Sitting of 8 February 1876

Preamble
The House met at half after One of the clock.
A Message from Her Majesty, by the Yeoman 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. SPEAKER acquainted the House—that he had issued Warrants for New Writs, for Suffolk (Western Division), v. Fuller Maitland Wilson, esquire, deceased; for Lancaster County (South Western Division), v. Charles Turner, esquire, deceased; for Surrey (Middle Division), v. Sir Richard Baggallay, knight, Judge of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal; for Whitehaven, v. George Augustus Frederick Cavendish Bentinck, esquire, Judge Advocate General; for Aberdeen County (Eastern Division), v. William Dingwall Fordyce, esquire, deceased; for Horsham, v. Eight honble. Sir William Seymour Vesey Fitzgerald, Chief Charity Commissioner for England and Wales; for Ipswich, v. John Patteson Cobbold, esquire, deceased; for Wilts (Southern Division), v. Lord Henry Frederick Thynne, Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household; for Salop (Northern Division), v. John Ralph Ormsby Gore, esquire, now Baron Harlech; for Dorset, v. Henry Gerard Sturt, esquire, now Baron Alington; for Burnley, v. Eichard Shaw, esquire, deceased; for Suffolk (Eastern Division), v. Viscount Mahon, now Earl Stanhope; for Armagh Borough, v. John Vance, esquire, deceased.
NEW WRITS DURING THE RECESS.
  CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.
  MR. SPEAKER informed the House, that he had received from two of the Judges selected, pursuant to the Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, for the trial of Election; Petitions, a Certificate and Reports relating to the Elections for Durham County (Northern Division), and for the Borough of Armagh. And the same were severally read.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
John Ireland Blackburne, esquire, for Lancaster County (South Western Division); Thomas Thornhill, esquire, for Suffolk (Western Division); Daniel Thwaites, esquire, for Blackburn; Lord Henry Frederick Thynne, for Wilts (Southern Division); Robert Henry Hurst, esquire, for Horsham; Honble. Edward Henry Trafalgar Digby, for Dorset; Sir James John Trevor Lawrence, baronet, for Surrey (Middle Division); Thomas Clement Cobbold, esquire, for Ipswich; Sir Alexander Hamilton Gordon, for Aberdeen County (Eastern Division); George De La Peer Beresford, esquire, for Armagh Borough; Stanley Leighton, esquire, for Salop (Northern Division); Eight honble. George Augustus Frederick Cavendish Bentinck, for Whitehaven.
NEW WRITS ISSUED.
For Berkshire, v. Richard Benyon, esquire, Manor of Northstead; for Leominster, v. Richard Arkwright, esquire, Chiltem Hundreds; for Manchester, v. William Romaine Callender, esquire, deceased.
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 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 IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
MR. RIDLEYrose to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, in answer to Her Majesty's

53
Most Gracious Speech from the Throne; and said—Sir: It was with the most lively feeling of satisfaction that we received some time ago the announcement that it was the intention of Her Majesty to open Her Parliament this year in person; and I rejoice that it is my privilege this day to congratulate this House and the country upon the happy circumstance that no untoward event, no anxiety for friend or family, no ill health of her own, has stood in the way of the fulfilment of a purpose so agreeable alike to Her Majesty and to the nation.
Nor is it, Sir, of less fortunate omen that Her Majesty is able to announce to Parliament the brilliant progress which her son, His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, is now making through that vast Empire, which will shortly, as we are led to day to hope, bring under such happy auspices a new title to Her Crown. There have been, Sir, anxieties—I ought, perhaps, to say, grave anxieties—attending the journey; there have been heavy responsibilities thrown upon those who have had the charge of a progress which has scarcely a parallel in history—certainly not in the annals of the British Crown. But we are assured, Sir, to-day, that those anxieties and fears have so far proved groundless; we know that the ordering of that journey has been marked by the most signal foresight and success. The people of this country, Sir, are following with the keenest attention the incidents of His Royal Highness's triumphal visit, which are so dramatically brought before them day by day: they are realizing with a vivid distinctness, which cannot but have the happiest results, something of the vast and varied interests which attach to the history, the religion, the civilization of those older races who are with them the subjects of Her Majesty, and who are receiving Her son with so loyal and enthusiastic a welcome. They appreciate to the fullest extent the energy and self-devotion for the public good of which His Royal Highness is giving so conspicuous an illustration. They can understand—for have they not experience of it themselves?—how his uniform kindliness and courtesy is winning the hearts alike of Princes and people, and is likely to leave behind it an enduring influence for good upon the relations between us and those vast mil-
54
lions whom it is our lot to govern. It is, Sir, I make bold to say, the hope and the expectation of this House that when His Royal Highness shall have happily returned among us, he will be found not only to have enlarged his personal experience and knowledge of those deeply interesting subjects of the Throne to which he will at some period—we hope along distant period—succeed, but to have achieved a great and valuable work in aiding to consolidate and harmonize that magnificent inheritance.
It happens, Sir, in accordance with the line of thought evoked by this important circumstance in our history, that Her Majesty's Speech this year is emphatically that of the Sovereign of a great people, who with their large possessions have responsibilities equally great of which they cannot divest themselves. It is satisfactory to hear that our relations with all Foreign Powers are cordial, and to know that we are everywhere at peace. But the House this day is brought face to face with a vast group of questions relating to the East, of which that commonly known as the Eastern Question is but one in the series, and the extreme importance of which to our Imperial interests it is perhaps impossible to over-estimate.
Sir, in the far East, it is a matter for congratulation that a serious struggle has been again avoided with that huge Empire of China, the maintenance of friendly relations with which is of such importance, as well directly to the commercial interests of this country as indirectly to the finance and revenue of India. Happily, the reasonable and firm demands of our Minister at Pekin were, though only at the last moment, acceded to, and Her Majesty is able to assure us that an investigation, in which She herself is represented, is being officially conducted into the outrage committed upon the English expedition sent from Burmah to the Western Provinces of China, and that She awaits with confidence a successful result of the inquiry.
The Malayan Peninsula has been the scone of an outbreak which has cost us more than one valuable life; but the war—if war it can be called—has been brought to a conclusion with signal skill and courage. I fear, however, it cannot be said that our difficulties have altogether been disposed of. They are difficulties of a kind which invariably threaten great Powers who, from out-

