question with a bold hand. No measure much in advance of public opinion can expect success; but a large and courageous measure will, nevertheless, be hailed with approval. Evidence is rapidly accumulating that drunkenness is the cause of an immense proportion of the pauperism and crime which afflict this country; and, for my own part, I believe that drunkenness does more than all other causes put together to keep the people down politically, socially, and, above all, religiously.
There are other measures of a domestic character referred to in the Speech from the Throne to which I will not now specifically advert.
In the language of the Address, I trust that the interest attaching to affairs abroad and to military questions will not greatly abate the energy with which the House will apply itself to the improvement of domestic legislation. But desiring, as I do earnestly, to see all
70
these measures carried, I venture, young though I am in Parliamentary experience, to suggest that in order to accomplish the work we must husband our time. I vie with the most earnest Member of the extremest section in my desire to see measures passed to reform abuses and to remove hindrances that impede the material and social progress of the people; but it is clear that to pass more Bills in the same space of time we must discover some method of using our time more economically, and with larger practical results. In saying this I know that I am trenching upon ground which, as a young Member, I have no right to occupy; but I belong to the large class of what may be called comparatively silent Members, who have opportunities of listening at times to what appear rather profitless discussions, and who, accordingly, are anxious that arrangements may be made, while there is yet time, to facilitate the passing, if not of the whole, at least of the greater portion of the promised measures. Thanking the House for the attention with which they have listened to my remarks, I conclude by seconding the Motion of my hon. Friend for an humble Address in answer to the Speech from the Throne.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That," &c. [See Page 60.]
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, it is little more than six months since Parliament was prorogued, under circumstances of great anxiety, and we are re-assembled to-day to encounter a state of affairs that all must admit to be greatly complicated, and which I myself think to be not devoid of danger. When we returned to our constituencies Europe was on the eve of a war which, looking to its consequences, may, perhaps, be described as the most important war of this century. Her Majesty's Government then took the opportunity of indicating to the House the general policy which they felt it their duty, under the circumstances, to advise Her Majesty to follow. That policy was a policy of neutrality, and was a wise and a just policy. I cannot recall at this moment whether war had been declared at that period; but whether it had or not, there was a considerable and mysterious pause before the actual commencement of hostilities which

71
was very favourable to negotiation; and I then took the liberty of suggesting to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government that the policy of the Government should not only be a policy of neutrality, but of an armed neutrality. The right hon. Gentleman then said that a policy of armed neutrality was a very serious thing. That was why I recommended it. We had to deal with a very serious state of affairs, and it appeared to me that if we were to have a chance of coping with them and controlling them we should use an instrument of equal temper. The operation of an armed neutrality is three-fold. Its first tendency, of course, is to prevent; its second, to shorten war; and, in the third place—and not the least important—when pacification is contemplated, to insure the acceptance of just and temperate terms of peace, so that the seeds of future disquiet and inevitable struggle should not occur at the very moment when general tranquillity appears to be about to be accomplished. The last instance of an armed neutrality was the occupation of the Danubian Provinces by Austria; and I believe that no one will deny that that act on the part of Austria tended greatly to shorten the Crimean War. I do not presume for a moment to speak on this question of high general policy as one more competent to deliver an opinion upon it than any Gentleman who is sitting in this House; but hon. Members may, perhaps, recollect that four years ago myself and my then Colleagues had under responsibility the duty of considering a state of affairs almost identical with that state of affairs which obtained in the middle of last July. There was then a war imminent, occasioned by the rivalry between France and Prussia. Indeed, for 48 hours it appeared inevitable, and yet that war was prevented—was prevented by that Treaty which guaranteed the neutrality of Luxemburg, upon which I will not at this moment dwell, though I may have to advert to it. Now, that was an opportunity, certainly, all will admit, to those who had then the management of affairs, to form some opinion as to the motives of the principal actors in those transactions, the influences which regulated their conduct, and the objects which they contemplated; and we arrived then at three results for the future regulation of our
72
conduct in these matters. First of all, which was of course obvious, that the danger to the peace of Europe was the rivalry between France and Prussia; secondly, that Prussia would never commence hostilities herself; and thirdly—and that was the most important and practical point—that it was consequently necessary that the English Government should concentrate all its resources, all its diplomatic influence, and exercise its unceasing vigilance at Paris, to prevent the ruler of France from commencing hostilities, which were so dreaded and deprecated. Now, it does not appear to me that Her Majesty's Ministers, when these unfortunate transactions commenced in July, did use that requisite energy, and were not sufficiently prepared for the circumstances which they had to encounter. I must remind the House that Her Majesty's Ministers were placed in a peculiarly favourable opportunity to press their opinions and their policy upon the Emperor of the French. I give Her Majesty's Government full credit for the energy and promptitude with which they obtained the withdrawal of the candidature of the Prussian pretender to the Throne of Spain. But their success in that proceeding gave them an additional claim and hold upon the French Government:—because the House will understand that for a mediator to come forward between two such Powers as France and Prussia, and accomplish so difficult a task as the withdrawal of the Prussian Prince who was a candidate for the Spanish throne, required a great exertion and expenditure of influence on the part of the Crown of this country. Influence, however considerable, is at the same time a limited quality. It cannot be expended for a certain object, or in a certain degree, without being diminished for other purposes in an equal degree. If Her Majesty, for instance, made an appeal to the King of Prussia that ultimately led to the withdrawal of the pretender to the throne of Spain, on other occasions and in reference to other matters, no doubt such a course would give Prussia a moral claim on England. Her Majesty had done the Emperor of the French a great service: and if at that moment—in July—the business had stopped as it was, the Emperor of the French would have had a considerable diplomatic triumph. It would

73
have added to the credit of his dynasty and position, and would have been owing to the mediatorial influence of the Crown of England. When the Ambassador of the Queen therefore went to the Emperor of the French and announced that he had succeeded in his difficult and important office, and the Emperor—notwithstanding his appeal to the Queen to use her influence, and notwithstanding that Her Majesty had used her influence successfully—the Emperor said, "I will, nevertheless, proceed on my own course," Lord Lyons should have declared—"This is an outrage to the Crown of England, and I am instructed to tell you that if you thus discard the result of the Queen's intervention, and if this is the mode in which you express your gratitude for the successful exertions of the solicited influence of our Sovereign, you must take the consequences. I do not say we are going to throw ourselves into the fray, but the neutrality that we shall observe will be an armed neutrality." If that had been the case, I do not believe there would have been war.
Sir, there was another ground on which I apprehend the right hon. Gentleman might have successfully appealed to the Emperor of the French and prevented the war, and that was — I called it to the recollection of the House at the end of last Session—that Russia and Great Britain had guaranteed to Prussia the possession of her Saxon provinces, and that if Russia and Great Britain had represented to the Emperor of the French—being neutral Powers, and his allies—that if he persisted in the insane course upon which he was about to enter, it was more than probable that he would force Russia and Great Britain to place themselves in a position if not absolutely of belligerents, yet in a hostile position, that would have influenced a Sovereign who was hesitating to the very end. You must remember that the Emperor of the French was for peace in the morning and war in the evening, and if the English Ambassador had, in the interval, represented a definite policy, such as that which I have indicated, there is every probability that the Emperor of the French would never have embarked in this war. Now, what was the answer given to me by the right hon. Gentleman? The right hon. Gentleman rose and repudiated the guarantees which had been
74
given by this country and Russia to Prussia of the possession of her Saxon provinces, and he gave two reasons for his repudiation. The guarantee was given in 1815 under the Treaty of Vienna, The right hon. Gentleman said, that Prussia had become much more powerful since the guarantee of the Saxon provinces was given in 1815, and he said, in the second place, that the Diet of Germany had been recently abolished. Now, Sir, the first reason of the right hon. Gentleman was a strange one. If I owed a man £5,000, and he asked me to repay him, he would be surprised if I said to him—"True, it is, I owe you £5,000; but in the interval that has elapsed since the loan you have come into the possession of an estate of £5,000 a year, you are more powerful and richer, and therefore your claim can no longer be recognized." Then, with regard to the second reason, the abolition of the German Diet, I answer at once that the guarantee does not at all refer to the German Diet in any sense whatever, and the only effect of the existence of the German Diet would be this—that, in all probability, Prussia would then have a right to appeal to the other Powers of Germany to assist her if her Saxon provinces had been invaded. The question for Her Majesty's Government was this—What were the circumstances contemplated when the guarantee of the Treaty of Vienna was given by the Great Powers? Now, what were the circumstances? The circumstances were these — The signataries to the Treaty of Vienna, in the distribution arrangement of territory, were anxious that States bordering upon France should be strengthened. France was looked upon as the great disturber. Future aggression was contemplated by France, and it was therefore thought the best policy to strengthen, as much as possible, the States contiguous to the French boundary. For that reason the King of Sardinia received a great accession of territory, and the kingdom of the Netherlands was created. But the brunt of the struggle was evidently to be borne by Prussia. Prussia was to take the Rhenish provinces. Prussia required, and deserved, compensation for her great sacrifices and sufferings; and though she wished to find that compensation in the North of Germany, she ultimately accepted the Saxon pro-

75
vinces on condition that a guarantee should be given by the Great Powers, and especially by England, that practically, in case there was a war occasioned by the aggressions of France, and Prussia was attacked in her new territory, she should be guarded by the guarantee which was given. Now, what were the circumstances in July last? It is difficult for us to realize what was the state of affairs in July now that the King of Prussia is sleeping in the bed of Louis Quatorze at Versailles. But the fact is the King of Prussia was very much alarmed at the state of affairs; he had been surprised—I mean, of course, in a military sense—and was not prepared for war. Although, as I have heard, and have no doubt, the Prussians did not despair of ultimate success in the struggle, they were, in a military sense, surprised; and Russia, which has since made so many Field Marshals, was particularly anxious, to support Her Majesty's Government in maintaining peace last July. There is no country more adverse to war than Russia, and it is very much to her credit; but, as she generally attains her objects without war, this is less surprising; but if there be any kind of war which Russia especially dislikes, it is an European war, and an European war commenced by France. These were the circumstances we had to deal with in July last; and I maintain that if proper representations had been made to the Emperor of the French—if it had been pressed upon him that this country had entered into solemn engagements guaranteeing the provinces of Saxony to the King of Prussia—the Emperor of the French would have recoiled from the possible results of an infringement of the Treaty. Some hon. Gentlemen seem to be incredulous as to Prussia not being ready for immediate war in July last. I speak on the very highest authority when I say that Prussia was perfectly prepared for seeing the Palatinate overrun by the French. As far as the Palatinate was concerned, the Prussians had no doubt that the French would entirely and immediately overrun it, although they may have had confidence that they could prevent their capital being taken. It was under these circumstances—very different, of course, from those which now prevail—that a successful appeal, in my opinion, might have been made by our Government,
76
upon this ground, to the Emperor of the French; and, I think the war might have been prevented. How was the case met by our Government, and, I am sorry to say, by more than one hon. Gentleman who spoke on the occasion alluded to? It was met on the part of the Government by a repudiation of a national engagement, a treaty of the most solemn and stringent kind. I want to know what hon. Gentlemen mean by the habit which, I am sorry to say, I have seen of late growing up in this House, of deriding the character and stipulations of treaties. What is the alternative if they are not supported, if they are not upheld by public opinion and by the sentiment of the House of Commons? What alternative is there? If it be true, as we have heard from a high authority, that no Power will observe a treaty the moment it has the opportunity of breaking it, you are really dissolving society into its original elements, which appear to me to be "blood and iron." It is easy to say that the Treaty of Vienna has been violated twenty times over, and that it is an obsolete document; but, in the first place, it has not been violated twenty, nor ten, nor five times over. No doubt, great changes have been made in the distribution and arrangement of territory which it sanctioned; but the Great Powers and statesmen who attended the Congress of Vienna most scrupulously and cautiously abstained from doing more than sanction an arrangement and distribution which was the inevitable consequence of a long war; and they never in any instance bound themselves to maintain the distribution that was then made, except in the case of the Saxon provinces of Prussia. Even if the Treaty of Vienna had been in some instances violated—which I dispute, but do not dwell upon now, because it does not touch the question—that is no reason why other important stipulations, which have not been violated, should not be maintained. There are many things of the utmost importance in the Treaty of Vienna besides the mere arrangement and distribution of territory. That was considered by the leading statesmen in this manner. They said—"We will not bind ourselves to any of these arrangements of territory; we contemplate that the time may come when changes will occur, and when those changes occur we will consider

77
them on their merits." The withdrawal of the Austrians from Italy is no violation of the Treaty of Vienna in the circumstances under which it was accomplished; nor, I believe, in the opinion of higher authorities than myself, are any of those changes which have occurred violations of the Treaty, though they are changes of it. But in the Treaty there are things in importance equal to or greater than that of the distribution of territory. Take, for instance, the free navigation of rivers; that is one of the most important subjects that can possibly engage our attention. If, in the conduct of public business, a question arose as to the navigation of rivers, and I was told that the Treaty of Vienna was an obsolete document, and that it must not be referred to, I should be totally at a loss as to where I was to find any foundation for the doctrine of the free navigation of rivers, which is of the utmost importance to the welfare of humanity. Judging from what I hear, before a month is over we may be discussing in this House the free navigation of the Danube. Where would you be if the Treaty of Vienna, which was the first public document that, by a series of masterly clauses and provisions, established the free navigation of rivers—where would you be if the Treaty of Vienna was to be looked upon as a mere obsolete document? There is another river the free navigation of which, judging from all we hear, will be under our consideration soon. I mean the St. Lawrence. If we are not to respect the rights of nations as determined by the Treaty of Vienna, I do not believe there is any document in existence which will enable you to treat in a satisfactory manner the question of the navigation of the St. Lawrence.
In my opinion there was not sufficient energy exercised on the part of Her Majesty's Government in July last, at the commencement of these unhappy circumstances, to meet the conjuncture, and that they were not prepared for an event which, in my opinion, they ought to have contemplated. The proper policy for England would have been an armed neutrality; it might have prevented, and it certainly would have shortened the war; and if it had existed at this moment, I have no doubt it would have obtained for the discomfited just and temperate terms, and given a dif-
78
ferent character to Europe. But I may be told—"An armed neutrality might have been, under the circumstances, a very sufficient and proper policy; but how could an armed neutrality be adopted by a country without armaments?" I admit we should have placed ourselves in a position that might have been awkward and embarrassing if it could have been shown that this terrible war between rival races—for it comes to that—has been occasioned by neutrals not having that command of organized force which becomes great nations. It is possible that the Ambassador of the Queen, when he went to the Emperor of the French to make the appeal which I suggest, might have been answered in this manner—the Emperor of the French, who is extremely well-informed about everything in England, might have said—"Yes, Sir; I understand the policy of your Government is an armed neutrality; but an armed neutrality is a very serious thing for a nation that for a year and a half has been disbanding its veterans; an armed neutrality is a very serious thing for a nation with skeleton battalions and attenuated squadrons, and batteries without sufficient guns, and yet more guns than gunners; an armed neutrality is a very serious thing for a nation without a military reserve." The Emperor of the French might have added—"Nevertheless, you are still mistress of the ocean; yet, as you must have a Channel Meet, and scarcely can do without a Mediterranean Fleet, I think it would be difficult for you to establish a fleet for the North Sea, since for a year and a half you have left off shipbuilding—since you have reduced your famous blue-jackets — since, as I well know, you have not been furnishing due artillery to your men-of-war, and you can't deny that for a year and a half you have been living on the stores that were accumulated by preceding Governments." Sir, I confess that would have been an answer to my suggestion of armed neutrality which would have been certainly for the moment somewhat embarrassing. I have no wish on this occasion to make a single criticism upon the conduct of the two right hon. Gentlemen who preside over the great Departments of the Army and the Admiralty. They were preferred to those eminent posts because, as was understood generally in the country, they were

79
deemed, on the whole, the administrators most competent to reduce the naval and military strength of the country, and I am bound to say that the country, which is always just to public men, has unanimously agreed that these right hon. Gentlemen have entirely fulfilled the confidence reposed in them. But I cannot help making one remark upon the conduct in this respect of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman challenged the existence of the late Government upon a grave question of policy with regard to Ireland in a manly and straightforward manner. I have not changed my opinion as to that policy; I did not think it was a policy calculated to secure the tranquillity of Ireland and put an end to those feuds which seem indigenous to that country, or that it would make every district of that island a Utopia. Still, no one can deny that the right hon. Gentleman came forward on that occasion in a manly, straightforward manner. His policy was openly declared, and he appealed to the last Parliament, elected by the restricted constituency, and the last Parliament gave him a large majority. At a later period he appealed to the Parliament elected by the new constituency, and that majority was increased. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, gained his position, as far as the policy for Ireland, was at issue, in the most clear and honourable manner; and no one grudged him his triumph—at least, I did not. But the right hon. Gentleman was a candidate for the suffrages of a large and, as he believed, of an economically inclined constituency, and, not having sufficient confidence in the bold policy he had enunciated, he suddenly turned round, and apparently to obtain votes, in which he did not even succeed, he denounced the then Government on account of the extravagance of their military and naval establishments. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Expenditure.] Well, we will not quarrel about the word; it comes to the same thing whichever we use. But the right hon. Gentleman, denouncing the extravagance of the late Government, said to the electors—"If I am in power next year I will terminate all this expenditure; I will put an end to these costly establishments, and you shall have a great reduction of taxation in consequence." This was a mere episode in the career
80
of the right hon. Gentleman. It did not obtain him the seat he then solicited, nor do I believe it obtained for him half-a-dozen seats in this House. He would have had a complete majority if he had adhered to his first policy, which, though I believe erroneous, was the policy of a statesman, was perfectly intelligible, and had been deliberated upon in this House. My complaint against the right hon. Gentleman is that when he was summoned by his Sovereign to occupy the highest position in the kingdom, with a responsibility attached to it which no language can describe, and no degree of feeling equal, the right hon. Gentleman could not have been 10 minutes in the Cabinet of the Queen without knowing that the representations he had made respecting the military and naval expenditure of the country and the consequent reduction which he had pledged himself to was one of the greatest mistakes any Minister could possibly have made. The facts upon which this conclusion would be arrived at by him were State secrets at the time; but they have since been revealed in ravaged Europe. Why, the right hon. Gentleman sent his most trusty Councillor upon these subjects abroad to examine into these matters; he sent the member of his Cabinet on whom he naturally most depended for a correct opinion upon the state of Europe. Lord Clarendon went to the Continent. Lord Clarendon had conferences in Germany with more than one Sovereign, and with many most eminent statesmen. By one of those lucky combinations which sometimes occur in public life, Lord Clarendon met the Prime Minister of Russia, Prince Gortchakoff, who happened to be in Germany at that period, and he had confidential conferences with Prince Gortchakoff; and the consequence of these communications with German Sovereigns and statesmen and the Chancellor of Russia was that Lord Clarendon repaired to the capital of France, and conferred confidentially with the Emperor of the French. Now, Sir, there may be difference of opinion as to the position of the late Lord Clarendon as a statesman, as there will be upon the character and career of every public man. Perhaps Lord Clarendon was more adapted for an Ambassador than a Minister of State; others may differ from this view, but no one will dispute that Lord Clarendon was a consummate man of the world,