55
lying settlements, and with small available resources, have to control, without governing, the barbarous tribes of some region just beyond their frontier. From the nature of the case it is impossible always to provide beforehand for every contingency which may arise from such undefinable relations, and it too often happens that we have to deplore the loss of some fearless servant of the Crown, who is performing his mission alone and with his life in his hand, in the name of a nation great indeed and powerful, but powerful only in his case to avenge the outrage of which he has been the victim.
Sir, it is to a problem somewhat similar in character that the recent difference of opinion between the Cape Government and the Colonial Office may, perhaps, be traced. It seemed very desirable that all the English and Dutch communities of the South Coast of Africa should agree in some common policy towards the Natives of the interior, and should provide for some common defence in case a Native war should unhappily arise. Lord Carnarvon accordingly suggested a Conference of delegates from the various Colonies, and proposed also that they should consider the expediency of forming a Federation. The proposal, however, was not received with universal approval at the Cape, and it was in consequence suspended. Whether it be ultimately adopted or not, it is strongly to be hoped that the Papers which have been promised by the Government will show that the good feeling between the Colonies and the Mother Country has in no degree been impaired; and that if there has been any misunderstanding as to the intention of the proposal, that misunderstanding has been removed.
Some few years ago, Sir, a private Company, originated and promoted by one courageous and determined man, whose name will ever be associated with it, commenced a bold project, which was to open through Egypt a new highway between the Eastern world and the nations of the West. They were not supported by English capital—they were even opposed by English Ministers. But their project proved a success, and England discovered that a thoroughfare had been created which it was absolutely indispensable to her political, no less than her commercial, connection with the East should be open to the passage of her ships. From
56
the first the international character of the Canal has been acknowledged both by the Ruler of Egypt and the Porte; but the controversy on the tonnage dues showed the difficulties which might arise between us, as the principal customers of the Canal, and the shareholders, no less than the inconveniences and even quarrels which might follow from the zeal of a foreign Government in promoting the objects of the Company. Under these circumstances it can be no matter for surprise that the country received with almost unanimous approval the announcement that Her Majesty's Government intended to propose to Parliament to sanction the purchase of those shares in the Company which were held by the Khedive. It was understood that an opportunity had offered itself for us to give timely aid to one of the original owners—who held these shares in "trust," as it had been declared, "for European nations"—and to become at the same time one of those who were interested in the Canal by property as well as by policy. It was thought that this opportunity had been rapidly and promptly seized, and that the legitimate influence of England in a highway of such vital importance to her had been secured, or at least strengthened, in a manner least likely to wound the susceptibilities of its founders, or to give rise to foreign jealousies or suspicions; and it was taken both in this country and abroad to indicate the presence of activity, foresight, and resolution at the head of our affairs. The House and the country now look with eager interest to the utterances of Her Majesty's Government upon the subject. Their action will, doubtless, be subjected to the severest criticism; but I do not hesitate to express my conviction that the verdict will be one of approval, and that it will be held that Ministers have, by this bold but peaceful stroke of policy, strengthened the position and vindicated the dignity of the Empire.
Antagonism, Sir, of race and religion, which is so important a factor in all Eastern questions, is again giving great cause for anxiety in some of the Provinces of Turkey in Europe. An insurrection, which has, happily, not extended beyond the limits of Bosnia and Herzegovina, has been excited by the long unredressed grievances, principally agrarian, under which the Christian popula-

57
tion in those Provinces have suffered. The Government of the Sultan has failed to offer reforms which would satisfy the insurgents, and has been unable to put an end to the insurrection by force of arms. Accordingly, the three Northern Powers, who have all along been endeavouring to bring about a peaceful settlement of the difficulty, have invited the Western Powers to concur in a Note which should, in a friendly manner but with explicit firmness, invite the Porte to the establishment of certain specific reforms—these reforms being, in the opinion of the Powers, the minimum which could be expected to satisfy the insurgents, to effect a permanent and not a delusive cure, and to remove the dangers to which the Powers most nearly concerned are exposed. I do not doubt, Sir, that it will be thought that Her Majesty's Government has pursued a wise and prudent policy in giving a general support to Count Andrassy's Note. The initiative has been most naturally and properly taken by Austria and the two neighbouring Powers; but a consideration of our whole Eastern interests in their broadest sense shows that it was almost impossible for us to stand aloof, had we even wished it; while the approval and concurrence of England, whose history is so full of friendliness towards the authority and Empire of the Sultan, would seem to be a further guarantee that the requests so proffered are reasonable and moderate, and to give additional reason for the hope that this friendly intervention will be successful. Our expectations as to the effect of that Note seem, fortunately, to have been so far realized, and we may hope that we may now look with confidence to the action of the Powers most directly interested to assist in re-assuring the peace of Europe.
Sir, the responsibilities which attach to the position which we hold among Nations have been this year pressed forcibly home to the most indifferent spectator of events by the prominence which circumstances have lately given to our relations to Slavery and the Slave Trade. For many years we have set ourselves a noble task, and have been expending money and lives in suppressing, so far as we could, the infamous traffic in human life which is still the disgrace of many parts of the world. Wherever we have had the control over
58
it we have abolished—sometimes at heavy cost, but a coat we have never grudged—the institution of Slavery, so that it is our proud boast that the slave who sets his foot on British soil, or upon a British ship on the high seas, is at once a free man. There are still, however, some independent Powers which tolerate or maintain the institution of Slavery, and with many of these we are of necessity brought into contact—with some of them we have treaty engagements. It is perfectly obvious, therefore, that the doctrine elsewhere so easy of application is surrounded with delicate complications when our ships, being in the territorial waters of such countries, become bound by the obligations not only of international law, but of international comity. To have carried our practice as far as some persons would seem to wish we had done would have, I will venture to say, involved us in more than one war, and that not with unimportant only or least powerful nations. We have, in fact, Sir, to consider, not so much what we should wish to do were our Empire absolutely universal, but what our power—great indeed, but still limited—will permit us to do; and for this reason I believe that the Government have been well advised in taking the course which they propose in order to ascertain with accuracy the extent of our existing powers and obligations. It is well that the extremely imperfect information which prevails upon this subject should be supplemented, and that the whole country should be completely and thoroughly aware how we stand in this matter; for so only can the action of the Executive in cases often very difficult and complicated be fairly and adequately judged by public opinion—so best will their hands be strengthened in carrying out to the fullest practicable extent the glorious traditional policy of this country. The House will not be surprised to learn that Her Majesty's Government contemplate legislation this Session on the subject of Merchant Shipping, and it may, no doubt, be anticipated that it is intended to put this measure, or these measures, in the forefront of the legislation of the Session. No Government, indeed, could afford to ignore the state of public feeling throughout the country upon this subject. But in this state of public feeling lies also their opportunity, and it appears to be a

59
peculiarly favourable one; for if, on the one hand, there has been set going—in a manner familiar to us all, and one calculated to do infinite honour to the feelings, at all events, and impulses of its principal originator—if there has been set going under these circumstances a motive power the value of which can hardly be overstated, it is also, happily, the case that the passions and prejudices which have on some sides, naturally perhaps, been aroused, have had time to calm so that this House approaches the discussion enriched by much experience and backed by public sentiment which is, perhaps, all the more strong because it is less demonstrative. It cannot, I think, be sustained that our mercantile navy, has deteriorated, whether in regard to its officers, its safety of carriage, or the estimation in which it is held by foreign countries. There is, however, unhappily reason to believe both that the condition of the sailors is unsatisfactory and that some part of the annual loss at sea is preventible. It is this latter point—the condition, that is of the ship—which is, perhaps, most before the mind of the public; but I may be permitted to express a hope that the other point may not be forgotten, and that measures may be taken, so far as by legislation it is possible, to increase the supply and improve the circumstances of the men—especially in our sailing vessels—upon the efficiency of whom the security of a voyage so much depends. In dealing with the other branch of the subject, it will not, I trust, be considered presumptuous in me if I venture to enforce the necessity of bearing in mind one great principle which should, as it seems to me, guide this and indeed all legislation. It has been hitherto, so far as I have observed, the uniform policy of Her Majesty's Government—and I doubt not we may confidently reckon upon its continuance—to require those who have the most personal interest and experience in the particular subject-matter to be responsible for effecting any result which the Legislation declares desirable, and then to maintain a Government control over that responsibility. In this case it is the shipowner, and the shipowner only, who can look effectually to the safety of the ship, and it should, therefore, be our policy to seek to make his responsibility a reality. We may, perhaps, do something—though it will, I
60
fear, be a difficult and hazardous attempt—in the way of preventing insurance being a temptation to negligence or crime; but, our object being to see that the dishonest shipowner does that which the honest shipowner already does, we must rely in the end upon the enforcement of his liability. From this point of view we should be very careful not to impose regulations or precautions of too minute or too rigid a character. We should put all facilities for securing safety in the way of the owner, and remove as far as we can all hindrances: we should simplify and consolidate the law which he has to obey, and, being then in a better position to provide for a greater degree of publicity and liability, we might confidently hope to eradicate much of that which now casts some discredit upon a noble profession.
Sir, speaking on behalf of a constituency in the main agricultural, I rejoice that among the few home topics in Her Majesty's Speech there has been found place for the subject of Primary Education, and for the promise of some further relief to Local Burdens. Let me say this only—for I fear to weary the House—on this latter point. I take it as a happy augury that Her Majesty's Ministers have seen their way to this mention of it. I trust it may be the prelude to a determined effort—of which I believe they are well capable—not only to redress inequalities in taxation, but to bring simplicity and order into the chaos of local management. The Agricultural Children's Act, passed as it was with the best possible intentions, has not been absolutely a dead letter, but still may be said to have been almost inoperative. As far as those whom I have the honour to represent are concerned—if the House will allow me to make this one allusion personal to them—I will venture to assert that such an Act was not required for the children of the Northumbrian peasant. That it was demanded in some other parts—perhaps most parts—of England was and is, unhappily, the case; and I trust, therefore, that whatever measure may be passed, whether to improve this Act or to supplement the main Act of 1870, that it will be an operative one, while it is at the same time of such elasticity as not to inflict unnecessary machinery or expense upon districts where it is not required,

61
Sir, there is one other topic in Her Majesty's Speech to which it would ill-become me not to allude. Anything which concerns the welfare of the place, be it school or be it University, where so many of his not least enjoyable days were passed, and to which he owes so large a debt of gratitude for anything that may be useful in his maturer life, must always command the sympathies and interests of every man; and that sympathy and those interests cannot but be intensified when they are bound up with the well-being of either of our great English Universities, which have exercised so deep an influence upon our national history. Every Oxford or Cambridge man, and more especially, perhaps, any one whose direct connection with his old college has been only recently severed, must have been watching with close interest the efforts which have been going on within those old walls with which he is so familiar to increase their utility to the nation, no less than the growing interest which has been taken in them by the outside public, by whom their system, their discipline, and their constitution have been hitherto, perhaps, but little understood. Such a man will hail with satisfaction any legislation which will conduce to the more profitable employment of the endowments, the extent of which has now been accurately ascertained. But he will trust, too, that Parliament will touch these old institutions with a tender hand; that it will enact enabling and not restrictive measures; that it will not do anything towards destroying the independence or usefulness of the collegiate system, while it aims at making these Universities the centres of study and the homes of the highest scientific and literary research.
Sir, the Session which has this day been inaugurated is not one which appears likely to be characterized by history as one which has witnessed numerous large domestic reforms. That it will see much useful work in this direction is the hope and trust of all of us; but in the meanwhile it opens upon us with the prospect of being signalized by wider deliberations, which win call forth the greatest qualities of debate, and display to a fuller extent than for years past the power and dignity of the Imperial Parliament. For myself, I have felt most deeply sensible of the grave responsibility under which I have attempted to
62
fulfil the duty which I have undertaken, and of the kind and forbearing indulgence which the House has extended to me in performing it. I thank them most heartily for this favour received at their hands, and will conclude by moving that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, in answer to and in the terms of Her Majesty's gracious Speech from the Throne. The hon. Member accordingly moved—
"That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, to thank Her Majesty for the Most Gracious Speech which Her Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament:
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that Her relations with all Foreign Powers continue to be of a cordial character:
"To thank Her Majesty for informing us that Her Majesty has considered it Her duty not to stand aloof from the efforts now being made by allied and friendly Governments to bring about a pacification of the disturbed districts of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and that Her Majesty has accordingly, while respecting the independence of the Porte, joined in urging on the Sultan the expediency of adopting such measures of administrative reform as may remove all reasonable cause of discontent on the part of his Christian subjects:
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that Her Majesty has agreed to purchase, subject to the sanction of Parliament, the shares which belonged to the Khedive of Egypt in the Suez Canal:
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that the representations which have been addressed to the Chinese Government, as to the attack made in the course of last year on the Expedition sent from Burmah to the Western Provinces of China, have been received in a friendly spirit, and that the circumstances of that lamentable outrage are now the subject of an inquiry:
"To assure Her Majesty that we rejoice to learn that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales has enjoyed uninterrupted health during his journey through India, and that we join in regarding the hearty affection with which he has been received by Her Majesty's Indian subjects as an assurance that they are happy under Her Majesty's rule, and loyal to Her Throne:
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for reminding us that at the time the direct Government of Her Majesty's Indian Empire was transferred to the Crown, no formal addition was made to the style and titles of the Sovereign, and for

63
informing us that Her Majesty deems the present a fitting opportunity for supplying the omission.
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that directions have been given for the issue of a Royal Commission to inquire into all Treaty engagements and other International obligations hearing upon the subject of the Slave Trade, and the action of British national ships in the territorial waters of foreign States, with a view to ascertain whether any steps ought to be taken to secure for Her Majesty's ships and their commanders abroad greater power for the maintenance of the right of personal liberty:
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that a Bill will be introduced for the punishment of Slave Traders who are subjects of Native Indian Princes:
"To assure Her Majesty that we rejoice to learn that the general prosperity of Her Colonial Empire has continued to advance:
"To join with Her Majesty in trusting that the operations of Her Majesty's troops in Malay have restored order and re-established the just influence and authority of this Country:
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for directing the Estimates of the year to be prepared and presented without delay:
"Humbly to assure Her Majesty that our careful consideration shall be given to the measures which may be submitted to us, and that we earnestly join in Her Majesty's prayer that our deliberations may, under the Divine blessing, result in the happiness and contentment of Her Majesty's people."
MR. MULHOLLAND: Mr. Speaker-Sir, I rise to second the Address which has just been read and moved so eloquently by the hon. Member for North Northumberland; and, in so doing, I have the pleasure at the outset of adding my testimony to that of the hon. Member as to the great satisfaction that has been felt, not only, I believe, by all the Members of this House, but by all classes of Her Majesty's subjects, at Her Majesty's most gracious presence to-day. When we last assembled here on a similar occasion, there was a deep and sincere sympathy for the cause which then deprived us of that most gracious presence; that cause happily no longer exists, and I am sure that I express a unanimous feeling, when I say that on this occasion the pleasure is not less in-
64
tense and universal. I do not propose, following as I do the hon. Member who has moved the Address, to refer to the various topics in Her Majesty's Speech with the same completeness of detail in which they have been already brought before the notice of the House in his eloquent speech. To do so would be to travel again over much of the same ground, which, although to some extent inevitable, I desire as much as possible to avoid. But even at the risk of repetition, the subject of our foreign relations is too important not to be alluded to in its usual order of precedence. There has been sometimes a tendency to forget the intricacy and closeness of the ties which, notwithstanding our insular position, bind our interests and those of foreign countries together. If politically we may seem of all nations the most independent, yet commercially, from the extent and ramifications of our trade, our interests are the most diffused and interwoven with those of others, and foreign complications would be the sure prelude to commercial disturbance and social distress at home. Self-interest, therefore, not less than higher considerations, demands that England should not pursue a policy of isolation; that she should not abdicate her place among the great European Powers, but should hold it with firmness and dignity. Such has been the attitude of Her Majesty's Government; and the satisfaction will be general in learning that as a result Her Majesty's relations with Foreign Powers continue to be of a cordial nature. The influence of this country thus acquired and retained will no doubt continue to be exerted—as it has been hitherto—to promote the cause of justice and the preservation of peace. Although the clouds show some signs of breaking—and I hope may soon be dispersed—the political horizon is not so serene as it was during the last Session of Parliament. The insurrection that has broken out in one of the Turkish provinces, as referred to in Her Majesty's Speech, was not, apparently, of itself important; but that Empire contains so much explosive material that any disturbance, however local, must necessarily cause uneasiness. Even those who believe that the existing position of affairs in Turkey is not satisfactory, nor likely to be permanent, may well fear that any alternative at present possible