81
with a quick perception of character, and gifted with that versatile and captivating sympathy which extracts secrets from the most reserved, and obtains the confidence of the most close. Now all this time Lord Clarendon was communicating confidentially with the right hon. Gentleman—the right hon. Gentleman admitted this at the close of last Session—and who can doubt what were the results at which Lord Clarendon arrived? Lord Clarendon must have comprehended the whole situation—the danger to the peace of Europe from the continued rivalry of France and Prussia; the causes which prevented Prussia from commencing the contest; the restraint necessary in consequence to impress upon the Emperor of the French; and the right hon. Gentleman must have been perfectly well aware of everything Lord Clarendon did, of everything that passed through his mind, and of all the information that he gained. Under all these circumstances, it is to me most difficult to comprehend the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman. I cannot understand how a person filling the position of the right hon. Gentleman should have deemed himself bound by the rash rhetoric of the hustings to continue those reductions of what he calls expenditure, but which are, practically speaking, establishments, seeing that the reduction is, in fact, a reduction in the number of men and boys and in the amount of stores. How is it possible that the right hon. Gentleman could, possessing this knowledge, have pursued such a course, and countenanced the framing of harum-scarum Budgets which have dissipated the resources of the nation?
The danger which Lord Clarendon must have foreseen eventually resulted in the war between France and Germany; and now let me impress upon the attention of the House the character of this war. It is no common war, like the war between Prussia and Austria, or like the Italian war in which France was engaged some years ago; nor is it like the Crimean War. This war represents the German Revolution, a greater political event than the French Revolution of last century — I don't say a greater, or as great, a social event. What its social consequences may be are in the future. Not a single principle in the management of our foreign affairs, accepted by all statesmen for guidance
82
up to six months ago, any longer exists. There is not a diplomatic tradition which has not been swept away. You have a new world, new influences at work, new and unknown objects and dangers with which to cope, at present involved in that obscurity incident to novelty in such affairs. We used to have discussions in this House about the balance of power. Lord Palmerston, eminently a practical man, trimmed the ship of State and shaped its policy with a view to preserve an equilibrium in Europe; and we have recently been favoured with a letter from M. Guizot to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, in which the balance of power is declared to be absolutely necessary to the peace of Europe. We have heard hon. Gentlemen in this House, on some occasions, deride the idea of a balance of power as altogether a fancy; but what has really come to pass in Europe? The balance of power has been entirely destroyed, and the country which suffers most, and feels the effects of this great change most, is England. Now, what has been the first consequence of the destruction of the balance of power by this war, which I sincerely believe, if we had been energetic and prepared, this country might have prevented? The first consequence is that Russia repudiates the Treaty of 1856. There is nothing in diplomatic history so unqualified as the repudiation of the settlement of 1856 by Russia. Now, I am not going to inveigh against the designs of Russia. Russia has a policy, as every great Power has a policy, and she has as much right to have a policy as Germany or England. I believe the policy of Russia, taking a general view of it, to have been a legitimate policy, although it may have been inevitably a disturbing policy. When you have a great country in the centre of Europe, with an immense territory, with a numerous and yet, as compared with its colossal area, a sparse population, producing human food to any extent, in addition to certain most valuable raw materials, it is quite clear that a people so situated, practically without any seaboard, would never rest until it found its way to the coast, and could have a mode of communicating easily with other nations, and exchanging its products with them. Well, for 200 years Russia has pursued that policy; it has been a legitimate, though a disturbing policy. It has cost Sweden

83
provinces, and it has cost Turkey provinces. But no wise statesman could help feeling that it was a legitimate policy—a policy which it was impossible to resist, and one which the general verdict of the world recognized—that Russia should find her way to the seacoast. She has completely accomplished it. She has admirable seaports; she can communicate with every part of the world, and she has profited accordingly. But at the end of the last century she advanced a new view. It was not a national policy; it was invented by the then ruler of Russia, a woman, a stranger, and an usurper—and that policy was that she must have the capital of the Turkish Empire. That was not a legitimate, it was a disturbing policy. It was a policy like the French desire to have the Rhine—false in principle. She had no moral claim to Constantinople; she did not represent the races to which it once belonged; she had no political necessity to go there, because she had already two capitals. Therefore, it was not a legitimate, but a disturbing policy. As the illegitimate desire of France to have the Rhine has led to the prostration of France, so the illegitimate desire of Russia to have Constantinople led to the prostration of Russia. Now, when Russia repudiated the Treaty of 1856 I do not think the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government was a wise one. I admire the reasoning by which Her Majesty's Secretary of State showed to the Russian Minister the fallacy of his position; but I think that the inference he drew from his own premises was lame and impotent. Our proper answer to the first note of Prince Gortchakoff should have been to protest against it, and to have said at once that Russia must take the consequences of such a step. In that case, I doubt very much whether at this moment we should have heard any more about it. But that was not the course adopted by Her Majesty's Government. The plan of a Conference on the Treaty of 1856, which France could not attend, was not politic; and the inability of France to take part in it was alone a sufficient reason in refusing to listen to any such project. Let me recall to the House for a moment the circumstances under which the Treaty of 1856 was negotiated. I know there are hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House who
84
think the Crimean War was a great mistake. I am not one of them. I think the Crimean War might have been prevented. I have not the slightest doubt that in the month of July, 1854, if our Government had informed the Government of Russia that war would be the consequence of their passing the Pruth, the Pruth would not have been passed. I believe that is not now mere conjecture, but a matter of acknowledged fact. But when that war was declared I believe it was a just and necessary war; I believe there never was a war carried on for a nobler purpose or with purer intentions, nor one which the people generally of this country ever supported with more enthusiasm. There was a great demur at the time as to the terms of peace; they were not thought adequate. It is true they did not call upon Russia, under defeat, to yield up any of her provinces; and I wish that fact could be recollected by other Powers. It is true, also, that the Allies did not propose to mulct Russia by calling on her to pay a great indemnity; and that, too, should not be forgotten by nations who are influenced by precedents. But I think the Treaty was admirable, because it devised a plan for neutralizing the Black Sea, which absolutely, as far as human arrangements could control affairs, really prevented that part of the world again disturbing the general peace. Well, that Treaty was regarded, at the time as a magnanimous Treaty. I believe it was so accepted by Russia. She obtained terms after the fall of Sebastopol as favourable as those which she refused at the Conference of Vienna. I doubt there is an example of such terms being offered by the conqueror under similar circumstances. Now, Sir, I do not pretend to divine what is passing at the Conference. All sorts of rumours are afloat; but I cannot understand, or conceive it possible, that a British Minister, after the immense sacrifices made by the Allies, and especially by this country, in order to obtain that Treaty of 1856, will consent in Conference to give up the whole point for which those sacrifices were incurred. There really is nothing in the Treaty of 1856 of vital importance — nothing that did secure and can maintain the general peace of Europe with regard to that part of the world, except the termination

85
of the naval preponderance of Russia in the Black Sea by a plan which spared the pride of a great country. To obtain that result the Allies expended three hundred millions of treasure. I cannot trust myself to tell what was the loss in human lives, infinitely more valuable. You fought four pitched battles and made two of the most terrific assaults ever known in the history of sieges, and all to obtain this result. Why, there is hardly a family in England, from the haughtiest to the humblest, which has not some painful recollection of the sufferings and sacrifices of that war. In my parish church there is a memorial window to the memory of two sons of an hon. Baronet, once a Member of this House, both of whom fell in the Crimea. The eldest, who was little more than of age—a youth of great promise and distinguished appearance—had just married, and the very week after his marriage he was summoned to his regiment, one of the finest in our service—the 23rd Fusiliers. He fell at Alma after many acts of valour. Exactly a year afterwards his next brother, who had succeeded to his title—an officer of Artillery, also in the same army — died in the trenches before Sebastopol. The mother of those gallant youths raised that memorial window in my parish church because—to use her own words—amid her terrible sorrows she had the proud consolation of knowing that her sons had died for their country. But now you are going to tell her that she is not to have that proud consolation—that they did not die either for the honour or the interest of their country—that it was all moonshine. I think that the mothers of England will feel very differently in future, and the sons of England, too, will not be so lavish of their lives, if this mockery is to occur. But the most curious thing in all this affair of the Treaty of 1856 is the conduct of Her Majesty's Government when they received the note of Prince Gortchakoff; and it is to me perfectly incredible. What did Her Majesty's Government do? They consulted Count Bismarck—certainly a most eminent man, and there is no man whose opinion on a difficult question I should think more valuable. But he is the Minister of Prussia, who was not our ally in the Crimean campaign, and whose conduct then was equivocal and ambiguous; and they sent, as
86
I understand—but we are to have the Papers laid before us, and I am sure Papers were never more wanted — they sent Mr. Odo Russell in their difficulty to consult Count Bismarck. Now, what said Count Bismarck? Count Bismarck said this—"I see that your Government is extremely indignant because Russia has repudiated the Treaty of 1856. Well, it is a very extraordinary thing; but only three months ago your Prime Minister repudiated a most solemn treaty with regard to my country — namely, that which guaranteed the Saxon provinces to my Sovereign." Why, at that moment it was a toss up whether those Saxon provinces would or would not be invaded, and I believe it is in those very provinces that Count Bismarck's estate is situated, though that is a matter that of course would not affect his opinion. However, Count Bismarck, with that cynical cordiality which distinguishes him, said—"Notwithstanding the way in which you have treated us, I will do everything I can for you. I will suggest a Conference, and the practical consequence of a Conference is that you condone the great offence of Russia, and then that will happen at the Conference which always does happen at Conferences to which Russia is a party, and particularly where Prussia also is a party—namely, that Russia will gain her object." But Count Bismarck is a man of the world who goes with the times; so he does not stop here—the Treaty of Vienna is an obsolete treaty; the Treaty of 1856 is now successfully repudiated by Russia; the balance of power no longer exists. And therefore the unfortunate Sovereign Prince of Luxemburg, to secure the neutrality of whose territory we had laboured, and had incurred so great a risk, has notice served upon him, which puts an end to the Treaty of Luxembourg. That is the third repudiated treaty. Now let me say one word about that Treaty. I wish to speak thus, because the matter has not been so much before the House of Commons as might be desirable, and the observations of a Secretary of State have not been correctly apprehended. By the Treaty of Luxemburg the five signataries gave a joint guarantee to maintain the neutrality of the Grand Duchy, and the question has been raised as to what were our liabilities in respect of the joint guarantee. I do not apprehend

87
that as regards our liabilities to the Grand Duke of Luxemburg the slightest difficulty is likely to arise. I believe that the liability of each of the co-signataries towards the Grand Duke of Luxemburg merely extends to this—that they shall not themselves violate the neutrality of his territory. But the liabilities that the signataries to that Treaty incur to each other in respect of the engagement are much larger and of a far more complicated character. Guarantees of the neutrality of their territories are not given to Princes out of mere affection or personal respect—they are given for much larger objects, to secure the peace of Europe and to maintain the general tranquillity. And therefore a signatary of the Treaty who violates the neutrality of the territory of the Grand Duke of Luxemburg incurs a large responsibility to England and to the other signataries of the instrument; and it would be open to us, at any moment and in any manner we might think proper, to assert our rights if they should be so violated. It has been said that there is in existence a secret Treaty between Prussia and Russia entered into before the war. I make no statement to that effect myself. It once fell to my lot, in reference to transactions relating to the Crimean War, to state to this House that there was in existence a secret Treaty between two great Powers—France and Austria—having reference to the state of Italy, by which the former undertook not to attack the latter in case certain things should be done in the course of that war, and Lord Palmerston contradicted me upon the subject. In about a week after, however, Lord Palmerston, as a man of honour, having ascertained the real facts, thought it his duty to come down to the House and to acknowledge that such a Treaty did exist. I merely advert to that circumstance to show that I make no such assertions until I am convinced of their truth. When I am convinced of the existence of a Treaty such as I have described between Prussia and Russia, I shall state the fact openly in this House. I feel called upon, however, to make this remark—that if, when Her Majesty's Government communicated with Count Bismark respecting the repudiation of the Treaty of 1856, they were ignorant of the existence of such a Treaty, they were exceedingly ill-informed; but if
88
they were aware of its existence—and I wish the House to observe this possibility particularly — and yet under such circumstances made the appeal to Count Bismarck which led to this Conference, then I say that the conduct of Her Majesty's Government is of a very grave character, and that the censure of this House would be a very light punishment for them to undergo.
There is another Treaty upon which I will not stop to make a comment, which has been violated in consequence of the destruction of the balance of power produced by this war—a war which, I believe, England might have prevented, and that is the Treaty which secured Rome to His Holiness the Pope, entered into by the King of Italy, by which the latter bound himself to defend the former from all aggression. We were not parties to that Treaty, and can be only indirectly concerned and interested in it; but the violation of that Treaty is, in my opinion, complete. I am not at all surprised at the result; it is the necessary result of the alliance between the Papacy and Liberalism. Why the Pope should destroy Churches—even if they were Irish Protestant Churches—and why he should secularize ecclesiastical property, I never could understand. His Holiness, however, succeeded in his object; but the Protestant Church Establishment in Ireland was not legally disestablished at the time when the Papacy was disestablished itself. I do not dwell upon this Treaty, because I have no doubt but that in the course of this debate we shall have a satisfactory vindication of the policy of the Government, and a complete interpretation of their views, from the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird).
Now, Sir, I have shown the House what a complicated state of affairs, what difficulties, and what possible dangers have arisen in Europe from this war, which has destroyed the balance of power, and which war, I think, might have been prevented. But those difficulties and dangers are not limited to Europe. The Atlantic Cable unhappily conveys not only communications relating to commercial matters. Everything that happens in the diplomatic circles of Europe appears to reach the other side of the great waters with a rapidity rivalling that by which the knowledge of the price of gold and

89
of cotton is conveyed across the Atlantic. I am surprised at the course which was taken by the Sovereign of America in this matter. I should have thought that he would not have condescended to imitate the example of Europe. But to my great surprise the United States have also got hold of a Treaty with this country which they intend to repudiate. This Treaty was a treaty negotiated—as all treaties entered into with the United States have been negotiated—with great concessions on our side. The enjoyment of it was lost, wantonly lost by the United States by their abrogation of the treaty of reciprocity with Canada, although even after that occurrence they enjoyed the advantages of its provisions for many years longer by the forbearance and indulgence of English statesmen. That Treaty is now brought forward by the United States as an act of injustice on our part and as a means and opportunity for misunderstanding. I was very glad to hear from the Queen's Speech that the attention of England had been directed to this question, and that there seems to be a prospect of having at least some formal communication upon the question. There is one point connected with America which I cannot refrain from noticing, and that is, the extraordinary tone in which the authorities of America communicate with our Government and with the people of this country. The tone of the American Government towards the Government of England is different from that used towards the Government of any other country. It is not, as I once thought, the rough simplicity of Republican manners that occasions a rudeness so painful. Nothing can be more courteous than the Government of the United States to the Russian Government and, I have no doubt, to the German Government; but if they have any communications to make to the Government of this country, or any cause to give their opinion as to the conduct of the English people, a tone is adopted and language used which it may be forbearing not to notice for a time, but which, if persisted in, must ultimately lead to consequences which, though they may not be intended, all will deplore. Now, I am not going to dwell upon the wild words of demagogues, who, I suppose, in the United States, as in all other countries, are reckless in their expres-
90
sions. I am talking of persons of high official authority. I will take, for instance, the chief Senator (Mr. Sumner)—I look upon the Chairman of the Committee for Foreign Affairs as the chief man in the Senate, and only second to the President, for to a certain degree he exercises the functions of royalty. No treaty with the United States can, I believe, be concluded without his concurrence. This gentleman commenced his Parliamentary career last year by an invective against the British Government. Having to deal with the difficulties between the two countries, having to exercise the functions of a judge and a statesman, he commenced the campaign by a violent invective against the English Government and the English nation, exciting the passions of the people of America. Then the President of the United States, the Sovereign of America, recently in one of those grave State papers which a person of his exalted position periodically produces, having occasion to speak of the English Government and people uses language which I wish I could describe as either friendly or respectful. It was, I think, very unfortunate that the Fenian prisoners were sent to America. It is a questionable thing to me whether they ought to have been amnestied. But, as I have said on a former occasion, it is best that an amnesty should be complete; and if they were to be freed I think they ought to have been allowed to go to Ireland, instead of being sent to America as first-class passengers in a Cunard boat, with a £5 note in their pockets. The people of America received them, in pursuance of the system of always insulting this country, with all honour, and by a large majority in the House of Representatives decided to treat them with every possible respect. I want to know what is the reason why the Government and people of England are treated by the Government of the United States in a different manner from that in which other countries are treated. The time has come when we ought to know that. At the first blush one would think it impossible for two nations to be on terms of more thorough and complete understanding. Notwithstanding the Celtic or Teutonic emigration which the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Address (Mr. Morley) has noticed, the English character of the original settlers

91
in these colonies has always predominated. They have, perhaps, improved our language; but they still speak it. We have the same laws, the same literature, and the same religion. Our commercial relations are on a vast scale; and though our terms of exchange might be improved, the reciprocal benefit is great and unquestioned. There is every circumstance which ought to unite two nations in the bonds of real friendship, and yet it is impossible that the Government or the people of this country can be brought in any public way before the authorities of the United States without some expression being used, or some course taken which is offensive to our honour. What is the cause of this? It cannot arise from the original quarrel. The result of the original quarrel was certainly calculated to leave feelings of humiliation and vindictiveness, but not on the part of the Americans. Nor can it arise from the course taken by England during the Civil War. Nothing is more unjust than the statement that the cause of the Southern States was taken up by either party in this country; and, with regard to the charges so constantly made, that the party represented on this side of the House acted in a party sense with regard to the Southern Confederation, it is utterly untrue. There were hon. Gentlemen, no doubt, on both sides of the House who expressed their opinions and brought forward Motions; but nothing like a party Motion was ever made. The late Lord Derby, who was well acquainted with America, from the first believed that the Northern Confederation would be successful, and as regards the House of Parliament where he was eminent he surely may be assumed to represent the party sitting on this side. As regards this House, I may, perhaps, though with less authority, claim to be regarded as the representative, and under no circumstances whatever did I sanction any such Motion, and for this reason alone, if not others—I felt that it was impossible to limit our interference to the recognition of the Southern States. It would have involved us in a war with the Northern States, and of such a result I would not take the responsibility. Sir, there is no ground for the charge. It is futile. The reason of this offensive conduct of the United States is this — There is a party in America, who certainly do
92
not monopolize the intelligence, the education, and the property of the country, and who, I believe, are not even numerically the strongest, who attempt to obtain political power and to excite political passion by abusing England and its Government because they believe they can do so with impunity. These are the last men who would take this tone if they thought England would resent such conduct; but the idea is impressed upon them that they may insult the Government of England with impunity. You may say, if they have no really hostile intent, and it is a mere electioneering game, is it not better for us to be forbearing and contemptuous? Well, it is not exactly that. The danger is this — Habitually exciting the passions of millions, some unfortunate thing happens or something unfortunate is said in either country; the fire lights up, it is beyond their control, and the two nations are landed in a contest which they can no longer control or prevent. As there is to be a Commission, it would be a very good opportunity for us to come to some clear understanding on the subject, and let it be known England cannot be insulted or injured with impunity; though I should look upon it as the darkest hour of my life if I were to counsel or even support in this House a war with the United States, still the United States should know that they are not an exception to the other countries of the world — that we do not permit ourselves to be insulted by any other country in the world—and that they cannot be an exception. If once our naval and military establishments were in that condition which, I hope, on Thursday, or some early day, we shall find they are—if once it is known that Her Majesty's dominions cannot be assaulted without being adequately defended—all this rowdy rhetoric which is addressed to irresponsible millions, and, as it is supposed, with impunity, will, I believe, cease.
Now, Sir, that is the state of affairs which we have to deal with at the commencement of the Session. And as there is not one of the subjects which I have mentioned which will not, probably, be brought forward for our consideration in its course, it has seemed to me not inappropriate that, on the first day, some general view should be put before the House of the consequences of the war be-