65
would be still more pregnant with danger. It will, therefore, be considered a source of congratulation that Her Majesty has used her influence in conjunction with the other Great Powers, not only towards the removal of any grievances of which the Christian subjects of the Porte may have cause to complain, but also for the preservation of the independence of the Ottoman Empire. England is interested in the maintenance of good government, peace, and order in the East of Europe, not only as the greatest commercial nation, not only as a great European, but as a great Asiatic Power. The Turkish Empire lies between us and India, and events that might disturb the peace of such a highway would be to England events of direct and vital concern. This is true, especially with regard to Egypt. A few years ago the genius of an eminent French engineer, by piercing the narrow strip of land that connects Africa with Asia, reversed the revolution that had been previously effected by Vasco de Gama, and restored to its ancient and apparently natural channel, the commerce between Europe and the East. The importance of the complete freedom of such a passage once opened is universal, but to England it is supreme. The key of it ought not to be entrusted to any private—not even to any national—keeping, for it is a matter of international concern. It was, therefore, with an unexampled warmth and unanimity of approval that the people of this country received the intelligence of the provisional purchase by Her Majesty's Government of the Khedive of Egypt's interest in the Suez Canal. Sir, I have no doubt that the House will approve and confirm that purchase. It must be remembered that the alternative was not whether this large share of the ownership of a Canal that to England is an artery of her life-blood should be retained by the Khedive or acquired by us—it was whether it should be acquired by us, or by another nation. It was natural that after the first enthusiasm excited by the intelligence of the purchase had somewhat subsided, the ingenuity of hostile criticism should seek to depreciate the bargain. Although it is commerce that will be most directly benefited, we must look at it, not as a commercial but as a political transaction; and when it is asked in what way will our position be
66
improved by a part ownership of the Canal, the instinct of the country, wiser than the critics, replies, that in the event of danger from any cause threatening the freedom of the passage, our national influence must be thereby increased; and that if the international freedom of the Canal has not been secured, at least a most important step has been taken towards its ultimate security. Sir, I believe that I echo the national conviction when I say that the country is indebted to Her Majesty's Government for the vigour and courage shown at a critical moment, in assuming the responsibility of an act for which there could be no precedent, because the occasion was unprecedented. It will be now clearly understood that England considers India a vital part of the Empire, and that she will not shrink from any effort or any sacrifice that may be necessary for its preservation. When during last Session it was announced that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales was about to visit India, the announcement was received with unmingled pleasure. The results of that visit appear to have even exceeded our expectations. We rejoice to learn from Her Majesty that it has not injured the health of His Royal Highness, and his presence has shown or evoked a feeling of personal loyalty among all classes of the Native population for which we were perhaps scarcely prepared. It has also, by bringing together in the State ceremonials the different Native Princes, probably given them a common pride in the greatness of the Empire—a greatness of which, as dignitaries, they themselves to some extent partake. We, too, when we have read of the assemblage of those feudatory Princes, have perhaps realized the greatness of that Eastern Empire as we never realized it before. The well-known tact and courtesy of His Royal Highness have produced in India the best effects, and in England the result of his visit will not be less beneficial if it lead us to take more interest in that great country, to realize more truly its extent and importance, and if it unites us in a closer sympathy with our fellow-subjects there. The time, therefore, seems to have been happily chosen for Her Majesty to crown this great Empire that we have built up in the East, by assuming a title long foreshadowed by events. That Her Majesty should now become

67
Empress of India, in fact as she has long been in name, will be accepted as a graceful symbol of the more intimate connection that we hope may follow the visit of Her Royal son. It is possible to underrate the influence of imagination in national affairs—with an Oriental people it may be difficult to overrate it; and I can conceive nothing more likely to kindle and preserve a national sentiment of loyalty among our fellow-subjects in India than this direct connection with the August Head of our ancient Monarchy by a yet more splendid title. Satisfactory as may be the position of affairs in India, it is gratifying to learn from Her Majesty that the condition of our great and extended Colonial Empire is equally prosperous. We now justly estimate the value of our Colonies; commercially and politically they are pillars of our Empire, and our union with them is secured by ties stronger and more permanent than those of mere self-interest—the ties of a common loyalty and a common blood. I hope that these feelings may always be cherished as giving our Colonies a value that, marvellous as their material progress is, no statistics can express. The House will have been prepared for the announcement that a measure will be introduced during the Session with reference to Local Taxation. I am not, of course, in the confidence of the Government as to the nature of the proposed Bill; but it will probably be of the same tendency as that which recently received the approval of the House. The principle appears reasonable and just, that expenditure for purposes essentially Imperial, ought not to be borne exclusively by any one species of property, but ought to be shared equally by all. A reform of this kind may, I hope, eventually be followed by endeavours to effect a greater uniformity of valuation and a greater consolidation of administration and of rates. I trust, Sir, that when the proposed measure for the amendment of the Merchant Shipping Laws is laid before the House, it will receive the earnest and unprejudiced attention of all Members, without distinction of Party, with reference to a settlement of that difficult question. Last Session the feelings of the country were much excited by it; but I think it was wisely determined that final legislation on a subject of such national importance should be preceded
68
by the most careful and deliberate inquiry. No one could read the statistics of the losses of life at sea without emotion, and everyone must desire to protect our seamen from unnecessary risks, but no legislation can altogether eliminate danger from their calling, and excessive or unwise interference with our shipping might inflict a national injury that could never be repaired. Among the many causes of the losses we deplore, not the least fatal is the want of a sufficient supply of good seamen, and I hope that one of the remedies adopted may be an extension of the system of training ships upon our coasts. Sir, I congratulate the House upon the omission from Her Majesty's Speech of any reference to the affairs of Ireland, that part of the Kingdom with which I am myself more especially connected. Ireland is now happily so peaceable and prosperous that it is not requisite, in any reference to the state of the country, to separate her from the other parts of the United Kingdom. An excellent harvest has produced its usual effect upon an agricultural people; and the deposits in banks, the circulation of the currency, and the traffic on railways, all show an increase in the produce, the trade, and the wealth of the country. Ireland does not possess the mineral resources which lie at the foundation of England's manufacturing supremacy; but, notwithstanding this disadvantage, Ulster has appropriated one of the great staple manufactures of the Kingdom, and the Linen Trade, having suffered less than most others during the depression of the last two years, continues to give employment in its different branches to all classes of the population of Ulster, a population distinguished not more for its industry and intelligence than for its loyal attachment to the Constitution and the Throne. Advance in material prosperity has throughout Ireland been followed by a marked diminution in crime, happily justifying the relaxation made last year in the exceptional Acts previously unfortunately necessary for the preservation of the peace, and also enabling the Government to gradually restrict the area to which these Acts are applied. If attention continue to be directed to the development of the material resources of the country, increased intercourse and extended trade will, I hope, gradually convince the warmest

69
patriot, in a land where patriotism is the strongest sentiment, that he will be most patriotic when he draws as closely as possible the ties by which nature has inseparably connected the destiny of Ireland with that of England, and has made her a part of the richest, the greatest, and the freest nation in the world. Her Majesty has again brought before our attention a subject that was last year also alluded to in the Speech from the Throne, and that will ever excite the greatest interest in this country—the continued efforts for the suppression of the Slave Trade. If there are defects or ambiguities in our treaties with foreign Powers or in International Law tending to obstruct those efforts, those treaties or that law should be amended or explained, and I have no doubt that this House will approve of the appointment of a Royal Commission to investigate the subject. This is no Party question; upon it every Member of this House can have but the one desire, the discouragement of Slavery, as opposed equally to civilization and Christianity, and the extinction of the Slave Trade as a disgrace to mankind. I will not detain the House by further reference to the other subjects specially mentioned in Her Majesty's Speech, as they have been already effectively dealt with by the hon. Member who preceded me. But allusion is made in that Speech to important measures which may be brought before us during the Session, if time should permit. I think it was a wise discretion to refrain from enumerating these measures in detail, as we know well that unforeseen difficulties often intervene, and a sanguine forecast is an unnecessary temptation of fortune. If circumstances should allow their introduction of those measures, it will no doubt be found that Her Majesty's Government continue to direct their efforts in domestic legislation to the improvement of the social and sanitary condition of the people. What they have attempted in this direction has hitherto met with the approval of this House, and the results have earned the approbation of the country. Sir, I believe that it is the earnest wish of all parties in this House to elevate the condition of that teeming population, whose numbers and rapid increase affix upon us all a grave responsibility. Where there are differences among us, they are chiefly as
70
to the means to be employed. I trust, therefore, the measures referred to may be successfully passed, and may prove as effective as those that in this Parliament we have already enacted. I trust also that the knowledge that it is the policy of the Government and the desire of all parties in the State to promote, so far as legislation can promote, the education, the advancement, and the moral and physical well-being of the people, may diffuse such confidence in our institutions as to prevent the disturbance of this beneficial progress by agitation for organic change. Sir, I feel deeply indebted to the House for the patience with which it has heard me. If I did not bespeak it, it was merely because I knew that on such occasions as this the indulgence ever outruns the demand.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, &c." [See p. 62.]
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Mr. Speaker, the topics which have been adverted to in Her Majesty's gracious Speech are numerous and important—and as we have been already reminded more important than those which have been brought under the consideration of Parliament for some time. But numerous and important as those topics are, there are few, if any, I think, which, with the amount of information before us, can be adequately discussed, and, certainly, there are none of them on which this House can reasonably be expected to pronounce this evening a final opinion. Parliament has, on other occasions, assembled under very different circumstances. The Speech from the Throne on some of those occasions may have announced the commencement or the progress of a war, or the commencement or progress of negotiations. On the other hand, it may have announced the intention of the Government to propose some great changes, in which great principles affecting the Constitution of the country were involved. In such instances it may have been impossible for the House to vote the Address to the Crown without amendment, or certainly without full and adequate discussion, without more or less pledging itself to the policy which had been submitted to it by the Government. But in this case, and on the present occasion,

71
the legislation which the Government proposes, important though it may be, does not I think—at first sight at any rate—involve the consideration of any large principles to which the House can be committed; and important as are the announcements which have been made in respect to our foreign relations, we are as yet without such information as would enable us adequately to discuss the questions to which they relate. It will, therefore, be the duty of the House to wait until the Papers upon the subjects that are promised are laid before us, and we have had time not only to read, but to consider them before proceeding to a discussion of the subjects to which they refer. I admit that much information, in addition to that contained in the Queen's Speech, has been given to us in the able speeches of the hon. Gentlemen the Mover and Seconder of the Address. The House will, I am sure, agree with me that seldom or never has the very difficult task of moving and seconding the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne been performed with greater talent than on the present occasion. That, however, will not, I think, affect the considerations which I have mentioned. The House will no doubt also agree with me, that in any observations which it will be my duty to make upon the Address which has been moved, it will be rather my duty to endeavour to elicit information from the Government upon points which may seem to require explanation, and also to afford to the Government an opportunity of removing misconceptions in some case, where their policy has, as I think it has, been misunderstood.
The first subject which has been mentioned in Her Majesty's Speech as calling for legislative action is a measure for regulating the Ultimate Tribunal of Appeal in the United Kingdom. This is an imperative duty which is cast upon the Government after the legislation of last year; but I fear that the Government will not recommend to us the adoption of that powerful, efficient, and most convenient tribunal which once received the sanction of both branches of the Legislature, but which, for some inexplicable reason, the Government last year recommended should not be entrusted with the functions of a Court of Final Appeal. However that may be, it is of the utmost importance that this
72
question should now be set at rest; that the Courts of Law should be able to devote their undivided attention to putting in operation the great changes which have recently been made in our system of Judicature; and that the attention of the public, the Judges, and the profession should no longer be distracted by doubt and uncertainty as to what the Ultimate Court of Appeal is to be.
Merchant Shipping legislation is also expected by Parliament and the country. The Report of the Royal Commission and the discussions which arose in this House and in the country during the last Session have, I think, done much to clear the way of the Government with reference to the introduction of this measure; and I do not think, therefore, that the Government will fall into either of the mistakes which they made last year. They will neither underrate the difficulties with which the subject is surrounded, nor the interest with which the subject is regarded by the House and the country. As has been remarked by the hon. Gentleman the Mover of the Address, the interest which was manifested on this subject in the country during the last Session of Parliament has been adequately sustained during the Recess, and the tone which has animated the discussion, both on the part of the shipowners—who are personally and directly interested in the subject—and of those who have more especially taken up the cause of the seamen, shows a most satisfactory desire not to interpose unnecessary difficulties, but to meet each other in a spirit of conciliation. I thought that the hon. Gentleman the Mover of the Address entered into a very able consideration of the principles which ought to guide the Legislature in dealing with this question; and I do not think it necessary that I should occupy time by following him upon the subject, especially as, Notice having been given, we shall have the very earliest opportunity afforded to us of devoting our attention to the subject.
I am glad to learn from the Queen's Speech that the subject of Primary Education is to receive attention at the hands of Her Majesty's Government. No indication has yet been given of the treatment which that subject is to receive, but after the speech which was delivered by my right hon. Friend the Home