93
tween Germany and France. The whole machinery of States is dislocated. There is not an engagement between Powers which is not impugned or looked upon with suspicion and without confidence, and it is very likely that with every one of the countries to which I have alluded we shall have to discuss our diplomatic engagements and the stipulations which now exist. I hope I may presume to say that I have never been what is called an alarmist. I have never magnified the dangers which this country has had to undergo. I hope I may add that I have never been in favour of a meddlesome policy, though I am not prepared to support what is called non-intervention under all circumstances. I am quite aware that the relations of England to Europe are different now from what they were at the Treaty of Utrecht, or even in the time of Lord Chatham, and that other than European elements, great in themselves and considerably affecting the balance of power, have grown up which could not have been taken into consideration by the statesmen of that day. But I cannot resist the conviction that this country is in a state of great peril, and that it will require the utmost prudence and courage to extricate her from the consequences of recent events. A distinguished man, long a Member of this House, an eminent statesman, whom I am sure even his opponents must always speak of with respect—Lord Russell—has called the attention of the public to the fact that there is in States a natural jealousy of any dominion that rises up chiefly by the influence of commerce. There is no doubt that there have been periods before this when a feeling—not, I think, a rational, but a general feeling—of hostility to the United Kingdom has existed which nothing but fortunate circumstances or the exertion of great energy on our side could have dispelled or baffled. I remember in a discussion in this House 20 years ago, when a feeling of this kind had grown up, reminding the House of what occurred at the Treaty of Cambrai. That was a treaty under which the Confederate Powers of Europe determined, without any cause whatever and from mere jealousy of Venice, of her mercantile spirit and great wealth, and from irritation at the reserve with which she had declined mixing herself up in their separate plans,
94
to cut the pinions of that great Republic. No doubt there is even considerable similarity between the condition of Great Britain and the Republic of Venice. Venice had all the commerce of the world, the finest navy, and a good army, commanded by strangers and foreigners it is true, but still by distinguished generals. She held Cyprus in fee; she possessed the Morea, the peninsula of the Ægean—the same to her that India is to us—the best islands of the Ionian and Ægean seas, and every province of the terra firma of Italy distinguished for civilization and culture, except the Grand Duchy of Milan. But there are also differences between the United Kingdom and Venice. Venice had not a numerous and warlike population. She had not a high-spirited middle-class, and she had a suspicious and tyrannical oligarchy instead of an open and real aristocracy. I understand, that some distinguished statesmen have been speaking of England as a country that is past as regards political power, and as one that has sacrificed all her reputation and her real power merely to the accumulation of wealth. Well, I am glad that during the 50 years of peace that more or less we have enjoyed—we have accumulated wealth, and it is a great consolation to me to know that if—which God forbid—we should have to defend ourselves and assert our position in the world, we could enter, as I am sure no other Power could, into a third campaign without finding the sinews of war fail us. It is a great source of strength to England to feel that if she enters into a quarrel which is necessary and just, she is not likely to find her resources exhausted; whereas, it would be very difficult to fix on any other Power, with all their boastfulness, that in the second or third year of hostilities would not be found upon the different Exchanges of Europe endeavouring to raise loans to an amount, moreover, not as large as we could raise by a single tax. But in the 50 years which have elapsed we have done something besides accumulating money, and it is well that this should be known by those who make such free comments upon England and the English people. The people of the United Kingdom enjoy at this moment complete personal and political liberty. Those two great subjects that used to disturb our predecessors, and were the foundation of half the

95
encumbering orders of this House—trade and religion—are no longer any source of difficulty to us since they have taken the shape of commercial freedom and religious equality. We passed last year a Primary Education Bill, not so various in its elements as I hope to live to see pass, but still a real Elementary Education Bill. The people of this country have had the opportunity of following their industry and enjoying their rights in a manner which cannot be equalled by the records of any modern or ancient nation; and I do not believe that a population thus circumstanced is going to give up such blessings without a struggle, or will yield so pre-eminent a position without at least proving that they are worthy of it. There are many observations that I could make upon details of the gracious Speech and of the Address which we are called upon to vote in answer. It is one of the longest Speeches that, I believe, was ever delivered to Parliament from the Throne. It touches on many subjects; there are expressions in it which might be criticized; and there are some points which might, under ordinary circumstances, warrant even a graver notice. But I think it of importance that we should show to Europe and to America, on the present occasion, when we re-assemble, an united Parliament; and though, no doubt, we shall have differences of opinion on minor points, I apprehend that on the vital question there is no difference of opinion among the great majority of the House. I believe we are resolved that the military and naval institutions of this country shall be adequate to the occasion. We hope—aye, more than hope, we believe—the Government are going to bring forward measures which will meet the exigencies of the case. In that case I shall give those measures my entire support; if there are points of detail of which I may not approve, I shall waive my opposition, if it will endanger the security of their passing. I would even make some sacrifice of principle to support their proposals, if they be adequate to the occasion, as I hope and believe they will be. But, although I am not prepared with any Amendment upon this occasion, or to ask the House to come to any declaration of opinion upon a state of affairs that I do not think devoid of peril, and which all, I
96
think, must admit to be most critical, still I could not be altogether silent, after the conversations which occurred in the last days of the late Session, and the events which have since taken so grave a form. The opinions which I have expressed I have teen emboldened to offer because I know they are shared by those who generally act with me in public life—and also because I know that a great body of persons throughout the country sympathize with us in our resolve, which is, as far as our power may enable us to effect that object, to uphold the greatness of our country, and to maintain the Empire of the Queen.
MR. GLADSTONE: My hon. Friends the Mover and Seconder of the Address have each of them discharged a part well known not to be free from difficulty in a manner that I am sure will tend to conciliate for them the favour of this House, and to inspire in all of us a hope that neither of them will be too much attracted by sympathy, or any other cause, into the rank of silent Members. But since my two hon. Friends have sat down the debate has assumed a different character. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) has consisted in so large a degree of charges of the most pointed character against the conduct of Her Majesty's Government, that I hope the House will think I am not taking an undue liberty if I rise at once for the purpose of meeting the challenge he has given us, without, in the slightest degree, questioning his title to bring these accusations forward. I appeal to the judgment of the House, and I shall endeavour to show that there is not a shadow of foundation for the accusations he has made. As the right hon. Gentleman has found it necessary to traverse a field of considerable breadth, I will at once point out those portions of his speech with which I do not find that the respect I am bound to pay him makes it my duty to follow him on the present occasion. In the first place, I shall not touch on Lord Clarendon's visit to the Continent in 1869, other than to say that from whence the right hon. Gentleman derives his information I know not, except it be from the inexhaustible repositories which his own brains supply. During the whole time when Lord Clarendon was Foreign Minister of this country in the present Government, I certainly had the honour and satisfaction

97
of communication with him rarely intermitted for a single day. My evidence, I admit, is of a negative character; but, though negative, it is tolerably strong, and I can assure the House that the fabric which the right hon. Gentleman has built up of Lord Clarendon's supposed communications, plans, and schemes, which were the object of his tour, is a fabric wholly without foundation in fact, so far as I am able to see. With respect to the subject of Rome, as my hon. Friend the Member for Longford (Mr. O'Reilly) has given notice of raising a discussion on it on a very early day, I will take the liberty likewise of omitting that topic from any observations I have to make. And with regard to America, I wish to say a very few words, for certainly the right hon. Gentleman, as well as the House, will feel that it would hardly be expedient at this particular moment, in the position I have the honour to fill, if I should undertake on the part of the Government to state our exact appreciation of the criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman on certain American matters. One thing I will say, which is due to the right hon. Gentleman, that I think the course of forbearance and prudence he pursued during the American War entitle him, if any man, to be a critic in this matter without offence; and one thing I will say for myself, which is this—that with him I deplore that licence of speech and that misapprehension of occurrences on this side of the water which we occasionally notice in portions of the American Press. I feel that our best and safest course is to trust to the judgment and good sense of the mass of the American nation themselves to discountenance, neutralize, and dishearten whatever injustice the effects of rash and intemperate speech may be calculated to effect. We are at the present moment upon the very eve of despatching to America a Commission, of which my noble Friend the President of the Council (Earl De Grey and Ripon) will represent British interests. The right hon. Gentleman will admit that this is not the time for discussing the various matters with which that Commission will have to deal. Papers will be laid before the House explaining the conduct of the Government, and the merit of that conduct is fair matter for the consideration of the House. My noble Friend will be assisted in the
98
Commission by Sir Edward Thornton, the able, prudent, and trusted representative of this country in America, and Sir John Macdonald, Prime Minister of Canada, than whom, perhaps, no one is so well, certainly no one is better, qualified to represent and defend the interests of the Empire in every question that affects British North America. The main part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman naturally turned upon the discussion of the circumstances of the Continental war, and, as he entertains the opinions that he has expressed to-night, I am the first to admit that, whatever be the practice commonly prevailing in regard to abstension from polemical discussion on the night of the Address, the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly justified in departing from it; although I think, on the other hand, he will admit that the necessity of raising charges so grave in his place in Parliament is a necessity in some degree adverse to the attainment of that object which he declares he has so much in view and at heart—namely, the object of presenting to foreign nations perfectly united councils. Now, I take the argument of the right hon. Gentleman to be a very simple one, and I will first grapple with that portion of it which refers to the destruction of the balance of power, and the Note which was issued in the autumn by Prince Gortchakoff. The right hon. Gentleman says that we were quite wrong in the mode in which we dealt with that Note. Well, Sir, I am sorry that we have not the suffrage of the right hon. Gentleman; but I am bound to say that, as far as I have any means of judging of the state of the public mind, I do think that the answer which was made by my noble Friend, Lord Granville, upon the receipt of the Note of Prince Gortchakoff was recognized by the country as a becoming, adequate, and manly answer. But the right hon. Gentleman says that, after issuing that answer, to which he does not object in itself, we then proceeded to commit a gross error in making our appeal to Count Bismarck—a very clever man, as the right hon. Gentleman, not too liberal, says; but one into whose mouth the right hon. Gentleman has found it necessary or expedient to put arguments and statements that Count Bismarck himself never was ingenious enough to discover. We made

99
no appeal to Count Bismarck whatever. We took our own course in reply to the Note of Prince Gortchakoff, and, having taken our own course, it became a proper subject of communication to the other Powers of Europe who were the other parties to the Treaty of 1856, and among those Powers was Prussia. The right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that Prussia was not our ally in the Crimean War; but Prussia was our ally in the negotiations preceding the war, and Prussia was a party to the Treaty itself. Do not let me be misunderstood. We did not exclude Prussia from the communication that we made to every other Power concerned in that Treaty; but a special appeal to Count Bismarck we never made, and that is one of the suspicions upon which the argument of the right hon. Gentleman on this part of the case depends. The right hon. Gentleman made some general observations with regard to the moderation on the part of the victorious Power, and when the moment comes for negotiation, though it is not prudent or desirable for me to discuss it now in debate. I cannot pass it by without stating my general concurrence. Well, I think I may pass to the main subject of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman—namely, the present war and the conduct of the Government in connection with the present war. His charges are perfectly clear. He says we were right in maintaining neutrality, but that we maintained a wrong kind of neutrality. We ought to have maintained an armed neutrality: maintaining an armed neutrality, we should have been able to prevent the war—certainly to shorten it, and as certainly to improve the terms on which peace is to be finally concluded. But we did not use energy enough in our representations at the critical moment before war broke out. We did not make use of the services we had rendered to France. We did not make use of the guarantee by which we were bound to Prussia. If we had made use of these documents we should probably have been able to prevent war arising. We were paralyzed, because we had unduly reduced the armaments of the nation in order to redeem rash pledges given by me on the hustings in Lancashire, and to enable my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to propose to the House and
100
carry through his harum-scarum Budget. I hope that is a tolerably fair statement of the charge of the right hon. Gentleman. There are many of the things which the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his speech, describes as placed entirely beyond argument, as admitted by everybody, which, as I have often been compelled to do before, I must take up in a bundle and put them aside as wholly unfounded. But with regard to armed neutrality, I own it, with some reluctance, that I followed the right hon. Gentleman into the cloudy controversy that he has raised. What is this armed neutrality? I have heard of armed neutrality in history. I recollect an armed neutrality of about 1780, and with that armed neutrality war, so far from being stopped, was extended. That portentous evil was made even more portentous from the admixture with it of this armed neutrality. I will not merely criticize the phraseology of the right hon. Gentleman—the right hon. Gentleman is privileged in phraseology with gifts of invention, and copious and powerful mastery which I cannot imitate, and which occasionally, no doubt, may lead to my coining a phrase less felicitous than those he is frequently so happy and able to produce. There was a case of armed neutrality—the case of Austria and the Principalities—which the right hon. Gentleman says all persons admitted to have shortened the Crimean War. Now, the case of Austria was not a case of armed neutrality at all, but an especial operation directed to a particular point. Austria never professed to be neutral in the Crimean War. Upon the occasion of the siege of Sebastopol the driving of the Russians out of the Principalities had for its main military effect nothing but this—it placed a large and neighbouring force at the disposal of Russia for the defence of Sebastopol. I am not finding fault with the proceeding; I am endeavouring to show how lightly the right hon. Gentleman deals with the facts of history. But the right hon. Gentleman says we did not use sufficient energy in preventing war; and those who have heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman will really be under the impression that he pointed out to us this lack of energy at a period when it was not too late for us to amend our defective policy. He has spoken to-night as if the speech he made last

101
year was made anterior to the war. On the contrary, it was a speech made during the war; it was a speech made by a person who was in possession of all the steps which had been taken by the Government in reference to the war. He thinks it was before the war; but the date of it was the 1st of August, when war had been declared a fortnight; in fact, it was the day of the battle of Saar-brück, and it was within three or four days of the battle of Wœrth. The right hon. Gentleman says we did not use energy enough. I want to know what it was we were to do. Well, we were to go to the French and we were to say—"If you exercise your own free discretion towards Prussia as to what is or what is not sufficient reparation, that will be an outrage upon the Crown of England?" When the right hon. Gentleman had used that strong phrase he immediately felt that from such, a phrase there would arise a presumption that we were to go to war, if necessary, in support of that strong language; but he disclaimed the intention of going to war in support of it. We were to have told France that she was inflicting an outrage upon the Crown of England; but we were to abstain from saying that that outrage would be resented on our part. And that is what the right hon. Gentleman calls a recommendation to use greater energy than that which we used. We were to have said to France—I am quoting the words of the right hon. Gentleman—"You must take the consequences;" and France might safely have taken the consequences, according to the right hon. Gentleman's position, for the consequences were not to be war, but they were to be our high displeasure—consequences which I think it very possible a people much less powerful and high-spirited than the French would have been perfectly content to take in resenting an unwarranted and excessive intrusion from a foreign Power into a province which was not its own. It is not the question whether France was right, or whether she was wrong. In mild and friendly terms we did state to her that, in our judgment, she was wrong in not accepting the withdrawal of the candidature of Prince Hohenzollern; and, having done that, we felt that we had discharged our whole duty, and in discharging our whole duty we had exhausted our whole right. The
102
right hon. Gentleman has another argument. He says we had entered into a guarantee with Prussia which I repudiated last year, and which, if we had used it properly, would have given us a position of authority with respect to France. That is to say, if I understand the argument, we should have been justified in going to France and speaking thus—"Pray observe we are bound to Prussia by a guarantee which will compel us to go to war in case the Saxon province is invaded, and, that being so, as we have an interest in the quarrel, we are entitled to require you to hold back." But the right hon. Gentleman, at the same time that he holds we were thus entitled to claim an interest in the quarrel and a commanding power over the act of France, on the ground of our being under an obligation to go to war, has expressly disclaimed the idea of our going to war in the case, and has told us that he was not ready to counsel such a course. The right hon. Gentleman has laid down doctrines with regard to guarantees which are totally fatal to the argument he has used. I beg the House to follow me while I try to apply to the case his argument and opinions. He says we were to present ourselves before the Emperor Napoleon, and claim the right to check the policy of France: because the policy of France was war, and that war might involve the invasion of Saxony, we should be bound by our guarantee, and consequently bound to take up arms. In the major portion of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman he laid down a theory perfectly new—I never heard it before—of the nature and binding force of guarantees. What is it? He says that in the case of giving a territorial guarantee, you bind yourself to the Sovereign of the territory to respect that territory; you bind yourself to the other parties to the guarantee in a much higher degree, and there the liability of going to war even may be involved. [Mr. DISRAELI: In a joint and separate guarantee.] The guarantee is not a joint and separate guarantee. It is this—
"Austria, Russia, Great Britain, and France guarantee to his Majesty the King of Prussia and his descendants and successors the possession of the countries marked out in the 15th Article as full property and sovereignty."
That is a joint guarantee; in the

103
strictest sense it is a joint guarantee. Now, I have got from the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman a definition of the exact binding force of a joint guarantee, and from his mouth I fasten him to this—that the amount of obligation put upon us by that joint guarantee, so far as regarded Prussia and the sovereignty of the territory, was that we were ourselves to respect the King's possession of that sovereignty, and it amounted to nothing more. And when the right hon. Gentleman can reconcile together these two portions of his speech in which he laid down doctrines, one of which directly inculpated us, and the other of which directly exculpated us, I will only say that he will show an ingenuity greater than he has ever manifested in the whole course of his long Parliamentary career. The right hon. Gentleman says there has been a great deal of most melancholy talk with regard to the repudiation of treaties, and I might agree with the right hon. Gentleman up to a certain point. What we think of the sanctity of treaties is to be learnt from the declarations of Lord Granville during last autumn. But do not let us exaggerate the case; do not let us make matters worse than they are. By needlessly finding other Powers guilty of the repudiation of treaties, we are not taking a course likely to mollify or to convert them; but we are taking a course likely to isolate ourselves, and, in isolating ourselves, to deprive ourselves of all power for good. The right hon. Gentleman says that an end is now put to the Treaty of Luxemburg. I must say I think there was no occasion on which the Luxemburg Treaty was in so great danger of being put an end to as it was upon an occasion which occurred within a fortnight after it had been signed. That was the occasion when the doctrine was laid down, or understood to be laid down, that when a number of Powers concurred in a guarantee, any one of those Powers making default, the rest were absolutely released. I can only say that so long as the idea that such a doctrine was laid down by the British Government was allowed to possess the public mind all Englishmen should be cautious of using rash language in charging, others with the repudiation of treaties. But I deny that the Treaty of Luxemburg has been put an end to by what happened in the
104
autumn. I presume the right hon. Gentleman to mean that when he heard of the proceeding of the Prussian Government in regard to Luxemburg, it was a proceeding which raised apprehension in his mind; and so far I am perfectly willing to travel with him. But, consider, we have had from what I ought to call the German Government a most explicit and full assurance that the objection which they took to the proceedings of Luxemburg was an objection with respect to military purposes and military necessities alone, and that they expressly, fully, and absolutely recognized the binding character of the Treaty of 1868. It is not for us to maintain, and the right hon. Gentleman will not maintain, that it will be just on our part—nay, more, that it would be politic—to say that the Prussian Government had put an end to the Treaty. Before I part altogether from the question of the Note of Prince Gortchakoff, I must refer to another portion of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. He discussed at great length—perhaps greater length than was necessary on an occasion of this kind—the Crimean War. He said that one valuable result of that war was the neutralization of the Black Sea, and that when we received the Note of Prince Gortchakoff, stating that in consequence of what Russia considered to be breaches of treaty she was no longer bound to observe its stipulations with reference to the Black Sea, we ought to have warned her that she must take the consequences; and what the consequences are in this case there can be no doubt whatever. But the right hon. Gentleman says that the Treaty of 1856, if it produced nothing else, produced one result of the utmost value and of the most vital importance in the East—namely, the neutralization of the Black Sea. That was never, so far as I know, the view of the British Government. In this House, in the year 1856, I declared my confident conviction that it was impossible to maintain the neutralization of the Black Sea. I do not speak from direct communication with Lord Clarendon; but I have been told since his death that he never attached value to that neutralization. Again, I do not speak from direct communication, but I have been told that Lord Palmerston always looked upon the neutralization as an arrangement which might be maintained and held