73
Secretary during the Recess, and after the signal success which has attended the introduction of education into a mass of places where it had been neglected before, I can scarcely doubt that the measure which will be recommended to this House will be one which will extend very greatly the benefit of education to the children of the rural districts, remedying those defects in their education by means of the compulsory teaching which is enjoyed by children of the large towns.
I shall make no remark upon the legislation proposed with regard to the Universities. We have had no intimation which would enable us to form an opinion as to the manner in which Her Majesty's Government propose to deal with that difficult question, and therefore I shall, before entering upon it, await such fuller explanation as may be forthcoming. I cannot, however, help referring here to some omissions in the list of measures which are to be proposed to Parliament which must have struck every one. The subject of the prevention of the pollution of rivers occupied a place in the Speech of last year; and, in addition to that, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board gave us very strong reason to hope that the Government would be prepared this year to deal with the question of the supply of water. The legislation for the improvement of the sanitary condition of the people which has been so long and so often promised by Her Majesty's Government can hardly be supposed to be exhausted by the Consolidation Act which was passed last year; but, nevertheless, not one of these subjects receives notice in Her Majesty's present Speech. I think we are entitled to ask why the Pollution of Rivers Bill has been dropped, and why none of the other measures are referred to in Her Majesty's Speech. Are they not matters that demand and deserve the earnest consideration of the House? In my opinion, it is because Her Majesty's Government shrink from dealing with that which they, and we, know to be the root and foundation of successful treatment of any such subject. They know that the country feels more strongly year by year that the Central Government cannot adequately provide for all the wants of our vast and increasing population, which lives under
74
conditions and difficulties so different and circumstances so varying in their character. Year by year public opinion becomes more convinced than ever that our system of local self-government has not kept pace with the wants of the increasing population; and year by year, in some respects, our local institutions are becoming less adapted to their purposes than they were under the conditions in which our ancestors left them. Now, if the Government would attempt to reduce to something like order the confusion which prevails in local institutions in rural districts; if they would attempt to extend to rural communities, and especially to communities which are semi-rural and semi-urban, the advantages and privileges which are possessed to a very great extent by the inhabitants of larger towns; and if they were to attempt to bring into more reasonable and harmonious relations the various local governing bodies, they would be able to do more for the improvement of the condition of the country and the sanitary condition of the people than they can hope to do by the exertions of the Central Government.
Sir, Her Majesty has referred, in terms of satisfaction, to the condition of our colonial Empire. The Government have on various occasions taken great credit to themselves for their colonial policy, and praise has been freely given to them in that respect. I do not grudge them the credit for that policy, but I do maintain that their colonial policy is not an invention of their own. They take great credit to themselves for the exertions they have made in promoting the federation of the South African States. I do not grudge them the credit for that, but it must not be forgotten that the negotiations which ultimately resulted in the confederation of the North American Colonies were begun under a Liberal Government; and that, although they were completed by a Conservative Government, they were initiated and received their first assistance at the hands of Liberals. While they are taking credit for their colonial policy, it is incumbent upon the Government to explain—and I am glad that Papers are to be presented to Parliament which will afford the explanation—what has been the nature of their policy with regard to this South African Federation. As far as I have heard, and as

75
we are informed, a gentleman has been sent there, armed with powers of which we do not know the precise nature, but who has taken the somewhat unusual course of agitating the colony against its responsible Government. I can hardly think that a course of policy approved of by the Government as the favourable commencement of a policy which aims, I presume, not only to form a closer connection between the South African colonies, but a closer connection with ourselves.
I must next refer for a short time to the remarkable paragraph in Her Majesty's Speech which deals with the subject of Slavery and our relations with slave-holding countries. It will hardly be denied that the paragraph owes its introduction into the Speech to the discussions which have arisen during the Recess upon the two Circulars on the subject of Fugitive Slaves which have been issued by the Government. These Circulars have been discussed throughout the country, not, perhaps, with full knowledge of all the questions of international law involved, and possibly not even with a full knowledge of our own municipal law as it affected, or was affected by, the question. But, at the same time, they have been discussed in a spirit which I think this House will admire, inasmuch as it shows an unabated pride on the part of the country in the result of its exertions for the suppression of the Slave Trade and a determination on its part not to relax those exertions unduly. I need not say much with regard to the first Circular, as it has been withdrawn, and we know, on the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it never received the approval of the Cabinet. As I say, the Circular has been withdrawn and much of the legal doctrine set forth in it has been reversed, because we find that, by the second Circular, not only under no circumstances is a slave received on board one of Her Majesty's ships on the high seas to be restored to the country from which he escaped, but also that when a slave is once received on board one of Her Majesty's ships in a port or elsewhere within the territorial limits of a friendly country, no demand is to be entertained for his surrender and no inquiry is to be made into his status. Thus, two of the propositions which were laid down
76
in the first Circular have been directly contradicted in the second Circular. It would, perhaps, be a curious topic of inquiry how the first Circular came to pass through the ordeal of an examination by the Foreign Office, by the Law Officers of the Crown, and by the Admiralty; but with regard to both Circulars the question arises—What was the necessity for issuing either of them at all, and why, when the first was withdrawn, did Her Majesty's Government think it necessary to reverse the legal doctrines laid down in the first by issuing the second Circular? I am not prepared to say that the instructions contained in the second Circular are inconsistent with any principles either of international or of our own law, nor am I prepared to say that they are inconsistent with the precedents which may be found in the practices of former Governments. I think it is perfectly true that a distinction has always been drawn—a distinction of which Parliament and the country is fully aware, and which must be known even to the Anti-slavery Society itself—between the Slave Trade and domestic slavery. The Instructions of the Admiralty directed the commanders of our ships to explain to the inhabitants of countries whose ports they visited, the distinction between the Slave Trade which this country was determined to suppress, and the institution of domestic slavery with which it does not claim to interfere. But those Instructions were perfectly well known to our commanding officers, and it appears to me that it was to make an invidious distinction as against the slave to call the attention of our commanding officers, in the terms which have been employed in the second Circular, to the reception of slaves as compared with the free man. It was felt by the country, and I have no doubt that it was felt by hon. Members of this House, as it was felt by Her Majesty's Government, that the matter could not rest where it was, and therefore Her Majesty's Government have felt called upon to make what I confess I take to be one of the most extraordinary announcements to have ever been made by a Government of this country. What, Sir, has been the course of the Government in this matter? They issued one Circular, we have been told, upon the highest legal authority, and that Circular has been withdrawn. They