105
together for a limited number of years, but which, from its character, it was impossible to maintain as a permanent condition for a great settlement of Europe. However that may be, let me now try the wisdom of the right hon. Gentleman by the doctrine he lays down. It is this—that we ought to have held very short language with Russia, ought not to have entertained the project of a Conference, and, at all hazards and all extremities, ought to have staked ourselves upon the neutralization of the Black Sea. Now I come to the ground of positive fact when I say that if we had been prepared for that most chivalrous resolution we should have adopted it with our eyes open to the fact that no one Power in Europe shared our opinion, or would be in the slightest degree responsible for our acts. Who is it that you would have looked to in order to maintain the policy in the East, if matters now stood again as they were? France. But France by official acts expressed her readiness to give up the neutrality of the Black Sea. Which is the Power most disposed to go with us in maintaining the spirit of the Treaty of 1856? The Austro-Hungarian Government. But they several years ago proposed to Russia that the Treaty should be altered, and that the neutrality of the Black Sea should be abandoned; and it is in this state of things that the right hon. Gentleman finds it necessary to introduce to-night the polemics of the case before the House of Commons, and to show how wrong we were not to go to war single-handed in order to force on Russia the permanent contraction of her rights of sovereignty over a portion of her territory. I am perfectly content to leave to the House and to the country the judgment on that portion of the question; and I think I have shown in some degree what would have been our predicament if, adopting the doctrines of the right hon. Gentleman with respect to guarantees, we had endeavoured to make the guarantee to Prussia. With regard to the general question of the guarantee which, the right hon. Gentleman says I repudiated last year, I used no such expression. I declined to be bound by the stringent application of the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman, a doctrine which he is himself obliged to overturn to-night. I have shown that there are circumstances which I think brings the
106
greatest weight to bear upon the nature of the guarantee—namely, the total change that has taken place in regard to the constitution of Germany, and the vast extension and power of the territorial sovereignty of Prussia. The right hon. Gentleman would cut up the guarantee by the roots. It would be most ungrateful on my part if I were to pursue his position of the subject into further analysis; but the right hon. Gentleman has not done with us, and I have not done with his argument, for the point of his charge was this—that our diplomatic weakness was traceable to our military weakness, and our military weakness was traceable in errors, in harum-scarum Budgets; and our harum-scarum Budgets were ultimately referable to rash rhetoric in Lancashire. I think the House will agree that it would not be respectful, either to the right hon. Gentleman, or to the House itself, if I were not to test, in some degree, these rather grave allegations which he has made. Having raised to its climax his argument of interference, the right hon. Gentleman said, here I should be met with the observation "That's all very well—but we have no armaments." Now, let us test the question, whether there were armaments or not. This is a relative term. There are a certain number of Gentlemen in this House who will contend that we have no armaments—that is, we have not sufficient armaments until the whole population of military years are armed—not the whole population which occupies the Benches of this House to which I belong, but that nothing short of an armed nation can be considered a nation properly prepared with the means of defence. I disclaim that standard; and certainly the right hon. Gentleman has not appealed to it. Now, what standard have we to go by? It is quite obvious. The right hon. Gentleman said that we had no armaments, because we had dissolved or disbanded regiments, and that we had damaged, curtailed, and contracted the armaments of the nation in pursuit of the frivolous purpose of affording some fiscal relief to the people. Well, so far as I am aware, every word I spoke in Lancashire on the subject of economy I adhere to. The right hon. Gentleman said that we reduced and enfeebled the armaments of the country, and that we had no armaments to sup-

107
port our diplomacy. I will try a mode of testing this by reference to former years. I will take the armaments of last year, when the right hon. Gentleman said we had no armaments, or—for he changed the phrase—only "attenuated armaments," and probably the latter is the idea which the right hon. Gentleman, in the use of his copious vocabulary, intended by preference to convey. I have often known the right hon. Gentleman to be great in this House on the subject of armaments, and the last time he so displayed himself he was not deploring "attenuated" armaments, but denouncing "bloated armaments;" and it will be found curious to illustrate by the familiar test of arithemetic what are his notions with respect to "attenuated armaments," and what they are with respect to "bloated armaments." There may be bloated armaments either by sea or by land; but I am not going to enter into the naval part of the case, and for the reason that during the discussion of last summer, when the policy of the Government was questioned with respect to military matters, admissions were frankly made by many of the objectors—some of them sitting on the Opposition Benches—that we had a powerful and efficient fleet. In 1862, however, the armaments of the country had, according to the right hon. Gentleman, reached such portentous dimensions that he was obliged to express his indignation at them, and denounced them as "bloated armaments." In that year the whole of the regular force available for home service amounted to 92,270 men, according to the Estimates. That, then, was a "bloated armament." In 1870 the force at home, on the Estimates of the regular Army was 89,051; and yet the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the 92,000 men as a bloated armament, and of the 89,000 as an attenuated armament, the difference between the two amounts being only about 3,000. It must also be recollected that in the days of the bloated armament of 92,000 men we had no reserve—not a man to bless ourselves with—but in the days of the attenuated armament of 89,000 men we had a reserve of more than 20,000 men, liable to serve abroad. Then the right hon. Gentleman says we disbanded veterans. What we did was this—we disbanded the men who were uselessly employed, in order that we might depend upon
108
men who should be usefully employed, and that is the principle of economy, that is the principle of rash rhetoric in Lancashire, and that is the principle which my right hon. Friend near me (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) is said to have adopted in his "harum-scarum Budgets," by which the country has received a remission of taxation, amounting to more than £4,000,000 or £5,000,000. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Eight millions.] At any rate, I hope that we have effectually stopped the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman upon the subject of attenuated armaments. But it may be as well to give the figures for 1868, when the armaments, being under the charge of the right hon. Gentleman, would, of course, be proper armaments, for I find that, whereas there was an attenuated army in 1870, available for home defence, amounting to 89,000, in 1868 the proper and sufficient number was 87,500. Nor is that the whole of the case, because the reserves were then comparatively in their infancy, and while in 1868 they amounted to only 3,500, in 1870 they numbered 20,000. Now, I ask the House—I ask Gentlemen in whatever part of the House they may sit—I think I may even ask the right hon. Gentleman himself—what sort of a case he has made out upon the question of attenuated armaments, and consequent impotence to support the just influence of England? I depart entirely now from the polemical portion of the case, though, of course, it is in the discretion of other Gentlemen to pursue it to any extent they may think fit. It is natural and right that the right hon. Gentleman should state his objections as important points affecting the conduct of the Government, especially as such a statement reaches over the Recess, and it is also right that we should defend our conduct. There is very little more to say before I sit down. With the right hon. Gentleman I feel there are other considerations which rise much above these, even although they be not void of importance. I cannot say that I have been greatly impressed with what has been said with regard to the special dangers to this country involved in the present aspect of affairs; but I am deeply impressed with the melancholy and doubtful character of the prospects which hang before Europe. I know that our minds have been to a

109
certain extent relieved by the armistice which has been accomplished within the last few days. Let us hope it may be renewed if necessary. Let us hope that the transactions which occur within it may be transactions of a nature to lead to a durable peace. But I think it would be rash on our part to indulge in too sanguine anticipations. Hope for peace we may; but we must not at present reckon too confidently upon the fulfilment of our hopes. If we look forward to the future, no doubt it is necessary for us to consider what is the position of this country with reference to Europe at large; and for my own part, separating the position of this country, ideally and for purposes of argument, for a moment from that of Europe, I cannot but feel that we have some reason to be thankful—thankful for the position of the country, and thankful for the union of the people, to which the right hon. Gentleman to-night referred, and in many respects has rendered such emphatic and handsome testimony. But I should probably find the right hon. Gentleman agreeing with me—or, using more respectful language, I should find myself agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman—that, while it is a mistake for us ever to be laboriously endeavouring to show that we are in danger, and that somebody or other is meditating mischief against us, it would be, on the other hand, a gross error to lay down doctrines of non-interference in the manner of a rigid formula. I am now speaking in my own individual capacity, and I do not wish in any way to bind my Colleagues in what may fall from me. I should not wish to bind any other person to the feeling that I myself entertain of the power, the security, and the independence of this country, come what may. But I admit, and am the first to assert that, whatever be that security, power, and independence, we have no right to wrap ourselves up in an absolute and selfish isolation. We have a history, we have traditions, we have living, constant, perpetual, multiplied intercourse and contact with every people in Europe. We should be unworthy of the recollections of our past, unworthy of our hopes of the future, unworthy of the greatness of the present, if we disowned the obligations which arise out of these relations to others more liable to suffer than ourselves. Sympathy and
110
fellow-feeling in Europe, with the duties which arise from sympathy and fellow-feeling, never can be forgotten in this country, and I fully admit that the exercise of these duties is not to be separated from the consideration of the state of your military power and the efficiency of your armaments; while I venture to think we are not open to the charges of the right hon. Gentleman in this respect. Admitting this, I also feel that in this country our great desire is to see from year to year more and more ascendancy given to moral over material forces. Perhaps in that respect during our lifetime many of us may have been too sanguine. Perhaps at this moment some of us may, on the contrary, be too desponding. But I venture to say that probably the year upon which we have lately entered will establish much, and confirm much that is now doubtful and open to dispute with respect to what Europe has to hope in the future, and what Europe has to fear from the relations between moral and material forces. Of course, what we mean when we speak of moral and material forces is not the mere change from one epithet to another of a different character. When we speak of material forces we mean overpowering violence, and by moral forces we mean that rule of right which is the protection of all peoples. I trust we shall never be led into the error of supposing that we improve our own condition in the face of Europe by setting up theories of imaginary interests which we do not possess, or which if we do possess them, are not exposed to danger. Here I claim the liberty of criticizing the historical statement adopted by the right hon. Gentleman from Earl Russell, with regard to States, by the example of which it is said we should take warning, and which have perished not through any fault of their own, but because other nations envied them their happiness and prosperity. I have asked what these States are, and have not been able to obtain an answer. The right hon. Gentleman is the first person bold enough to attempt an answer, and he cites the instance of Venice and the League of Cambrai. Now, though Venice there had a good case, it was certainly not one of entire abstinence, as far as she was concerned, from the policy of violence and aggression. The League of Cambrai came and went, and Venice, which had lived long before it,

111
survived the League of Cambrai, succeeded against the combination, and it therefore does not form an illustration in support of the doctrine which has been taken over by the right hon. Gentleman from my noble Friend Lord Russell, and which, I think, is wanting in historical foundation. For my own part, I am persuaded that a just, a moderate, and practical view of our national security, combined with those careful preparations which we ought to make for the efficiency of our military system, is the best policy for ourselves and the best policy for others, and that by the avoidance of all fantastic theories—whether theories of security and isolation or of alarm—we shall most safely discharge our duty both to ourselves and others. For the present, I do not enter into the question of military preparation, because, as my right hon. Friend has shown, within seven days the House will be fully possessed of the views of the Government, and it would, therefore, be obviously impossible to discuss a matter of this kind with satisfaction upon the present occasion. Perhaps I ought to state that, while we have found it our duty, as has been stated in the gracious Speech from the Throne, to refrain from whatever might savour of the appearance of impertinent interference or whatever might justly diminish any claim we might have on the goodwill and attention of the two great belligerent Powers, we have certainly redeemed by acts the pledges we gave of perpetual and vigilant watchfulness over all the turns and movements both of policy and of war. We began, as the House knows, by endeavouring to procure the withdrawal of the candidature of Prince Hohenzollern; and in that endeavour, acting in concurrence with others, we were successful. We then ventured to disapprove the demand made by France upon the King of Prussia (now the Emperor of Germany) for a prospective engagement; and there it was our misfortune to fail. We then appealed to the Treaty of 1856, and endeavoured, in a practical form, to set up the wise doctrine that the disputes of States ought to be referred to some competent tribunal for settlement. But we did not obtain a hearing. After the war broke out many questions still arose—scarcely a week or a fortnight, indeed, passed without them—upon which we
112
had to consider nice matters for intervention,—I mean intervention by request or expostulation. I need hardly say that all we have done has been done with a perfect and absolute impartiality. The first appeal addressed to us in the course of the war was made by Germany with a view to induce us to favour to the utmost of our power arrangements, not perhaps strictly justifiable upon the bare ground of neutral obligation, for the transit of wounded soldiers through the territory of Luxemburg. Of course we could do nothing to extend unduly the rights of neutrals or disparage their obligations. This was an appeal in the name of humanity, and therefore we ourselves waived every objection to the transit of the wounded, and did all we could to recommend the adoption of a similar course to other Powers. It was declined at the time; but such has been the force of circumstances, and the overpowering necessity arising during the gigantic operations of the war, that, from what I have read in public journals, that has been done in the interests of Germany and France for which we tried to procure a sanction at the earliest period, and soldiers wounded in action have been transported across neutral territory. As has been stated in the Speech, we have endeavoured to bring the parties together. I shall not dwell on the efforts which we made to bring about the conferences which resulted in the meeting between Count Bismarck and M. Jules Favre, or that which was held with M. Thiers. We did, perhaps, stretch a point, but in language so respectful that no objection could be taken, in expressing an earnest desire—thus only making ourselves the mouthpiece of universal humanity—that the extreme measure of bombardment should not be had recourse to against a magnificent and beautiful city. And, perhaps, when we take into account the great severity by which the war has been characterized, we have less to lament with respect to this point than with regard to many other subjects, notwithstanding that a great deal of alarm and exasperation was created. We ventured, I may add, to favour, so far as we might in friendly communication with the Government of Defence in France, those plans for calling together an Assembly fully authorized to represent the nation, which are only now about to reach their con-

113
summation. We ventured to point out that little good was likely to arise from the multiplication of abstract declarations with reference to the terms of peace, as they would probably operate rather in the way of obstacle than the contrary. My noble Friend (Earl Granville) endeavoured, with the utmost persistence, to cause that France should be represented in the Conference which is now sitting in London, and it is matter of great regret to us that this endeavour has failed; and lastly, perhaps, I may say in regard to political measures, we ventured to suggest to the Government of Germany that it would be conducive to the general welfare if they found themselves in a condition to make known to the world what were the terms of peace which they deemed to be required, having regard to the honour and safety of their country. There remains but one other measure which we have taken, in which we, perhaps, have assumed a responsibility that may render it necessary that we should come to Parliament to give it its final authority. I do not know how that may be; but we were of opinion that we should be giving effect to the feeling of this country and performing a duty if, at a critical moment, when we were just told that in Paris there was danger of extensive famine from the absolute want of food, we offered to place at the disposal of the two Governments on their joint representation, for the purpose of immediate relief, whatever stores we had in the victualling yards of the country. It was not our fault—it was, I believe, the fault of no one—but I have to regret sincerely that it was only last night we received anything which we could consider as a joint answer to our offer, and when I inform the House of this circumstance, it will not, I think, be regarded as discreditable to the condition of the public Departments that, as I understand, three vessels took their departure for France with provisions in the middle of the day. I may add that it is our duty and desire to continue to act in a similar spirit. It is impossible to divest ourselves of the deepest interest in the events which are now going on on the Continent, and, independently of the measures to which I have specially referred, we have carefully reserved to ourselves all along full liberty of action. We have at no time subscribed to the
114
doctrine that a war between two belligerents is the concern of those two belligerents exclusively. It is, no doubt, their concern in the first instance, and, with respect to it, they have a primary authority; but the effects of such a war are not and cannot be confined to them. The time may come—I do not not say it will come; I hope it may not come—when the need may exist for some expression of the general sentiment of the neutral Powers on questions which may become of deep practical issue. If that need does arise, I feel perfectly satisfied that such an expression of neutral opinion, apart from all imputations of selfish interest, in claiming for itself only to be the living utterance of the voice of civilized mankind, would have a genial, kindly, and beneficial influence in bringing about the realization of a satisfactory settlement between the contending parties. And I am sure that, although the right hon. Gentleman opposite and myself have broken lances to-night across this Table, he will agree with me that there is no reason why all parties in this House, and in the House of Lords, should not unite in supporting the Government in any measure they may take with the view of preventing human suffering in this formidable war.
MR. NEWDEGATE: I desire, before this debate closes, to say a few words with reference to what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire. I do not believe that there is reason for the abject alarm on account of the interests of this country which the right hon. Gentleman has expressed, although, on account of the critical state of affairs upon the Continent, I believe that there is reason for prompt exertion. The right hon. Gentleman congratulated the Prime Minister on his triumph in the disestablishment of the Irish Church. ["Hear, hear!"] I am not surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite should express their satisfaction at finding that, according to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, there is to be no opposition from the Conservative party, as a party, to the adoption of the measures which they advocate. I suppose that this will be likewise the case with respect to the abolition of the University Tests and the Ballot, which were honestly advocated by the Seconder of the Address, the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr.

115
Morley), especially the abolition of the tests in the Universities, which the hon. Member advocated in the sense of the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Miall.) Now, I know that I speak not only the opinions of my own constituents, but those of thousands—nay, hundreds of thousands—of educated men, when I object to these measures on constitutional grounds; while, as regards these measures, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire at once accepts in principle the programme of the Government and of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Such conduct on the part of the right hon. Gentleman—and he spoke emphatically as the organ of the Conservative party in this House—such conduct is destructive of the Conservative party in the country, for the right hon. Gentleman declared his full acceptance not only of the commercial policy called free trade, which had its source among hon. Gentlemen opposite, but, further, his full acceptance of the doctrine of religious equality, as held by hon. Gentlemen on the Government side of the House. I believe, Sir, that it is advantageous to the constitution of this country, and for the conduct of business in this House, that there should be two parties—one supporting the Government, the others represented by the Opposition in this House—so long as there is in this country an honest and distinct difference of opinion on general politics. I, therefore, deprecate the announcement of submission on the questions of internal policy, to which I have alluded, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire; such conduct on his part is destructive of the Conservative party. Allusion has been made to the letter, written by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, promising the support of the Government to the spiritual authority of the Pope. I understand that a Notice has been given by some hon. Member on this subject. I am glad of this, and that we shall have a specific discussion of this subject. It does seem to me lamentable and inconsistent with the views upon which many hon. Gentlemen opposite supported the disestablishment of the Church in Ireland, that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister should attempt to establish the spiritual authority of the Pope everywhere, and in Ireland especially, after he has done
116
all he can to disestablish the spiritual authority of the Protestant Church in Ireland. I was unwilling, Sir, that this debate should close without my entering this emphatic protest against the abandonment of principles to which I have been long attached.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, that the following passage with reference to the Army appeared in Her Majesty's Speech:—
"The lessons of military experience afforded by the present war have been numerous and important. The time appears appropriate for turning such lessons to account."
But he looked in vain to find any allusion to the confusion which existed at present in the administration of the Admiralty, or to the enormous deficiencies in the material of our naval force, in the number and quality of our vessels, and in the men required for the defence of the country. As his noble Friend the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox) had given Notice that he would early in March call attention to the loss of Her Majesty's ship Captain, he would only say now that it was a very extraordinary thing that the confusion which existed at the Admiralty—the First Lord being absent for the sake of his health, and there being no one in his place—should not have been alluded to in Her Majesty's Speech.
Motion agreed to.
Committee appointed, to draw up an Address to be presented to Her Majesty upon the said Resolution:—Mr. JOHN HAMILTON, Mr. MORLEY, Mr. GLADSTONE, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Mr. Secretary BRUCE, Mr. Secretary CARDWELL, Mr. GOSCHEN, Mr. WILLIAM EDWARD FORSTER, Mr. AYRTON, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Mr. STANSFELD, Viscount ENFIELD, Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN, Mr. MONSELL, The JODGE ADVOCATE, Mr. GLYN, and Mr. ADAM, or any Five of them:—To withdraw immediately:—Queen's Speech referred.