77
issued a second Circular, after full and deliberate consideration by the Cabinet, and that Circular has not met with approval in the country. What course are the Government prepared to take in regard to it? Are they prepared to maintain the policy of the second Circular or are they not? Are they prepared to acknowledge a second time that they have been in error, and to withdraw the second as they did the first? No: it does not appear that they are prepared to adopt that policy. Are they prepared to say that a new policy ought to be adopted in deference to the express wishes and feelings of the country—a policy in advance of that which has been adopted by previous Governments? No, Sir, that is not the course which they are prepared to adopt; but what they are prepared to do is to fall back upon the device of appointing a Royal Commission. The Royal Commission therefore is intended to provide the Government with a policy which they are unable to find for themselves. And what is this Royal Commission to inquire into? It is to inquire into all Treaty engagements and other international obligations bearing upon this subject, and all Instructions from time to time issued to naval officers, with a view to ascertain whether any steps ought to be taken to secure for our ships and their commanders abroad greater power for the maintenance of the right of personal liberty. But I presume that the Treaty engagements and other international obligations bearing upon this and other subjects are to be found in the archives of the Foreign Office, and I presume that the Legal Advisers of the Crown could inform Her Majesty's Government as to the effect of those engagements and obligations without the assistance of a Royal Commission, and I presume that the Admiralty could, without much difficulty, inform them of the nature of the Instructions which have been issued to our naval officers; and yet those are the only matters into which the Royal Commission can inquire. I think, therefore, that all the information which this Royal Commission can gather is either already or might soon be in the hands of Her Majesty's Government, and what then remains for the Commission to do? It is to ascertain as already said, whether any steps ought to be taken "to secure for my ships and their com-
78
manders abroad greater power for the maintenance of the right of personal liberty." It might be supposed that question might be determined for themselves by Her Majesty's Government. The answer to that question has been already given by the country. It knows perfectly well what it wants, and if the Government does not know, the country, in my opinion, is perfectly prepared to tell them. It does not wish for our ships to be made the refuges for escaped domestic slaves or for political refugees in every port which they may visit, nor does it want that they should be made asylums for distressed persons; but it does want in the case of a fugitive slave or of a political refugee, or of persons in distress, whatever the circumstances may be, that the discretion of our commanding officers should not be fettered by invidious rules, such as those contained in the second Circular, but that they should continue to be, as heretofore, the judges of the circumstances under which the slaves or freemen are to be received on board Her Majesty's ships and to receive the protection of the British flag. The country wants that not only the slave whose life may be in danger should be received on board Her Majesty's ships, but the slave woman, whose personal honour may be endangered, and the slave in danger of cruel punishment, should be received. The country thinks—and I think rightly—that this is a discretion which may be well and safely trusted to Her Majesty's officers. They are not to receive needlessly persons for whose reception Her Majesty's ships are not intended, nor to interfere needlessly with the domestic institutions of the country, but they may be allowed to judge of the circumstances of the case in the future as in the past. Further, the country wants, I think, that when, for sufficient cause, a fugitive slave has been received on board, under the protection of the British flag, that slave shall not be surrendered, or restored to slavery, or removed from Her Majesty's ship under any pretext or upon any demand whatever. That, I believe, is what the country demands, and what I think this House will require, and if international engagements and obligations stand in the way, I think that the House and the country will call upon Her Majesty's Government, without delay, to use their best efforts to remove

79
these obstacles without resorting to the intermediate process of a Royal Commission. We know perfectly well what is the effect of the appointment of these Royal Commissions, when there is really nothing the Commissioners can recommend, and it is simply a question of policy to be undertaken. We had an example of the sort of assistance that a Royal Commission furnishes to the Government in the case of the question relating to employers and workmen, a very difficult subject requiring the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and which was referred to a Royal Commission. There the facts of the case were already well-known; but, as Her Majesty's Government were not prepared to deal with the question, they referred it to a Royal Commission. The Commission furnished the Government with very little additional information, but the Commissioners made some valuable recommendations in their Report. Those recommendations, however, were entirely thrown over by the Government, and therefore the only result of the appointment of the Commission was—what it will be in this case—to obtain a short respite for the Government and, what they wanted particularly, a further delay. I hope, however, that Her Majesty's Government will, at all events in the present case, be able to assure us that the second as well as the first Circular will be suspended pending the inquiry by the Royal Commission, and until the Government have had an opportunity of making up their minds what they will do with regard to this subject.
I now advert to the paragraph which mentions the state of our foreign relations. Her Majesty informs us that events have taken place which have again brought to notice what is known as "the Eastern Question." There is no doubt the events of last autumn—the insurrection in Bosnia and in Herzegovina, and the partial repudiation of its Debt and engagements by the Turkish Government—have produced a great change in the feeling of the people of this country in regard to the Turkish Government. The insurrection has shown, at all events, that the Turkish Government has not been able to conciliate the goodwill and loyalty of its subjects. The reports which have been received through the Press in consequence of that insurrection have shown
80
that in many Provinces of Turkey great misgovernment and consequently great disturbance still exist. The partial repudiation of its Debt, to which I have referred, has reminded us that Turkey has embarked upon a career of maladministration and extravagance which if persisted in, must defy all the efforts of European States to save her. It is not extraordinary then that such events as these should have produced a great change in the public opinion of this country, but I think it would be a mistake if we manifest too much impatience in regard to these events. No doubt many among us have been disappointed at the results of the last 20 years—results so different from those which were expected to follow the exertions which were made in the Russian War on behalf of Turkey. But I think the House will forgive me if I quote some words which were spoken in this House in 1856 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone). Speaking in this House on the 6th of May, on the General Treaty of Paris, my right hon. Friend said—
"Great Britain and France have not yet been able to afford a complete solution to the problem which has existed for 600 or 700 years. It was hardly a century and a-half ago when a Mahomedan Empire carried pillage, carnage, and terror throughout Europe; and now, since it has ceased to be an object of fear, it has become the principal cause of anxiety and solicitude to Europe. The juxta-position of a people professing the Mahomedan religion with a rising Christian population, having adverse and conflicting influences, presents difficulties which are not to be overcome by certain diplomatists at certain hours and in a certain place. It will be the work and care of many generations—if even then they were successful—to bring that state of things to a happy and prosperous conclusion."—[3 Hansard, cxlii. 93.]
It seems to me, Sir, that those words are as true now as they were 20 years ago, and they seem to me to convey to the House a salutary and somewhat needed warning against undue impatience with regard to the events which have recently occurred. No doubt a step has been taken towards a solution of the difficulty, though not in the direction which was indicated by Lord Palmerston—namely, in the direction of the reform of the administration of the Turkish Government; but it is a step which is as likely ultimately to favour a solution of the difficulty, being a step in the direction of increasing the independence of the

81
Christian subjects of the Porte. Her Majesty's Government say that Papers are to be laid before you respecting their action in supporting the Note presented by the Austrian Government. The House, I think, will wait till the full text of the Note is before them, and it is able to appreciate the exact amount and extent of the policy of Her Majesty's Government. Before giving any opinion upon the action of the Government, I am not disposed to raise any preliminary objection to the action which Her Majesty's Government has taken. I have no doubt that, as far as it was in their power, they have taken steps to maintain the independence of the Porte. I even think the Members of the Government who concluded the Treaty of Peace of 1866, provided the interference was of a proper and respectable character, would not have objected to the interference which has taken place. Lord Palmerston, who was himself one of the greatest supporters of the independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire, would not have been averse to such interference as appears to have taken place. Speaking of the Firman referred to in the Treaty of Paris, that noble Lord said—
"In fact, that it should he revoked is a thing which I hold to he as impossible almost, morally speaking, as that the sun should go backwards. That which is more possible, however, is that, for some time to come, cases will arise in which the Firman will not be fully executed by the authorities of the Porte in distant provinces, and in places not immediately under the view of the Consuls; and if that should occur, the fact of the Firman having been adverted to in the Treaty, and the issuing of it having been recorded in the Treaty, would give to the Allied Powers that moral right of diplomatic interference and of remonstrance with the Sultan which I am perfectly convinced would be quite sufficient to accomplish the desired purpose."—[3 Hansard; cxlii. 125–6.]
We can hardly say that the contingency anticipated by Lord Palmerston has not arrived, and that something more than Lord Palmerston anticipated has not happened. Indeed, it may be almost said that the Firman to which Lord Palmerston alluded has not been put into execution at all. Well, then, according to Lord Palmerston, the right of the Powers to intervene diplomatically is preserved, and I trust that the Papers to be laid on the Table of the House will show that the intervention has not
82
exceeded those limits pointed out by Lord Palmerston on that occasion.
Before I sit down I wish to make one or two observations upon the purchase, referred to by Her Majesty, of shares of the Khedive in the Suez Canal. I hardly know, Sir, whether I ought to allude to this transaction as being connected with the Eastern Question. But if I regard the time when the purchase was made, when the great Northern Powers appeared to suppose that they could take the affairs of Turkey into their own hands without much consultation with the other Powers of Europe, if I take into account the almost unanimous opinion expressed by the Press, and by the public generally where opportunity has been given, I should say that this purchase was intimately connected with the Eastern Question. But, on the other hand, if I take the words of Lord Derby, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, at Edinburgh, I am forced to come to the conclusion that the purchase had no connection whatever with the Eastern Question; that it was undertaken solely upon its own merits; that it would have been undertaken last year before the Eastern Question had arisen, or it might have been undertaken next year after the Eastern Question is settled, if the opportunity had arisen. Well, Sir, in this conflict of evidence, I for one have no hesitation which way to decide. Lord Derby says that all foreign nations are in the habit of believing what we say; and if foreign nations are in the habit of believing what our Government says, much more is the House of Commons in the habit of believing the clear explanations of Her Majesty's Government. Therefore, though I do not say for one moment that this purchase may not have consequences far wider and greater than were referred to by Lord Derby, or than the consequences which, according to Lord Derby, determined the Government to undertake the transaction, these consequences may or may not have been foreseen by the Government; but I will take from Lord Derby that the purchase was determined on considerations altogether irrespective of what is called "the Eastern Question." I prefer in my remarks on the subject to touch the matter from the Government point of view, and to endeavour to obtain from the Government some explanation of the transaction on their own basis. This perhaps is the