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.
Mr. Speaker informed the House, that he had received from the Judges selected, pursuant to the Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, for the trial of Election Petitions, Certificates and Reports relating to the Elections for the Borough of Brecon; for the Borough of Shrewsbury; for the City of Norwich. And the same were severally read.
Brecon Borough Election.—Certificate of Mr. Justice Byles.—In the matter of the Petition relating to the last Election of a Member of Par-

117
liament for the Borough of Brecon. That the Respondent James Price William Gwynne Holford was duly elected and returned at the said Election.
Shrewsbury Borough Election.—Certificate of Mr. Justice Channell.—In the matter of the Petition relating to the last Election of a Member of Parliament for the Borough of Shrewsbury. That Douglas Straight, esquire, was duly elected and returned at the said Election.
Norwich City Election.—Certificate of Mr. Justice Keating.—In the matter of a Petition in which Gardener Christopher Stevens was Petitioner; and Jacob Henry Tillett was Respondent. That the said Jacob Henry Tillett was not duly returned or elected to serve in Parliament for the said City of Norwich. That the Election of the said Jacob Henry Tillett for the City of Norwich was a void Election. [And other facts found.]
House adjourned at a quarter after Nine o'clock.

Preamble
THE PARLIAMENT, which had been Prorogued successively from the 10th day of August, 1870, thence to the 27th day of October, thence to the 13th day of December, thence to the 17th day of January, 1871, thence to the 9th day of February; met this day for 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 PRINCE OF WALES (in his Robes) sitting in his Chair on HER MAJESTY'S right hand—(the Lords being
2
in their Robes)—commanded the Gentleman 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, said—
"My Lords, and Gentlemen,
"AT an epoch of such moment to the future fortunes of Europe, I am especially desirous to avail myself of your counsels.
"The war which broke out, in the month of July, between France and Germany, has raged, until within the last few days, with unintermitted and

3
likewise with unexampled force: and its ravages may be renewed, after but a few days more, unless moderation and forethought, prevailing over all impediments, shall sway the councils of both the parties, whose well-being is so vitally concerned.
"At the time when you separated, I promised a constant attention to the subject of neutral obligations; and I undertook to use my best endeavours to prevent the enlargement of the area of the war, and to contribute, if opportunity should offer, to the restoration of an early and honourable peace.
"In accordance with the first of these declarations, I have maintained the rights and strictly discharged the duties of neutrality.
"The sphere of the war has not been extended beyond the two countries originally engaged.
"Cherishing with care the cordiality of my relations with each belligerent, I have forborne from whatever might have been construed as gratuitous or unwarranted interference between parties, neither of whom had shown a readiness to propose terms of accommodation such as to bear promise of acceptance by the other.
"I have been enabled, on more than one occasion, to contribute towards placing the Representatives of the two contending countries in confidential communication: but, until famine compelled the surrender of Paris, no further result had been obtained.
"The Armistice now being employed for the Convocation of an Assembly in France, has brought about a pause in the constant accumulation, on both sides, of human suffering; and
4
has rekindled the hope of a complete accommodation. I pray that this suspension may result in a Peace compatible, for the two great and brave nations involved, with security and with honour, and likely therefore to command the approval of Europe, and to give reasonable hopes of a long duration.
"It has been with concern that I have found myself unable to accredit My Ambassador in a formal manner to the Government of Defence, which has subsisted in France since the revolution of September; but neither the harmony nor the efficiency of the correspondence of the two States has been in the smallest degree impaired.
"The King of Prussia has accepted the title of Emperor of Germany at the instance of the chief authorities of the nation.
"I have offered My congratulations on an event, which bears testimony to the solidity and independence of Germany, and which, I trust, may be found conducive to the stability of the European system.
"I have endeavoured, in correspondence with other Powers of Europe, to uphold the sanctity of Treaties, and to remove any misapprehension as to the binding character of their obligations.
"It was agreed by the Powers, which had been parties to the Treaty of 1856, that a Conference should meet in London. This Conference has now been for some time engaged in its labours; and I confidently trust that the result of its deliberations will be to uphold both the principles of public right and the general policy of the Treaty, and, at the same time, by the revision of some of its conditions

5
in a fair and conciliatory spirit, to exhibit a cordial co-operation among the Powers with regard to the Levant.
"I greatly regret that my earnest efforts have failed to procure the presence at the Conference of any Representative of France, which was one of the chief parties to the Treaty of 1856, and which must ever be regarded as a principal and indispensable Member of the great Commonwealth of Europe.
"At different times, several questions of importance have arisen, which are not yet adjusted, and which materially affect the relations between the United States and the territories and people of British North America. One of them in particular, which concerns the Fisheries, calls for early settlement; lest the possible indiscretion of individuals should impair the neighbourly understanding, which it is on all grounds so desirable to cherish and maintain. I have therefore engaged in amicable communications with the President of the United States. In order to determine the most convenient mode of treatment for these matters, I have suggested the appointment of a joint Commission; and I have agreed to a proposal of the President, that this Commission shall be authorized at the same time, and in the same manner, to resume the consideration of the American claims growing out of the circumstances of the late war. This arrangement will, by common consent, include all claims for compensation which have been, or may be made by each Government, or by its citizens, upon the other.
"The establishment of a Prince of the House of Savoy on the Throne of Spain, by the free choice of the popularly-elected representatives of the
6
Spanish nation, will, I trust, insure for a country which has passed with so much temperance and self-control through a prolonged and trying crisis, the blessings of a stable Government.
"I am unhappily not able to state that the inquiry which was instituted by the Government of Greece into the history of the shocking murders perpetrated during the last spring at Dilessi has reached a termination answerable in all respects to My just expectations, but I shall not desist from My endeavours to secure the complete attainment of the objects of the inquiry. Some valuable results, however, have in the meantime been obtained, for the exposure and the repression of a lawless and corrupting system, which has too long afflicted the Greek Peninsula.
"The anxiety which the massacre at Tien-tsin on the 21st of June last called forth has happily been dispelled; and while it will be My earnest endeavour to provide for the security of My Subjects and their trade in those remote quarters, I count on your concurrence in the policy that I have adopted of recognizing the Chinese Government as entitled to be dealt with in its relations with this country in a conciliatory and forbearing spirit.
"The Parliamentary recess has been one of anxious interest in regard to foreign affairs. But I rejoice to acquaint you that my relations are, as heretofore, those of friendship and good understanding with the Sovereigns and States of the civilized world.
"Papers illustrative of the conduct of My Government in relation to the several matters, on which I have now summarily touched, will be duly laid before you.
"In turning to domestic affairs, I have first to inform you that I have approved of a marriage between my daughter Princess Louise and the Marquis of Lorne, and I have declared my consent to this union in Council.
"Gentlemen of the House of Commons,
"The revenue of the country flourishes, and the condition of trade and industry may, though with partial drawbacks, be declared satisfactory.
"The estimates for the coming year will be promptly laid before you.
"My Lords, and Gentlemen,
"The lessons of military experience afforded by the present war have been numerous and important.
"The time appears appropriate for turning such lessons to account by efforts more decisive than heretofore at practical improvement. In attempting this you will not fail to bear in mind the special features in the position of this country, so favourable to the freedom and security of the people, and if the changes from a less to a more effective and elastic system of defensive military preparation shall be found to involve, at least for a time, an increase of various charges, your prudence and patriotism will not grudge the cost, as long as you are satisfied that the end is important, and the means judicious. No time will be lost in laying before you a Bill for the better regulation of the army and the auxiliary land forces of the Crown, and I hardly need commend it to your anxious and impartial consideration.
"I trust that the powerful interest at present attaching to affairs abroad, and to military questions, will not greatly abate the energy with which
8
you have heretofore applied yourselves to the work of general improvement in our domestic legislation.
"I commend anew to your attention several measures on subjects which I desired to be brought before you during the last Session of Parliament, but which the time remaining at your disposal, after you had dealt with the principal subjects of the year, was not found sufficient to carry to a final issue.
"I refer especially to the Bills on Religious Tests in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, on Ecclesiastical Titles, on the Disabilities of Trade Combinations, on the Courts of Justice and Appeal, on the Adjustment of Local Burdens, and on the Licensing of Houses for the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors.
"The inquiry made by a Committee of the Commons House being now complete, a measure will be placed before you on an early day for the establishment of Secret Voting.
"A proposal is anxiously expected in Scotland for the adjustment of the question of primary education. With reference to the training of the young in schools on a national scale and basis, that portion of the country has especial claims on the favourable consideration of Parliament: and I trust the year may not pass by without your having disposed of this question by the enactment of a just and effective law.
"The condition of Ireland with reference to agrarian crime has, in general, afforded a gratifying contrast with the state of that island in the preceding winter; but there have been painful though very partial exceptions.
"To secure the best results for the great measures of the two last Sessions which have so recently passed into operation, and which involve such direct and pressing claims upon the attention of all classes of the community, a period of calm is to be desired; and I have thought it wise to refrain from suggesting to you at the present juncture the discussion of any political question likely to become the subject of new and serious controversy in that country.
"The burdens devolving upon you as the great Council of the nation, and of this ancient and extended Empire, are, and must long continue to be, weighty. But you labour for a country whose laws and institutions have stood the test of time, and whose people, earnestly attached to them, and desiring their continuance, will unite with their Sovereign in invoking upon all your designs the favour and aid of the Most High."
Then HER MAJESTY retired.
Then 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 Third Session of the Twentieth Parliament of the United Kingdom: The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
William Gordon Cornwallis Eliot, esquire (commonly called Lord Eliot), eldest son and heir apparent of Edward Granville Earl of Saint Germans, having received Her Majesty's Writ to summon him to sit in this present Parliament as Baron Eliot—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Marquess of Hertford—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his cousin.
The Marquess of Cholmondeley—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.
The Lord Gwydir—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his uncle.
The Lord Brodrick—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

SELECT VESTRIES.
Bill, pro formâ, read 1a.
THE QUEEN'S SPEECH having been reported by The LORD CHANCELLOR;—

ADDRESS TO HER MAJESTY ON HER MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
THE MARQUESS OF WESTMINSTER: My Lords, I have the honour to move an Address in reply to Her Majesty's most gracious Speech which has just been read from the Throne:—and as I have not been long a Member of your Lordships' House, and have not hitherto ventured to take part in its debates, I crave that indulgence which your Lordships never refuse to any under similar circumstances. I have been sent to the front as a skirmisher by the noble Earl (Earl Granville), who commands the forces on this side the House—I presume to feel for an enemy—and as the countenance of my noble Friend the Leader of the Opposition (the Duke of Richmond) does not denote hostility to anything or anybody, I may perhaps be bold enough to count, if not upon his concurrence in all that I have to move, at all events upon his "benevolent neutrality." It is a matter of the highest gratification to your Lordships that Her Majesty should have come down to the House of Lords and have opened in Person a Session which promises to be at any rate not less eventful than those which have preceded it. The political atmosphere as well as the natural atmosphere has been, and is, very overcast and lowering. Light is as necessary to the political world as to the physical, and we are therefore glad to have been enlivened by Her Majesty's presence here to-day, hoping for a repetition of it on many future occasions. Her Majesty has announced to you — as you were before aware—that She has given Her consent to the marriage of Her illustrious daughter the Princess Louise with the Marquess of Lorne, and I am quite sure that your Lordships will heartily join your congratulations to those of the nation on this very auspicious event. Her Majesty has already given three

11
daughters to Germany; but, although it cannot be doubted that after their experience of those fair daughters of England who have become members by marriage of their most illustrious Houses, the Germans would have readily welcomed a fourth, that fourth daughter is destined for Scotland. Your Lordships, I am sure, will join with me in expressing a hope that the union of so much sterling worth and such rare accomplishments may be attended with every possible happiness—that it may be the commencement of a long career of no common usefulness, and which shall for many years be a subject of pride and affection on the part of the country.
My Lords, it must be matter for deep regret that—differing from any Speeches from the Throne which we have heard of late years—there should be in this Speech so many topics of absorbing and painful interest to occupy your attention; but before I advert to these, if you will allow me, I will touch upon a few matters which, if not so exciting as those connected with foreign affairs, are nevertheless of the highest importance to the people of this country. I may advert for a moment to a very important measure, passed last Session, of which your Lordships have had considerable experience during the Recess—I mean the Education Act. Your Lordships are already able in some degree to judge of its operations by having witnessed the great efforts that have already been made for its organization and for the building of schools. I only hope that the advocates of secular education and compulsory attendance will allow a fair period for testing the efficacy of the voluntary efforts which are now being put forth, and that they will wait until it is proved that those efforts are inadequate to meet the emergency before they press their own stronger measures. This brings me to a subject which I am happy to see has obtained a place in the Royal Speech, and which is of the utmost importance in every consideration of the well-being of the country. I allude to the sale of intoxicating liquors. It is often said—"You cannot make men sober by Act of Parliament;" but I believe that the opposite system—or what may be called free trade in drink—such as was tried in Liverpool for five years—would have the most disastrous effect, and that experience has shown that a
12
restrictive system has been productive of more or less good. I will not trouble your Lordships with elaborate statistics; but I may state that the number of persons arrested annually as drunk and disorderly amounts, it has been stated, to 1 in every 180 of the population—that the annual value of the alcoholic liquors consumed in the United Kingdom amounts to the enormous sum of £88,000,000, and that there is a house licensed for the sale of beer or spirits for every 45 males in the United Kingdom. These facts and figures are deserving of consideration, and no part of the Speech from the Throne has given me greater satisfaction than that which holds out a prospect of checking the great evil of intemperance. Your Lordships are not supposed to know anything of elections — and, perhaps, you do not—but some of you have pleasant or unpleasant reminiscences of elections in a previous state of existence. Election experiences are not usually regarded as passages in one's life to which it is very agreeable to look back, and your Lordships will certainly agree with me in thinking that elections may be made purer, cheaper, and certainly quieter. A Committee appointed in "another place" has gone fully into the subject, and has recommended certain measures as remedies for the evils complained of. Amongst these remedies is the Ballot, which at one time was one of "the Five Points of the Charter," and excited considerable agitation. It has been brought forward year after year in the House of Commons, and has been frequently defeated and sometimes successful. Public opinion, however, is now strong in its favour, and the experience of its operation in our Australian Colonies, in Italy, and in America has abundantly proved, in the opinion of the Committee, that while some objections to the system undoubtedly exist, they are more than counterbalanced by its advantages; and I hope, therefore, your Lordships may be induced to adopt it. The old objections commonly urged by Lord Palmerston and others that the suffrage was a public trust, and that those who had no vote were, therefore, entitled to know how the electors discharged that trust, has lost much of its force since the passing of the last Reform Act, by which the franchise was so much extended that the number of those excluded was im-

13
mensely reduced; while the number of those admitted to the franchise, who by reason of their poverty were open to temptation by bribes, was very greatly extended. I think that no measure introduced on this subject will be complete without provision for the closing of public-houses during the critical time of elections, for the prohibition, as I hope, of canvassing, and for the abolition of public nominations. With regard to another Bill mentioned in the Speech relating to University Tests, the object of which is to enable persons not belonging to the Church of England to become Fellows of Colleges and members of the Governing Body, public opinion has expressed itself strongly in favour of the repeal of these tests; and although the divisions in the other House during the last Session were three to one in favour of the measure proposing such repeal, that Bill was virtually defeated in this House at the instance and by the action of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), the Chancellor of the University of Oxford, on the plea that the safeguards provided by the Bill for insuring the religious character of the Universities were inadequate. I am not aware what action was taken by the Select Committee to which the Bill was consequently referred; but the measure was practically shelved for the Session. Its re-introduction is now announced, and as the crowning point of the legislation on the question, which has already been approved by your Lordships, I trust you will adopt it as a logical sequence. In any case, I hope that the noble Marquess will endeavour to take any action in the matter he may propose at an earlier period than at the end of the Session, when there is no time for a Committee to carry out an inquiry.
My Lords, there is another point connected with our home affairs, mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, on which I desire to remark—the organization of our Army—a matter in which, as many believe, the very existence of the nation is involved. There seem to be many reasons in favour of a full consideration of the subject at the present time. The two great measures relating to Ireland and the Education Bill having been disposed of, time and opportunity happily enable us to consider this question. There is a conviction in the minds of men of all parties that our organization
14
is defective and our armaments weak as regard reserves, supply, artillery, and arsenals. The spirit of the people is all that could be desired; it is admitted that we have the best artillery in the world—that in power of production we are unrivalled—and, added, to these favourable circumstances is the fact that we have a strong Government which—I say it with all deference to the opinion of noble Lords opposite—commands such a majority both in the other House and in the country, as to be able, as I am sure they are willing, to carry any measures which would be satisfactory to the country. It is true that against these advantages are to be set the Parliamentary difficulties and jealousies which always beset the question of Army reform—that there are some hon. Members who are pledged to cut down the Estimates at whatever cost; and that there are too frequent changes in the heads of the War Office—one of the most important points. In a clever article in Macmillan for October the qualifications for a War Minister were stated to be these—that he must be a statesman, yet a soldier; an able speaker, yet intimately acquainted with the details of the Army and its requirements; that he must be firm, yet conciliatory; and, above all, that he must remain a sufficiently long time in Office to be able to carry out his plans. The article went on to speak of the difficulty of finding such a man. I believe, however, that Her Majesty's Government are strong enough to surmount all these difficulties. There seems to be a concurrence of opinion—but in saying this I wish to guard myself against being supposed to know anything of the details of the measure about to be proposed—but there seems to be a strong feeling in favour of making a real reserve of the Militia. The problem to be solved appears to be the training in time of peace of a large body of men in such a manner that, in the event of war, they would be available to fill up the ranks of the regular Army. Opinion appears likewise to be in favour of increasing our artillery and completing and properly arming our forts and arsenals. The question, in fact, is not so much a question of increased numbers as of the superior organization and efficiency of the force we already possess. In carrying out measures of this kind, some increase of expenditure will, of course, be necessary; but this the country

15
will accept with the view of averting far heavier sacrifices. It is not for me to give an opinion on compulsory service, which, however, is advocated by men of the greatest eminence in the profession; nor will I touch upon the commissariat, the equipment of the Army, the purchase system, and other matters all deserving of attention. Being, like many of your Lordships, a sort of half soldier, I am perhaps ipso facto disentitled to give any opinion on military matters; but I may be permitted, with propriety, to remark that in the Volunteers we have excellent material and a very loyal and patriotic force, armed with excellent weapons. Engaged as the greater number of our Volunteers are in business, it is unreasonable to expect any large amount of drill from them; but still I believe you might get a larger amount of drill from them than you now do; and if you do that, and give them officers who have learnt their duty by actual practice in the field, the Volunteers may be made a valuable line of defence within the country, while I am sure that their patriotism and loyalty will be equal to any call made upon them. I remember a distinguished officer telling them in Hyde Park that with only a fortnight's continuous drill he could do anything with them. I trust that on this question all party recrimination will be avoided, for it is one on which assistance, not criticism, is required.
My Lords, I will now advert for a short time to Foreign Affairs. This part of the Speech from the Throne offers a painful contrast to that of last Session, the opening paragraph of which was in these terms—
"The growing disposition to resort to the good offices of allies in cases of international difference, and the conciliatory spirit in which several such cases have been recently treated and determined, encourage Her Majesty's confidence in the continued maintenance of the general tranquillity."
On this passage some remarks were made by the Seconder of the Address in "another plaee"—Sir Charles Dilke—which also contrast painfully with the circumstances of the present time. After referring to the instances in which tranquillity had been preserved, mainly through our own mediation, he referred to the happily increased chances of the maintenance of peace by the triumph of the principle of popular Sovereignty in France and Spain, and by the subsidence
16
of the angry feeling lately existing among the people of the United States towards this country. With many of those remarks I cordially agree; but it must be admitted that the Americans are a peculiar people, and that the recent conduct of the House of Representatives has been, to say the least, extravagant: and it must be matter of regret that so many of the best men of the United States keep aloof altogether from politics. There can, however, be no doubt that both nations desire peace and a speedy settlement of the differences which, unhappily, exist, and I hope that the disputes which have recently arisen as to the fisheries will be soon adjusted.
My Lords, as the homely proverb says, "It never rains but it pours," and your Lordships will agree with me that the position of the noble Earl below me (Earl Granville) is not a very enviable one. In the middle of all his troubles, which must have tried even his temper, Prince Gortchakoff's announcement, that the Emperor of Russia deemed himself no longer bound by the Treaty of 1856, came like a thunderclap on England and on the Foreign Office. One of the conditions of that Treaty limits the naval power of Russia in the Black Sea, both as regards vessels and arsenals on the coast. Certainly if ever a Monarch was under obligations which should be observed, this is a case in point. The spirited protest of the noble Earl will be in your Lordships' recollection. It must be remembered that at the time when the Emperor of Russia entered upon the Treaty in question, it was at the end of the war; when England and her allies were in possession of the Crimea and of the Black Sea; when Russia was exhausted; while England was able and ready to continue the war, if necessary, alone. Peace was made, moreover, without any concession of territory, and without the claim of a pecuniary indemnity. The question now raised has, at the suggestion of Count Bismarck, been referred to a Conference, and I hope to hear in good time from the noble Earl that there is still left a sense of honour, justice, and good faith on the part of those who have bound themselves by treaties. Whatever course other nations may take, I hope we shall never see the time when England is indifferent to the obligations she has undertaken. It is not possible—living, as we do, so near

17
the Continent—that we shall ever be able to carry out in its integrity a policy of non-intervention; but it is clear it behoves us to be extremely cautious as to what treaties we enter into for the future.
My Lords, I will say but few words with regard to the war and its effect upon this country. At the commencement of the noble Earl's career in the Foreign Office he had to deal with the candidature of Prince Hohenzollern for the Spanish Throne; and in this matter his efforts were crowned with success. But after the withdrawal of that candidature, the next step was the declaration of the war by France. The efforts of the noble Earl were then directed to persuade France to submit her grievances and demands to the arbitration of friendly Powers, in accordance with a principle to which France was an assenting party:—but this was refused. These efforts failing, the noble Earl endeavoured to maintain a strict neutrality, and his success in doing so has been in a great measure shown by the complaints preferred against us by both belligerents—complaints that are fully rebutted by the analogous conduct of those very Powers at times when we were engaged in war, and by international usages. If we supplied munition of war to France, we were also ready to furnish Germany with whatever she required; and the sympathy of English people for the victims of the war had been manifested by the enormous sums subscribed for the sick and wounded—the whole wealth of England has been laid under contribution for their relief—and at this very moment an almost incredible quantity of provisions are on their way to prevent the people of Paris from starving. It is a great matter of satisfaction that the independence of Belgium has been secured—that within hearing of the guns of Metz her neutrality was preserved unimpaired; and all classes of her people have expressed their gratitude in the warmest possible terms for the protection afforded her by England. The noble Earl has, moreover, been in constant communication with the other neutral Powers, with the view of localizing the war. As to mediation, it was refused first by France, and after Sedan the new Government made the famous and unfortunate declaration—"We will not give up an inch of our
18
soil or a stone of our fortresses"—a declaration which threw great obstacles in the way of mediation. M. Jules Favre had constantly pressed the noble Earl to mediate; but the latter found it impossible to do so, as Germany insisted on a cession of territory, while France would only concede a pecuniary indemnity. Failing mediation, the French Executive declared war à outrance—with what result we all know. There is now, happily, a prospect of peace; from our point of view the interests of future tranquillity will certainly not be furthered by the annexation to Germany of Alsace and Lorraine or Metz. From no point of view, indeed, is it reasonable to expect that the interests of peace can be furthered by crushing a beaten and prostrate foe, or by the annexation of provinces whose people do not and are not likely to possess any sympathies with Germany; and though we may all think that France has received a condign and not undeserved punishment, it is to be hoped that so great a conqueror as the German Emperor will show some generosity to a fallen rival. It is not for me to express any opinions on such matters; but with all these horrors so near us, it is a subject for heartfelt thanks that we have been spared the unspeakable miseries of war. We must, under God, depend on ourselves, if not for peace under all circumstances, yet to make our country perfectly safe from invasion. The noble Marquess concluded by moving the following humble Address to Her Majesty, thanking Her Majesty for Her Most Gracious Speech from the Throne:—
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 for Your Majesty's gracious Speech addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
"We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us, that, in accordance with Your gracious promise to pay constant attention to the subject of neutral obligations, Your Majesty has maintained the rights and strictly discharged the duties of neutrality during the war unhappily prevailing between France and Germany, and which we humbly trust with Your Majesty may, under the influence of moderation and forethought in the Councils of both sides, shortly be terminated.

19
"We rejoice to learn that the sphere of the war has not been extended beyond the two countries originally engaged.
"We humbly thank Tour Majesty for informing us that cherishing with care the cordiality of Your Majesty's relations with both belligerents, Tour Majesty has forborne from whatever might be construed as gratuitous or unwarranted interference between Parties, neither of whom had shown a readiness to propose terms of accommodation, such as to bear promise of acceptance by the other; and for informing us that Hour Majesty has been enabled, on more than one occasion, to contribute towards placing the Representatives of the two contending countries in confidential communication, though unfortunately until famine compelled the surrender of Paris no further result had been obtained.
"We humbly unite with Your Majesty in praying that the suspension in the constant accumulation, on both sides, of human suffering which has been brought about by the Armistice, now employed for the convocation of an Assembly in France, may result in a Peace, compatible, for the two great and brave nations involved, with security and honour, and likely therefore to command the approval of Europe, and to give reasonable hopes of a long duration.
"We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that, though unable to accredit Your Majesty's Ambassador in a formal manner to the Government of Defence which had subsisted in France since the revolution of September, neither the harmony nor the efficiency of the correspondence of the two states has been at all impaired.
"We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that Your Majesty's congratulations have been offered to the King of Prussia on the assumption by His Majesty of the title of Emperor of Germany, which we trust, while bearing testimony to the solidity and independence of Germany, may be found conducive to the stability of the European system.
"We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that Your Majesty has endeavoured, in correspondence with other Powers of Europe, to uphold the sanctity of Treaties, and to remove any misapprehension as to the binding character of their obligations.
"We humbly join with Your Majesty in confidently trusting that the result of the deliberations of the Conference which it was agreed by the Powers, who had been parties to the Treaty of 1856, should meet in London, may result in upholding both the principles of public right and the general policy of the Treaty, and at the same time, by the revision of some of its conditions in
20
a fair and conciliatory spirit, exhibit a cordial co-operation among the Powers with regard to the Levant.
"We regret to learn that Your Majesty's earnest efforts have failed to procure the presence at the Conference of any Representative of France, which was one of the chief parties to the Treaty of 1856, and which must ever be regarded as a principal and indispensable member of the great Commonwealth of Europe.
"We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that Your Majesty has entered into amicable communication with the President of the United States for the settlement of the several questions of importance which are not yet adjusted, and which materially affect the relations between the United States and the territories and people of British North America; and that in order to determine the most convenient mode of treatment for these matters, Your Majesty has suggested the appointment of a joint Commission, which, at the proposal of the President, will be authorized at the same time, and in the same manner, to resume the consideration of the American claims growing out of the circumstances of the late war, and that this arrangement will, by common consent, include all claims for compensation which have been or may be made by each Government, or by its citizens, on the other.
"We humbly join with Your Majesty in deploring that the inquiry which was instituted by the Government of Greece into the history of the shocking murders perpetrated during the last spring at Dilessi has not reached a termination answerable in all respects to Your Majesty's just expectations, and we humbly thank Your Majesty for assuring us, that you will not desist from Your Majesty's endeavours to secure the complete objects of the inquiry.
"We humbly assure Your Majesty that we learn with pleasure that the anxiety called forth by the massacre at Tien-tsin on the 21st of June last has happily been dispelled; and that it has been Your Majesty's earnest endeavour to provide for the security of Your Majesty's subjects and their trade in those remote quarters, while recognizing the Chinese Government as entitled to be dealt with, in its relations with this country, in a conciliatory and forbearing spirit.
"We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us, that during these critical times Your Majesty's relations are, as heretofore, those of friendship and good understanding with the Sovereigns and States of the civilized world.
"We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us, that Your Majesty has given directions for papers illustrative of the conduct of Your

21
Majesty's Government in relation to these general matters to be duly laid before us.
"We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that Your Majesty has been pleased to approve of a marriage between Your Majesty's daughter Princess Louise and the Marquis of Lorne, and we humbly assure Your Majesty that we trust that this union may be prosperous and happy.
"We humbly assure Your Majesty that in considering the important lessons afforded by the present war, we shall not fail to bear in mind the special features in the position of this country, so favourable to the freedom and security of the people, and if the changes from a less to a more effective and elastic system of defensive military preparation shall be found to involve, at least for a time, an increase of various charges, we shall not grudge the cost, so long as we are satisfied that the end is important and the means judicious; and we humbly assure Your Majesty that we shall give our anxious and impartial consideration to the Bill which Your Majesty informs us will shortly be laid before us.
"We humbly assure Your Majesty that our best attention will be given to the general work of our domestic legislation, including the several measures which were brought before us during the last Session of Parliament, but which the time remaining at our disposal was not found sufficient to carry to a final issue.
"We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that the inquiry made by a Committee of the Commons House respecting Secret Voting is now complete, and that a Bill will be laid before us on that subject.
"We humbly join with Your Majesty in trusting that the question of primary education in Scotland may this year be adjusted by the enactment of a just and effective law.
"We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that the condition of Ireland with reference to agrarian crime has, in general, afforded a gratifying contrast with the state of that island in the preceding winter, although there have been painful but very partial exceptions; and we humbly concur with Your Majesty in considering that after the great measures of the two last Sessions which have so recently passed into operation, and which involve such direct and pressing claims upon the attention of all classes of the community, a period of calm is to be desired; and we humbly join with Your Majesty in thinking it wise to refrain from suggesting, at the present juncture, the discussion of any political questions likely to become the subject of new and serious controversy in that country.
22
"We humbly assure Your Majesty that we fervently join with Your Majesty's prayers that all our designs may receive the favour and aid of the Most High."
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I rise to second the Address moved by the noble Marquess. And in doing so I would plead that that favour and indulgence which your Lordships are accustomed to show to all who for the first time address this House, may be extended to me in even a larger measure on account of my extreme youth and inexperience. Moreover, I do not think that anyone who heard the speech of the noble Marquess can fail to appreciate the difficulty and hesitation with which I approach the discussion of questions which, he has already treated with such distinguished ability.
Before I proceed to the actual consideration of Her Majesty's gracious Speech, I would refer to one event in connection with it—that Her Majesty has deigned to be present at its delivery to-day—a circumstance which affords joy not merely to the Legislature itself, but also to the entire nation: while it is rendered the more interesting in that Her Majesty has thus in person announced to us the marriage of her daughter, the Princess Louise, with the Marquess of Lorne—an alliance dictated not by the pride of dynasty, or the traditions of State policy, but by the purest affection, and therefore additionally welcome to the English nation. My Lords, I hope and believe that the noble Marquess will prove himself worthy of this high distinction, and that he will do so in the most fitting and natural manner by treading in the steps of the noble Duke the Secretary of State for India.
Your Lordships will have heard with satisfaction that Her Majesty's Government are considering the question of the re-organization of the land forces of this country. I think I should be best consulting your Lordships' wishes by refraining from the discussion of this question—more especially after the able remarks of the noble Marquess—until the Government measure be laid before us. But I may express a hope that the British Army may by that scheme be raised to a standard of full efficiency, without interference with industrial pursuits, or undue pressure upon the national taxation.

23
Your Lordships will also have heard with gratification of the contemplated measure for the fusion of law and equity, and the establishment of a High Court of Justice. And I think that I do not speak without book when I say that the efforts of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack during the last Session in this direction met, in principle at least, with the approbation of your Lordships; so that we may hope that a settlement of this difficult and laborious question is not now remote.
My Lords, I now come to the paragraph in the Speech of paramount importance to many in this House—to none more so than myself: I mean that relating to education in Scotland. No country deserves more than Scotland that her educational efforts should be fostered by the Imperial Government, because in no country is there such an intense solicitude on the subject. The leaders of public opinion in Scotland—from Knox to Chalmers—have universally and persistently urged upon their fellow-countrymen the necessity of an adequate system of national education; and the result is, what everyone who has spent a few weeks in that country will have observed, that in every class of the community, from the highest to the lowest, there is a craving for mental improvement. Nothing is so common in Scotland as to see a peasant working with his hands for six months of the year that he may be able to spend the winter at one of the Scotch Universities; barely obtaining the necessaries of life with the pittance he had saved from his earnings in the summer. The Government Bill relates only to elementary education; but I have mentioned this to prove that it should be a labour of love to the Legislature to further education in a country where there is such a thirst for knowledge.
My Lords, I now come to a measure affecting the higher part of education—I mean the repeal of the University Tests. I think I am justified in saying that public opinion has expressed itself strongly in favour of the Government measure. I will not trouble your Lordships with the allusion—trite and time-honoured in connection with this question — of the Sibylline books. But I would say that the subject is brought into greater prominence at the present moment by the fact that, for I think the third time
24
within the last few years, the Senior Wrangler of this year is a Dissenter: that is to say, that a young man who has attained the highest intellectual distinction of his University, has now reached a door which to him, as a Dissenter, is closed, beyond which lie the honours, rewards and emoluments which would be lavished upon him were he a member of the dominant Church. To him a Christian gentleman, who has placed himself among the foremost men of his University, that University, his Alma mater—my Lords, I should rather say his injusta noverca—has said, "Thus far you may come, but no farther." My Lords, I am not a servile adherent of the Government measure. I would vote for any other which, while it secured to such men as Mr. Hartog and Mr. Hopkinson the rewards which are their due, and their services to the Universities, would, on the other hand, appease the fears of those who think that the Church of England would be endangered by the Government Bill.
Her Majesty's Speech refers—with a satisfaction which will be shared by all—to the circumstance that two questions which have for a long time been a subject of difference between this country and the United States are to be referred to a joint Commission from both countries: I mean the questions of the Canadian Fisheries and the Alabama Claims. It is, of course, the interest of certain politicians of both countries to keep these questions open and make capital out of them; but I cannot believe that two great nations, under the guidance of enlightened statesmen, kindred in blood, in language, and in political sympathy, can, in the interests of that civilization which they both have so much at heart, long remain divided by such questions as these.
My Lords, you will also rejoice, more especially in view of the ghastly drama which is being enacted on the Continent, in hearing of Her Majesty's friendly relations with all foreign Powers. We have since we last met seen great changes in Southern Europe: we have seen an ancient Monarchy accept a new dynasty, and one of the oldest Sovereignties of the world abruptly terminated: events most interesting and important at any other time, but completely dwarfed by occurrences elsewhere. And this leads me to the subject which fills all

25
our minds. My Lords, I pause on the threshold of this great subject: I feel that I owe you another apology for even venturing upon it. Towards the close of last Session a war was being commenced. A great Monarch, at the head of a mighty army, moving on the bases of impregnable fortresses, confident from its unrivalled reputation and great traditions, was moving against the King of Prussia, at the head of another army. In less than a month that army had disappeared, those fortresses were hopelessly blockaded, and that great Monarch—the man who for 10 years had swayed the destinies and kept the conscience of Europe—was a prisoner in the hands of the enemy. My Lords, I ask you if any words in any language can compass such a catastrophe: and yet this was but the beginning. While these events were occurring the course of Her Majesty's Government was plain: they had to keep four points in view. First, the preservation of our own neutrality; secondly, the neutrality of Belgian territory; thirdly, the establishment of an understanding between the neutral Powers which should limit the area of the war—not a league, which would have fettered the free action of separate Governments in their efforts to mediate: and, fourthly, the attainment of a peace, or at least of an armistice, which might allow of terms of peace being discussed. There can hardly, I think, be any difference of opinion as to the success of the Government in attaining the two first objects. Their success in the first has, as the noble Marquess pertinently remarked, been proved by the complaints that have been addressed to us by both belligerents. We gave our countenance to both nations, and received, as Christians are apt to do under the circumstances, buffets on either cheek. In the third object Her Majesty's Government were equally successful: except so far, that Russia, from the connection of her dynasty with Prussia, preferred not joining in public remonstrances against the Prussian policy, when she had more private and effectual means of urging her views. The fourth of these presented obstacles that were almost insuperable. On both sides there were exalted views, on the side of Prussia there was a sensitiveness amounting almost to repugnance at the least interference of the neutral Powers.
26
It may be said that they would rather have conceded an ell to France than an inch to the neutral Powers. I now come to another obstacle. After the disaster of Sedan the people of Paris had risen and overturned the reigning dynasty, some leading politicians had undertaken the Government, and, under the inspiration of the nation, had proclaimed, "Resistance to the death." My Lords, I know of nothing in history so grand as the manner in which, when her armies had melted away like snow before the sun, when her fortresses were beleaguered, when her Executive was either captive or fled, when all, in fact, that represented civil organization or warlike power had vanished, Paris, who for 18 years had given herself up to luxury and deified pleasure, came forward to endure bombardment and famine and death, in order to become the nucleus of the defence of France. For four months she held on, she fed her population of epicures on husks and rats, yet there was little repining and no crime. But, my Lords, heroic as the situation was, it was one of great difficulty for the neutral Powers. There was a dual Government: one a Government of eloquence in the country, the other necessarily a Government of silence in the capital. The one required instructions, the other required news. My Lords, under these circumstances neutrals could do but little. But, as far as their power went in the way of preparing the road for negotiations, of hinting to the one side the wishes that the other was too proud to express, in the way, in fact, of doing all that a neutral can do, without direct interference, Her Majesty's Government displayed zeal, tact, and judgment. And now, at last, there is an armistice—an armistice, let us hope, that will ripen into a durable peace. Meanwhile, we have seen the King of Prussia proclaimed Emperor in the Palace of Lewis the Fourteenth. The warmest good wishes of this country must go forth, to the new Confederation; the warm wish of this country will be to see this historic Empire prove that she can not merely conquer, but also use her conquests with magnanimity, and that when this disastrous war is concluded she may use her great power in the interests of peace and civilization.
But, my Lords, what shall we say of France? I believe that to those who

27
have faith, in the great destinies of that great country—and I confess that I am one of them—that faith will be not merely unshaken, but rendered more profound by the events of the present war. I believe that the time will come when France will look back to these bitter calamities with even thankfulness, as being the trial—the crucial trial—from which she emerged to a higher and purer state of liberty than she had ever previously known. She may well be thankful if they have taught her to despise the empty love of military glory, the endless desire of territorial aggrandisement, the restless anxiety for supremacy in Europe, which have so long distinguished her policy. This miserable war is due not so much to the Emperor and his advisers as to those quack orators who, for four years, preached to France that the aggrandisement of Prussia was an insult to France; that the establishment of a powerful nationality on her borders was a menace; that France should be an Empire surrounded by duchies and provinces. My Lords, I believe that we shall live to see France far greater in the councils of Europe, by her moral authority, than she ever was by her armies.
My Lords, among the numerous engines of war which have recently been discovered or re-adapted, we must all have noticed the versatile and irrepressible nature of the diplomatic circular. Every event of the war has been preceded or followed by a cloud of these missives. I believe that if Jupiter were to return to earth, and re-commence his courtship of Danae, he would woo her in a shower of diplomatic circulars. We have had circulars about the origin of the war; circulars to prove that Count Benedetti was a knave; circulars to prove that he was merely the reverse; circulars about split bullets and the Geneva cross; circulars to prove that the Treaty which guaranteed Luxemburg was a sacred obligation; circulars to prove that the Treaty of Paris is not worth the paper it is written on. My Lords, I would say a few words on the last of these—a very few words, as the subject is one of great delicacy, while a Conference is sitting to decide the question. When the circular of Prince Gortchakoff appeared, it astounded Europe. It was felt that, although the signatory Governments would, in times of peace, willingly
28
have re-considered provisions of the Treaty which were galling to a great Power like Russia, the manner of that circular, and the moment at which it was delivered, were equally inopportune. It was felt that it was not the moment to revise the Treaty of Paris when one of the chief signatory Powers was, so to speak, in extremis. Nor was it considered that the mere expression of the Emperor of Russia's wishes on the subject was the right means of attaining the object. These views were expressed by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in a circular which, I think I may say, elicited the praise not merely of England but of the whole of Europe. But, at the suggestion of Prussia, a Conference was agreed to which should discuss the question without prejudice of any point; that Conference is now sitting, and, I believe I may add, with every prospect of arriving at a favourable result.
My Lords, I have only one word more to say, and that is to thank you from the bottom of my heart for the patience and indulgence with which you have-listened to me. I thank you the more because I believe that there is no more solemn moment in the life of an Englishman than that on which he is at first privileged to take part in the deliberations of the National Senate. To your favour and kindness, my Lords, am I indebted for lightening to me the responsibility of that moment. My Lords, in conclusion, I beg to second the Address which has just been moved by my noble Friend. [See Page 18.]
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: My Lords—In the first place, before entering upon the remarks I am about to offer to your Lordships, I wish to express my gratification at the admirable speech in which the noble Marquess moved the Address, and the conspicuous ability with which it was seconded by the noble Earl who has just sat down. It often falls to the lot of those who rise on this side of the House to make a statement of this kind; but I can assure both those noble Lords that I intend my words to be not mere empty compliment, but a distinct expression of the opinion I formed while listening to the speeches which they have delivered.
My Lords—It has been for many years the custom that your Lordships should abstain, except under very extraordinary

29
circumstances, from moving any Amendment to the Address moved in answer to the Speech from the Throne. On this occasion there are, I think, ample reasons why we should adhere to that course, and why the proceedings of your Lordships should be of a unanimous character. My first reason, and the chief one, is because we have had the happiness this day of seeing our most gracious Sovereign in sufficiently good health to take part in the public business of the country, seated on the Throne in this House while her Speech was being delivered to us. Another reason is that Her Majesty informed your Lordships in that Speech that an event of the greatest interest to herself—and if of great interest to herself, of necessity to the country at large and to your Lordships—was about to occur—namely, the marriage of the Princess Louise with the Marquess of Lorne. I am sure your Lordships, as well as the country, are deeply interested in everything which concerns the happiness and the comfort of the Queen, and all those composing her family circle:—and it is on this account mainly I rejoice to find no reasons whatever for asking your Lordships to agree to any Amendment to the Address which has just been moved. Having now briefly noticed that part of the Speech which I look upon as personal to the Sovereign, I will say a few words respecting those paragraphs of it which are more closely connected with Her Majesty's Advisers than with Her Majesty herself, and, therefore, in whatever comments I may make I must be understood to intend no disrespect towards the Crown. The first subject that is alluded to in Her Majesty's Speech is one that would naturally be prominently put forward in an Address of this kind—namely, the state of affairs on the Continent. We must all deeply regret that the dreadful war which has been waged for so long a period, and which must have the most disastrous effects upon both parties—I refer to the great desolation and the great misery that must necessarily be produced by it, both in Germany and France—has not yet come to an end. I do not think it would be wise, if it were possible, to attempt to comment on the conduct of the Government with regard to the position they have taken upon this question until all the Papers connected with it have been
30
produced which Her Majesty in her Speech has promised shall be shortly laid on the Table. I must, however, say it seems to me that some of the language of these paragraphs of the Speech from the Throne is open to observation. I will call your Lordships' attention, and the attention of the noble Earl (Earl Granville), who, I have no doubt, will answer me, to that paragraph which, states—
"Cherishing with care the cordiality of my relations with each belligerent, I have forborne from whatever might have been construed as gratuitous or unwarranted interference between parties."
Now, I must say, judging from some speeches that have been made out of doors, the Government have a very curious idea of the meaning of "cordiality." Your Lordships all know that it is the habit of Members of Parliament during the Recess to meet their constituents—and we know that in the newspapers there is a portion sometimes assigned to the "Speeches of Members out of town." No particular importance is attached to the utterance of unofficial Members; but when a Minister of the Crown addresses his constituents his language is of great import, owing to the position he occupies. Now, among the speeches of Members who addressed their constituents in the autumn, I find one attributed to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. What does he say with reference to what Her Majesty calls "the cordiality of my relations with each belligerent?" Mr. Bruce, speaking at Paisley on the 30th of September, said—
"Those who asked why, if this was a war simply to repel aggression, Germany was not satisfied when that aggression was repelled, might as well ask why when a housebreaker entered a house the occupier was not contented with throwing him out of the window. The desire naturally was to take steps to prevent the housebreaker from repeating his burglarious entrance."
That is to say, if it means anything, the Home Secretary likens France to a housebreaker, and says that Germany ought not to be satisfied by throwing him out of the window. So much for the opinion of the Home Secretary as to cordiality of relations. It might be said that the Home Secretary is only one Member of the Government, and spoke his own opinion only; but the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his speech, observed—

31
"When the present Government took office, it was said that its Members could not act together; but I would now say that a more united Cabinet never guided the destinies of the country."
Well, in that case, and if the right hon. Gentleman was the mouthpiece of the views of the English Cabinet, and if they all regard France as a burglar who deserved to be thrown out of window, I think that the cordiality of our relations with that country was cherished by the English Government in a manner peculiarly their own, and little likely to be appreciated by the French nation. I, for one, shall very much rejoice if Her Majesty's Government should be able to prove to us and the country that they have done all in their power to act between these two great countries in a manner befitting that character of neutrality which they professed to sustain—and which the country has endorsed—in regard to the operations on the Continent. No doubt during the last few days affairs appear to have taken a more favourable turn, giving a somewhat better hope of a peaceful solution of these difficulties. We must all be anxious in the interests of the nations that the result should be peace, and that the peace should be of a lasting character; but it must not be forgotten that it will be very difficult to make any peace lasting unless there be a strong Government in France, which may be able to induce the people to agree to what must, under the circumstances of the present case, be most harassing, distressing, and annoying to their feelings.
I pass over several paragraphs till I come to one of great importance in relation to the position of this country and the despatch of Prince Gortchakoff. It is perfectly true that in the Speech there is—perhaps intentionally—no absolute mention of the despatch of Prince Gortchakoff, or of the answer that was made to it by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville); but there can be no doubt that in the paragraph to which I refer that despatch is alluded to. Her Majesty says—
"I have endeavoured, in correspondence with other Powers of Europe, to uphold the sanctity of Treaties, and to remove any misapprehension as to the binding character of their obligations."
We all know that Prince Gortchakoff wrote a despatch of a most startling character; the noble Earl wrote an answer to it; and the country naturally
32
are very much alive to what is going on, and very anxious to know what the result will be. The whole appears to have collapsed, I may say, into a Conference. The Conference is to assemble, but we are not told how. We are told—
"It was agreed by the Powers, which had been parties to the Treaty of 1856, that a Conference should meet in London."
Now, is that an accurate statement of fact? I rather think it is not, because the next paragraph goes on to say—
"I greatly regret that my earnest efforts have failed to procure the presence at the Conference of any Representative of France, which was one of the chief parties to the Treaty of 1856, and which must ever be regarded as a principal and indispensable member of the great Commonwealth of Europe."
Therefore, a Conference was to be held to discuss this despatch written by Prince Gortchakoff, and the Treaty of 1856, to which France was one of the chief parties. Yet France was not present. First we are told that the Conference is agreed to by the Powers which were parties to the Treaty of 1856, and then we are told that France had nothing on earth to do with it. That is a difference in terms which I cannot reconcile. I want to know where was the necessity for hurrying on the Conference if—as I quite agree—it was absolutely necessary that France should be represented at it? Your Lordships will also examine the Papers, when they are submitted to you, with great interest to learn what steps have been taken to assure the result being binding on Russia, if the Conference comes to any decision on the subjects to be submitted to it. That is a most important point, to which we shall be better able to address ourselves when we come to consider the Papers which are to be laid on the Table. I now come to that paragraph of the Speech which relates to America, and again I find myself under the necessity of questioning the strict accuracy of the statement. About the middle of the paragraph it is stated—
"In order to determine the most convenient mode of treatment for these matters, I have suggested the appointment of a joint Commission."
There we are told that a joint Commission is suggested, and in the next line we are told that—
"I have agreed to a proposal of the President, that this Commission shall be authorized at the same time, and in the same manner, to resume

33
the consideration of the American claims growing out of the circumstances of the late war."
Therefore I conclude that as this suggestion has been accepted, the appointment of the Commission may be considered un fait accompli. I hope that we shall soon hear exactly what the terms are on which the Commission will be authorized to act. Are they to include all the claims that have been or may be made by one Government upon the other? If so, that would be equivalent to an inquiry into the whole of what are commonly called "the Alabama claims;" and I should like to know whether it is to be upon the bases agreed on by the late Lord Derby, and if they are different, why that difference had been made, and what circumstances have arisen to call for it? Upon all these points we require more information. The next paragraph is a rather remarkable one. It refers to the unhappy murder of Englishmen in Greece, and states that the inquiry instituted by the Greek Government has not, "unhappily, arrived at a termination answerable in all respects to My just expectations." Now, I believe the only result of that inquiry has been the incarceration of an Englishman, and that upon application being made for his release, the Greek Government replied that the law must take its course. I therefore cannot but think that, so far as that affair is concerned, the inquiry has not had any very satisfactory consequence. Her Majesty then states in her Speech—
"I rejoice to acquaint you that my relations are, as heretofore, those of friendship and good understanding with the Sovereigns and States of the civilized world."
That is a declaration which I rejoiced to hear; but, taking a view of the state of things all around, I must think that, to say the least, that is a somewhat exaggerated statement. The next paragraph in the Royal Speech to which I shall call attention is one relating to the Revenue, and in which Her Majesty states—"The Estimates for the coming year will be promptly laid before you." Now, I wish to call attention to a very remarkable omission in this paragraph. It is rather a singular circumstance, seeing that on scarcely any former occasion—and certainly never in a Speech made during the Administration of a Cabinet whose watch-word is Retrenchment and Economy, has there been such an omis-
34
sion. I allude to the fact that there is no mention made that the Estimates have been framed with a due regard to economy. It may be that the Government are beginning to see the error of their ways, and that the doctrine of retrenchment as interpreted by them is one which can never be successfully carried out by any Government. With regard to the Civil Service, we all know how retrenchment has been carried out in that branch—the Departments were supposed to be overstocked with clerks, and they were reduced accordingly, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer gets credit for the great decrease of expenditure. Now, what is the opinion of the Home Minister as to the conduct of public business? He has stated in his speech—
The administrative work of all the Departments had been enormously added to; the number of Ministers had not been increased, while the business of their offices had been greatly augmented, and that was a state of things which, unless some remedy was applied, would result in a position of great difficulty."
If that statement were correct, why had there been all that recent casting off of clerks? The observation seems rather to imply that more clerks, and perhaps more Ministers, were necessary; and at any rate, according to the right hon. Gentleman's own showing, a position of great difficulty may be looked for. Is that a proof of the wisdom of indiscriminate retrenchment, carried out to satisfy a cry rather than from any real necessity? The only result will be, that in the end you will have to increase the offices again by the addition of more clerks. My Lords—I next come to that very important portion of the Speech which refers to the subject of the national defences. I am not going to enter into any prophecy as to what the measures of the Government will be, or as to what would be, in my opinion, the most desirable method of proceeding; but of this I am certain, that judging from everything one hears of, and is able to gather respecting the opinion of the country, that it will not be satisfied unless the Government is prepared to deal with the subject in a comprehensive manner, so as to put the country in a position that will make it prepared for any present emergency, or for any difficulty that may arise in the future; and I am certain that any scheme that will put an end to such alternative fits between parsimony and extravagance as we have

35
lately witnessed will receive the unanimous support of the country. I read in the paper the other day a letter written by a noble Earl (Earl Russell), in which he says that "Mr. Card well's mission was to retrench." Well, that is no doubt true. The right hon. Gentleman came into Office with the avowed object of retrenchment, and one of the first things he did was to cut off 20,000 men from the Army, and I presume about £2,000,000 from the expenditure. Well, but what took place at the end of last Session? Why, Mr. Cardwell had to put on 20,000 men. I should like to ask him, if I had the opportunity, and as I have not I will ask the noble Earl opposite, whether the putting on of 20,000 men did not cost much more than the taking off of them saved; and, moreover, whether the 20,000 men so put on were not a much worse and more useless article than those who had been taken off? The 20,000 men added to the Army at the end of last Session must be raw recruits, and anyone who knows anything of matters connected with the Army must know that it will take a long time to turn them into efficient troops; and in no branch of the Army is the operation a slower or more difficult one than in that most important branch of the service, the Royal Artillery. It is true that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Westminster) spoke warmly—as he was well entitled to do—of the Volunteers. I have not one word to say against them; but I think the noble Marquess drew rather too highly coloured a picture when he said that they were all well armed. The noble Marquess's corps may be one of those that has had good arms served out to it; but that cannot be said of the whole body of the Volunteers.
THE MARQUESS OF WESTMINSTER: I stated that they would be well armed in the spring.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: That is another thing, and I shall be as much rejoiced as my noble Friend when that is done; but at the present moment the whole body of Volunteers are not well armed, and I am certain that any measures for the purpose of rendering every portion of the Army efficient will receive the cordial support of the country. My Lords, in the paragraph relating to the national defences I was
36
very much astonished at the total omission of one most important branch of our service. From the beginning of this Royal Speech to the end, I did not hear a single word with respect to the condition of the Navy. No one will venture to say that in England's insular position—with that "silver streak" which divides her from the Continent of Europe—her Navy is not a most important branch of her defences; and it eminently merits attention at the present moment, considering the changes that recent scientific discoveries have effected. Nobody can more sincerely regret than I do the serious illness under which the First Lord of the Admiralty has been and is now suffering; but I should like to know from the noble Earl opposite, and I am sure he will tell me, who is at the present moment responsible for the administration of the Navy? because the First Lord is absent; he has been suffering from illness for a long time, and, according to report, he is likely to suffer for a considerable period. I ask, then, who is responsible for the administration of the Navy; because it must be remembered that, from the peculiar constitution of the Navy, no Secretary of State can administer its affairs, inasmuch as the Board of Admiralty is a Board constituted by warrant, and no act in connection with the Board can be performed by any but those mentioned in the warrant. I will now ask the attention of your Lordships to that part of the Royal Speech relating to the Army—
"The lessons of military experience afforded by the present war have," we are told, "been numerous and important. The time appears appropriate for turning such lessons to account by efforts more decisive than heretofore at practical improvement."
That certainly, my Lords, is not one of the lessons which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had in his mind when he addressed a large meeting in the North of Scotland, and I should be glad to know whether Her Majesty's Government—according to the Home Secretary, one of the most united Governments which ever held Office in this country—are of one mind on this subject, or whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is alone in his opinion as to the value and necessity of a standing army. The right hon. Gentleman, in a speech made after receiving the freedom of the burgh of Elgin, said—

37
"We have witnessed within the last few days the destruction of a most gallant standing army by what is not a standing army, but an armed nation; and that not altogether by the superior qualities of the men, but by the enormous preponderance of numbers which the fact of their being an armed nation gives them."
And this is the lesson the right hon. Gentleman draws from these circumstances—"I think I hear in this the knell of standing armies." Do the united Cabinet agree with the right hon. Gentleman that what has occurred on the Continent is the knell of standing armies, and that the lesson we have learnt is that standing armies are of no use? I am glad to find the Speech from the Throne firmer and more energetic—it is, I think, more in accordance with the feelings of the country than the speeches made during the Recess by Members of the Cabinet. How, indeed, when the Cabinet came together, they could afterwards reconcile their differences, and together compose such a speech as this, I do not know. However, this is their arrangement—I suppose I may call it a family arrangement. I find that other Members of the Government have given expression to views similar to those enunciated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There have not been many speeches by Cabinet Ministers during the Recess. The Prime Minister has, indeed, been accused of a reticence on the subject during the Recess not usual to him—creating a wrong impression in the minds of foreign nations, that there is no such country as this to be found on the map of Europe. It is true, indeed, that the Home Secretary has dispelled that illusion by saying to his constituents in Scotland—
"I am not one of those who can discover in the present state of things any such immediate or pressing danger to this country as would lead us suddenly to change our system or to rush into rash resolutions. Where lies the danger to England? When France was at once a great military and naval Power there undoubtedly existed a certain amount of danger. But where is the immediate danger now? Certainly not from France. She will have enough to do for many a year to come to repair the injury she has received from this war. Then, is it from Prussia? How is Prussia to transport her army here? How is she to reinforce it and supply it? It, therefore, seems to me that, while we should wisely turn to account the experience we have gained during the last weeks, time enough is before us to do so cautiously."
That, my Lords, is not the lesson drawn by the Chancellor of the Exchequer
38
that the knell of standing armies has been sounded. The right hon. Gentleman cautiously proceeds—
"I am of opinion that though Mr. Cardwell may be charged with proceeding slowly" (it is something that the right hon. Gentleman admits that the Minister for War has been slow) "in creating a great reserve force, he is justified by the circumstances in doing so."
Well, that, again, is not the view taken by the Government in the Speech from the Throne, for the paragraph relating to the Army concludes by promising that—
"No time will be lost in laying before you a Bill for the better regulation of the army and the auxiliary land forces of the Crown, and I hardly need commend it to your anxious and impartial consideration."
In reading over, therefore, this excessively long paragraph in this very long Speech, I am quite bewildered, for in their individual capacity the Members of this very united Cabinet say, and no doubt believe, one thing, while in their united capacity they put forward precisely opposite views. However that may be, I feel confident, my Lords, any measure which may be proposed to deal with the organization of the Army and to strengthen the national defences will receive from your Lordships patient and anxious consideration, in the hope that by adopting a really efficient measure this country may be enabled to take among the nations of the world the position it has always held, and which I trust it will continue to hold for centuries to come. I pass now to less exciting topics—I mean the various measures which Her Majesty's Government recommend us to deal with during the Session. They are not few in number, and certainly they are important in character. I should have thought, after the experience of the past Session, that the Government would not have been so generous in giving us so large a number of measures to deal with. Last year I recollect a late distinguished Member of the Cabinet expressing great doubt of their being able to carry the measures then proposed, and likening one of his Colleagues to a man who tries to drive six omnibuses abreast through Temple Bar. The undertaking of the Government accordingly proved to be impossible, for out of, I think, 13 measures proposed by them I doubt whether more than three passed this House—including the Irish Coercion Bill, which was

39
an extra measure, not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. I will not follow the noble Marquess who moved the Address (the Marquess of Westminster) in all his remarks upon these questions; but I am bound to notice one or two. The noble Marquess wondered why my noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury) did not move for a Committee on the University Tests Bill earlier in the Session. Why, because the Bill did not come up to us earlier in the Session. We were told that we ought to take the Bill on trust. My noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury) thought differently, and as soon as he had an opportunity he moved for a Committee of Inquiry. As to the Ballot, or secret voting, I hope your Lordships may not have the opportunity of discussing such a measure, and I certainly shall not anticipate the discussion now. But with regard to Lord Palmerston's argument, that in voting an elector exercises a trust, I may point out that we have a population of 30,000,000, while the constituency is not above 2,000,000, so that the same argument still applies, notwithstanding the increased number of voters. I trust this will be remembered when we come to discuss the measure—if we ever do discuss it. The last paragraph in the Speech—one of great interest—relates to Ireland. When the Government took Office their watch-word was Retrenchment, and they were also going to pacify Ireland, assuming that they were the only body of Gentlemen who could pacify Ireland and make the people orderly and happy. They were to pass Bills dealing with the Church, with the land, and with the education of the people of Ireland. Well, no doubt they have disestablished and disendowed the Irish Church—I may almost say they have destroyed it—and last year they passed a Land Bill which has since been described by one of their own supporters as an Act transferring 70 millions of property from the pockets of the landlords, to whom it really belonged, into the pockets of the tenantry, to whom it never had belonged. I ask, has their policy with regard to Ireland realized the expectations held out to us? The Education Bill remains; but there is to be a lull in Irish legislation, and meanwhile we are told the country is in a satisfactory state. Now, I say that, notwithstanding all our legislation, Ireland
40
is not in a satisfactory state; and on that point I can quote the opinion of a high authority—the Lord Lieutenant himself. While paying a visit to a noble Relative of mine opposite, the Lord Lieutenant was met in Mullingar by a body of gentlemen, who presented a highly complimentary address, expecting, no doubt, to receive a correspondingly cordial reception. But the Lord Lieutenant, on the contrary, told them exactly his opinion of the state of that part of the country. He said—
"I need not refer to the successful endeavours of Her Majesty's Government to carry out remedial measures for the benefit of Ireland; but I am bound to make some remarks, which I do with very great pain, on the state of this part of the country. While the whole of the country is realizing the benefits of a plentiful harvest and unusual material prosperity, and while good order and freedom from crime prevail generally throughout Ireland, this county, and a small district adjoining it, has been an unfortunate exception to the general rule. Within a very few weeks two most wanton murders have taken place, and other outrages have been committed which show that a barbarous and lawless spirit is still existing among some portion, at all events, of your population. Circumstances connected with these atrocious deeds clearly prove that they are not acts of personal revenge against the victim, but are the work of an organized and secret society."
And he goes on to say that if there was not an improvement on this state of things, other and more stringent measures will be adopted with respect to Ireland. Now, my Lords, I should like to know what those measures are, or whether any such measures are about to be introduced by Her Majesty's Government. It seems, I may add, to be entirely forgotten in the Speech from the Throne, which, as I have said, is in the main contradicted by what fell from the Lord Lieutenant, that we are now ruling Ireland under one of the most stringent Coercion Acts which have ever been passed into law. It would, therefore, be very extraordinary if that country were not in a more peaceable condition than she was at the commencement of last Session—though I believe the statement which was made by the Lord Lieutenant to the deputation to which I have referred was most inaccurate. Have not, for instance, threatening letters been constantly sent to those who were engaged in carrying out the law under the provisions of the Act of Parliament? But there is another point to which I wish briefly to advert. We are told that the Education Bill for Ireland is to be post-

41
poned because that country stands in need of a lull after the violent agitation of the last two years. Now, I must say that the Government have, in my opinion, exercised in that respect a very wise discretion. But what are the measures that are to come after the lull? I think we can gather somewhat of the nature of those measures from a speech made the other day by one Member of the Government. Mr. Monsell, the new Postmaster General, in addressing his constituents at Rathkeale, in the county of Limerick, not very long ago, after having met with what seems to have been a very enthusiastic reception, stated that—
"The education question was simply an Irish question, and that no greater injustice could be inflicted on the Irish people than to force on them English and Scotch ideas respecting the way of educating their children."
Now, it is, I think, unnecessary to enter into any details to show what the views are which are entertained in Ireland upon this question. We are all aware that a very eminent Prelate, Cardinal Cullen, holds particular views on the subject, and coupling those views with the statement of the Postmaster General, we may form some notion as to the system of primary education which they would like to see adopted, seeing that, in their opinion, it should be in accordance with Irish ideas. But Mr. Monsell went on to speak on other topics. We all know that the Irish Church was disestablished and disendowed, if not almost entirely destroyed, by recent legislation, and that a Land Bill was passed for Ireland which, even in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, was about as revolutionary a measure as has received the assent of Parliament for many years, and which we all thought would be a settlement of the question, at all events, for a long time to come. Mr. Monsell, however, intimated, while speaking in the highest terms of the Land Bill, "that it was the intention of the Government to supplement it by another measure in the course of a couple of years." Now, I must express a hope that Mr. Monsell was inaccurate in making that statement, although holding, as he does, a high position in the Government, I do not suppose that he would venture to make it unless on what he deemed to be sufficient grounds. I trust, however, that the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) will be able to-night to assure
42
us that the statement is not quite in accordance with the intended policy of the Government, and that we are not to have another Land Bill in the course of two years' time. There is another subject connected with Ireland to which I wish to call your Lordships' attention. I have no doubt that a great many of your Lordships as well as myself have read with feelings of the greatest astonishment the decision which was lately arrived at with respect to the release of the Fenian prisoners, a great number of whom had been convicted by a jury of their countrymen, if not of treason itself, at all events of the crime of treason-felony, and some of whom had, if I mistake not, capital sentences passed upon them, although Her Majesty was graciously pleased to commute those sentences into transportation for life. One, if not more, of those, indeed, who were pardoned, was in reality something more than a political offender, inasmuch as he was implicated in the Clerkenwell explosion, or in the attack on the policemen at Manchester. But here, at all events, we have men who have been found guilty of treason-felony, and some of whom had capital sentences passed upon them, who have obtained their pardon, after having been imprisoned for about three years, on the condition that they gave their words not to come back to England or Ireland, and that is the mode in which the offence of treason-felony is dealt with by Her Majesty's Government. Why, my Lords, such, a mode of proceeding seems to me to be nothing more nor less than holding out a premium to those who violate the laws of their country. And what is the result of this indulgence to the Fenian convicts? Why, the very next week one of the most important constituencies in Ireland returned to the British Parliament Mr. Martin, who is one of the strongest advocates for the repeal of the Union. The Government, however, were not satisfied with releasing the Fenians, and I would beg your Lordships' attention to what I am about to say, because the statement is so extraordinary that one can scarcely believe it to be true. That statement is that the Government, when those Fenians were released from prison, sent them out to America in one of the first-class steamers which ply between the two countries, and that each prisoner, in addition to a £5 note, received a suit of clothes. I fear, my Lords, a great many men who

43
happen to be convicted of minor offences in this country, and who, having been imprisoned perhaps for robbing a hen roost, are obliged to beg their way from the place of their imprisonment to their homes, will think they have some cause for complaint under these circumstances, and why persons convicted of treason-felony should be treated better than such persons as those to whom I have just referred surpasses, I confess, my comprehension. Such a course of policy can, I fear, only lead to the commission of renewed political offences. I have, I am afraid, too long occupied the time of your Lordships in touching on the various topics mentioned in the Speech from the Throne; and while I wish especially to guard myself from being supposed to approve in any way what the Government may have done, or may be about to do, I hope my noble Friend opposite will believe me when I say I sincerely and cordially concur in the adoption of the Address. I may add that I trust the deliberations of the present Session may be such as to convince the world that, however much we may differ on questions of domestic policy, we are all prepared to unite in supporting any measures and submitting to any sacrifices calculated to promote the dignity and to ensure the safety of our common country.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I shall not trespass on the time of your Lordships more than a very few minutes. After the speech which has just been made by the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) it would be very ungracious on my part not to acquiesce in the course advocated by my noble Friend at the beginning and end of his address—that we should not now enter into any angry debate, or any serious discussion of the more important topics mentioned in the gracious Speech from the Throne. But before touching on any question whatsoever, I wish to be allowed to repeat what the noble Duke has said as to the unusual excellence of the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Address. I thank them on behalf of the Government, and I trust they will permit me to compliment them on the admirable manner in which they have discharged their duties on this occasion. The noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) has complained much of the speeches which have been made by Mr. Bruce and some other Members of the Cabinet,
44
and of those not made by Mr. Gladstone. Now, in replying to the remarks which have fallen from my noble Friend on that point, I must observe that I have been very busily engaged, and that I have not, therefore, been able to pay so much attention as perhaps I ought to have done to the speeches which have been delivered in different parts of the country during the Recess. But as to the speech of my right hon. Friend Mr. Bruce, I am perfectly sure that he never intended to express any feeling of exultation over the misfortunes of France:—if it were so, I, for one, cannot concur in that sentiment. I have been in a peculiar way, perhaps more so than any of your Lordships, connected with both France and Germany. I have close ties with both countries, and I have in both many intimate friends and connections. I have the greatest possible respect for the character of the Germans, and I shall never forget the kindness with which my family have for two generations been treated in France. Under such circumstances, your Lordships may easily conceive my personal feelings have been excited by the different phases the war has assumed in different manners; but once having been thought worthy to occupy the important Office I now hold in Her Majesty's Government, I have considered that in my dealing with both countries every personal feeling was to be absolutely put aside, and I have considered that my strict—and my only duty—was, with the assistance of my Colleagues, to carry out what we believed to be the wishes of the country in a fair and impartial, and I will add a cordial, neutrality, even though—as might naturally be expected — that neutrality might be deeply resented by both sides. I will now answer some of the questions put to me by the noble Duke. First of all, my noble Friend spoke of the Conference with respect to the Black Sea question, and seemed to complain that there was a want of explanation on the subject in the Speech from the Throne, and to be unable to understand how we got into the Conference with the consent of the co-signataries of the Treaty of 1856. The noble Duke alluded to the circular of Prince Gortchakoff, and my answer to it, and the official correspondence that ensued. While that correspondence was in progress a proposal was made by Prussia that the

45
matter should be referred to a Conference, in order to arrive, if possible, at a peaceable solution of the question. My Lords, we thought it our duty, in conjunction with all our other Allies, to accept that Conference. We did not, however, accept it in the terms in which it was proposed—we could not consent that the Conference should be held at St. Petersburg:—but we did admit that it should be entered into provided it was done absolutely without any foregone conclusion; and the place of meeting was to be—not at our request, or by our selection, the selection was made by the whole of Europe — at London, as the most convenient to all. The noble Duke surprise that all the Powers should have acquiesced in the Conference, and yet that France should not be represented at it. It was perfectly open to France to say—"This is not the time for such a Conference: I will have nothing to do with it, and will not be present at it." But, as a matter of fact, she did not hold such language. She held with England that the Conference was a good thing in itself, and that it would be an advantage for France to be represented at it. But when the time came for sending over a representative difficulties arose, and on that account we postponed the meeting of the Conference week after week in order that the difficulty might, if possible, be overcome. France had a perfect right to select one for her representative who should be best adapted to state her views; but she did not, as the other Powers had done, select her representatives in London. M. Favre, the highest representative of the French Government, himself proposed to come; but up to this day—and I can perfectly understand the honourable reasons which have actuated his conduct—he has never been able to attend the Conference or to name a substitute. Now, the acquiescence of France in the Conference having been given, and the Conference having been summoned to settle in a peaceful way the question which had arisen with regard to the Black Sea, Turkey, the party most interested, though very desirous to have a French representative present, preferred, whatever might happen, that there should be no delay in proceeding with its deliberations; and as the Plenipotentiaries of all the other Powers—whether more friendly
46
to Russia, to Germany, or to France—were ready to enter into friendly and amicable discussion, we were of opinion that, with the exception of giving some delay, it would be absolutely impossible that England alone should refuse to join in a Conference which had been summoned by unanimous consent. Accordingly we met. I cannot explain to you what has passed in the Conference, or what is likely to result from it, as it is not yet finished; but I think it is no indiscretion on my part to say that any arrangements we come to will be merely indications of what, in hope of the adhesion of France, we are prepared to embody in a Treaty to be signed some time after the conclusion of peace. I should like to add one word more. On the first day that we came into the Conference, we passed such resolutions with regard to the public law of Europe as placed me on a friendly footing with every Plenipotentiary present, and cleared the way for the consideration of such arrangements as might be best made by the Conference. The noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) also asked for some details, which it will not be improper for me to give, with respect to the difficult questions which exist between this country and the United States. Our proposal was simply this—that a joint Commission should be appointed by the two countries not to settle, but to consider the mode in which the different questions in dispute between the Dominion and the United States should be best placed in a way of settlement. The rejoinder to that proposal from the United States was that those claims also which are commonly, though, indeed, incorrectly, called "the Alabama claims"—claims which arose out of the great American War—should be referred to that Commission. We stipulated that in that case all the claims of British subjects should be so referred; and by common consent, in a spirit of mutual respect and friendly feeling, both claims being so referred, we had great pleasure in adopting the arrangement as compatible with the honour of both countries and the respect due from each to the other. We originally proposed that the Commission should consist of three members appointed by each country; but it being the desire of the President of the United States that there should be on each side five members, so as to represent all the

47
different shades of opinion in that country, we concurred in that view. It may not be out of place to mention the members appointed on our side. They are my noble Colleague the Earl de Grey and Ripon, the Lord President of the Council, who, although he was only requested to take the post on Monday last, will leave Liverpool the day after tomorrow. He will be accompanied from this country by only one other Commissioner, a gentleman of great erudition on questions of International Law—Mr. Montague Bernard. They will be met in the United States by our other Commissioners, who will be our excellent diplomatic representative at Washington, Sir Edward Thornton, Sir John Macdonald, the Prime Minister of Canada, and, as we hope, Sir John Rose, whose knowledge of Canada and of the United States will make him a valuable member of the Commission. I am sure the noble Duke opposite will appreciate the value of his services. The Secretary will be a gentleman whose services in the same capacity to the Neutrality Laws Commission were found to be most useful—Lord Tenterden. As far as we at present know, the Commissioners of the United States will be Mr. Fish, Secretary of State, General Schenck, their lately-appointed Minister to this country, ex-Judge Neilson, Mr. Williams, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and a gentleman who has lately been Attorney General in the United States. I can only express a hope that when your Lordships see the instructions drawn up for the guidance of our Commissioners, which it is impossible for us now to produce, you will say that, while framed in a friendly spirit, they contain nothing in the least derogatory from the honour of this country. My noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond) alluded to an unfortunate vote taken in Congress the other day. I regret it. I think it is just one of those things that will probably be regretted in America itself by all who are most qualified to form an opinion. It seems to me, however, that we should not allow a vote of that kind to interfere with any negotiations for the settlement of the claims in question. Certainly this country would be a loser if we were once to admit the principle that international arrangements might be interfered with by foolish speeches made, or reckless votes now
48
and then passed in the Legislature of either country. I do not know that there is any other question of importance with reference to Foreign Affairs to which I need allude. We shall lay on the Table all the Papers—some of them of the greatest interest and importance—and I have no doubt they will be considered and discussed in a fair spirit, and with that absolute freedom from party feelings which marks the debates on foreign affairs in this House. The noble Duke talked of the Army, and said he would not anticipate the measures which the Government were about to bring forward on the subject; but then he made one or two criticisms which were not quite correct. He complained that Mr. Cardwell, at the beginning of last year, disbanded 20,000 men merely to call them back again to the Army in the autumn.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: I beg your pardon. I said that, as a matter of economy, it was more costly to disband 20,000 efficient troops, and then to enlist 20,000 recruits, than to keep the troops you had. I wanted to show that the economical plans of the Government would not prove so economical in the end.
EARL GRANVILLE: I hope the noble Duke will pay attention to the economical question, because, although it has not found a place in the Royal Speech to-day, Her Majesty's Government have not the slightest intention to ignore it; and though we think the augmentation of the Army will necessarily increase the Estimates, we hope, having regard to the increased number of men to be enlisted into the service, to effect economy by having regard to greater efficiency. When the noble Duke speaks of this reduction of men as a question of mere economy, I really can hardly understand his reasoning. We have brought a very large number of men into this country. Reductions were made, it is true, in the earlier part of the year; but afterwards a state of things arose as different as can be possibly imagined from what had so long existed. Europe was perfectly at peace when these reductions were made, and when this great war broke out we thought it necessary, not to an enormous extent, but to a certain degree, to add to the force of the Army in England. The noble Duke said we lost good men

49
and supplied their places with less efficient ones; but I believe the reverse is actually the case, and that out of the 20,000 got rid of in the first instance many were entirely worn out, some had come from India, and others were bad characters—for, of course, every regiment got rid of their worst men and those whom it was most desirable to part with. By this time I hope the recruits who have been taken are equal, if not superior, to those whose places they fill up. Then the noble Duke made an attack upon us because the Volunteers are not well armed. To this I reply that they will be well armed with Snider rifles, of which 100,000—sufficient for two-thirds of the Volunteers—have been already furnished, and the rest will be furnished very shortly. With regard to the Admiralty, I think the noble Duke asked me who was responsible for the affairs of the Department during the absence of the First Lord. In reply to that I have to say that all the Estimates were prepared by Mr. Childers. Everything has been settled in the usual way, and the affairs of the Admiralty are conducted exactly in the same manner at this moment as they were on former occasions, when, for the sake of a holiday, or in consequence of temporary indisposition, the First Lord has been away. The next question was with regard to Ireland; and the noble Duke tried to diminish any feelings of satisfaction which we derive from the belief that certain remedial measures may have contributed to the general contentment of Ireland—although, no doubt, most painful exceptions exist in a very small part of Ireland—principally in Westmeath. As to what the noble Duke said of the recent release of the Fenian prisoners, I may remark that in no country have political offenders been looked upon exactly in the same light as habitual criminals; and there is another point to be considered — you must take into account the effect which severity of punishment always has in exciting sympathy for political offenders on the part of large masses of the community. As to the matters of detail referred to by the noble Duke, I am not acquainted with them. These persons, it should be remembered, had been four years in confinement, and if they were supplied with clothes that surely was not unreasonable. I may mention, too, that in all our well-regu-
50
lated gaols the prisoners have the means of amassing a certain sum of money by their labour in the prison, and, consequently, they get a small sum to draw on their release. The noble Duke, in adverting to the different Bills mentioned in the Queen's Speech, very properly refrained from discussing them at any length, as they cannot be discussed in a satisfactory manner until your Lordships are acquainted with their provisions. I repeat, I think the noble Duke exercised sound judgment in abstaining from angry discussions on the first day of the Session, and I am much gratified at the graceful compliment he paid to Her Majesty, whom we were all so glad to see among us again — though, of course, I am aware of his warning, that we must not reckon on any lengthened armistice with regard to what we have done or are going to do in the present Session.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, that one of the most important topics which could engage the attention of Parliament was the condition of the Navy. It was only by her Navy that this country could be defended, and it was of the utmost importance that the Navy should be maintained in a state of thorough efficiency. We ought to have a perfect service for the transport of troops on any sudden emergency, and especial care should be taken that all our coal depôts should be well defended, for coals formed the strength of modern navies. These were important subjects, which demanded the most careful consideration at the hands of their Lordships and of Her Majesty's Government.
Address agreed to, nemine dissentiente, and ordered to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES OF THIS HOUSE.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I rise with very great pleasure to make a Motion which I have made for now a considerable number of years following, although I am sorry to say the pleasure is not at the present moment altogether unmixed. Your Lordships are aware that Lord Redesdale has been very seriously indisposed; but I have had a communication from him this afternoon which is of a more favourable character. I am sure that the proposition I have

51
to make for the re-appointment of so esteemed a Member of this House, who has so ably performed the duties of Chairman of Committees, will be at once agreed to.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: I have very great pleasure in seconding the Motion of the noble Earl. I am glad to hear that my noble Friend is so much better, and I hope before long he will be able to fill the Chair with the same ability which has hitherto so much distinguished him.
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 Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.