83
proper time, and it may be the only time, when one or two observations may be made upon the conduct of the Government in not at once resorting to the advice of Parliament for the confirmation of their action in this matter. The transaction was one of sufficient importance to have justified that course. The sum involved, although perhaps not a large sum in proportion to the interests at stake and the objects in view, was nevertheless not an inconsiderable sum, and when we consider the jealousy with which this House insists that every small item of the ordinary national expenditure, which varies little from year to year, should be submitted to the rigid scrutiny of this House, it does seem extraordinary that a day's unnecessary delay should have been allowed to elapse before the opinion of the House of Commons was taken on this large, extraordinary, and altogether unprecedented purchase. I may be told that the decision of the Government had to be an immediate decision; that Parliament is not more pledged now than it would have been in December to reject or confirm the transaction, and therefore no advantage would have been gained by an earlier summoning of Parliament. It may be true that Governments have had before now to decide grave matters on their own responsibility, sometimes even on a declaration of war, but it is, I hold, a Constitutional practice, and also a salutary practice, that in cases of this kind Parliament should be called together, though the decision of the Government may not be irrevocable, and that Parliament should have, as it has not had, the opportunity of expressing its approval of, or its dissent from, the policy of the Government. And surely there would have been very great advantage if this course, which I think the proper course, had been taken. If Parliament had been summoned and the Government had at once laid before it the exact nature of the transaction in which they were engaged, the motives which had prompted them, the objects which they intended to secure, and the use to which they intended to put the property that they had acquired, they would have prevented a great many misconceptions and many mischievous exaggerations which have prevailed both in this country and abroad. Such a course would have prevented many mischievous
84
speculations, and would have prevented some disappointment. It would also have shown the confidence which the Government reposed in the wisdom of Parliament in resorting to their advice on an occasion of so much importance. But, taking the matter as it was explained by Lord Derby at Edinburgh, we know that what the Government wanted, and what they think they have obtained, is an additional security for that which is to us a necessity—a free and uninterrupted passage through Egypt to India. What the House and the country, I believe, desire to know is somewhat more precisely in what way they have accomplished those objects. When we speak of additional security that has been obtained, it would be as well to know, in the first place, whether we are talking of additional security in time of peace or in time of war. If you are speaking of a time of war, I fail to see what change has been made in our position by the purchase of these shares. I believe that the territorial sovereignty over the Canal belongs to the Khedive, or perhaps rather to his Suzerain the Sultan. At all events, the territorial sovereignty of the Canal is not in the hands of the country which has purchased the shares. I apprehend that in case of war, unless the Khedive were an active ally of either party, it would be his duty to close the Canal, as it would be his duty in the same way to close any other part of his dominions to the troops or the ships of either belligerent. At any rate, the Company have no control over the Canal; and therefore, if we are speaking of a time of war, it is very doubtful how far we have obtained by this purchase an uninterrupted passage through Egypt to India. Then if we are speaking of the time of peace it must be remembered that whether the shareholders are French or English or of whatever nation, a commercial company, acting on commercial principles, their object is dividend; audit is difficult to see how that dividend was to be secured if a free and uninterrupted passage through Egypt was not allowed to that State which possesses, as we are told, three-fourths of the traffic which passes through the Canal. I do not for a moment deny that questions have arisen in which the interest of the shareholders has conflicted, or has been supposed to conflict, with the interest of the ship-

85
owners. But the Government of this country has intervened, as it had a right to do, as the representative of the greatest shipowning country in the world, and it has intervened successfully, and by the interference of the Khedive and the Sultan this country has, as it was entitled to do, held the Company to the engagements to which it was bound by its concessions. I do not deny that if we had acquired the whole of the shares in the Company held in private hands, or had acquired a preponderating part of those shares, we might have had it in our power to make very great improvements in the Canal and in its administration, which might have been of great advantage not only to ourselves, but also to the other nations making use of it. But we do not know at present what share in the management of the Canal we have obtained by the purchase we have made. It appears to be certain, at all events, that in the councils of the General Assembly of the shareholders our influence is a very limited one indeed. We have never been told whether we shall be represented at all by the share we have obtained, or even, if so, to what extent, in the directorate of the Canal; and, as far as the information given to the public goes, we do not know what authority for the improvement of the Canal or of its administration has been secured by this great purchase of the Government. I also admit that if we had acquired ordinary shares of the Company—shares entitled to dividend—we might have had a very large indirect and moral influence in the management of the affairs of the Canal, though we might have had very little direct influence. But, unfortunately, the shares bought by the Government are, it seems to me, shares that do not tend to give us any influence whatever, either indirect, direct, or moral, of any kind, in the councils of the shareholders. Our influence with the shareholders, as far as I can ascertain, is of a totally distinct character from that of ordinary shareholders; for whereas the ordinary shareholders naturally desire to secure an immediate dividend, we, under any circumstances, are not entitled to any dividend for the next 19 years, and therefore our interest is not identical with, but entirely opposed to, that of the ordinary shareholders. Their interest is to postpone works for the improvement of the Canal,
86
and to do everything to secure present profit. To us present profit is of no moment. What our interest is, is to put the Canal in the best possible condition during these 19 years. Therefore, we do not appear to have obtained in the councils of the shareholders any voice in the management of the Canal at all commensurate with our purchase, or that directly or indirectly we have acquired such an interest as some people may choose to imagine. Supposing, however, that a satisfactory answer can be given to these questions, and that the Government can clearly show that, as Lord Derby said, we have obtained additional security for our communications with India, the House will desire to look narrowly at the manner in which this has been effected. And now as to the manner in which the transaction has been carried out. It appears to me to be a mistake to say that we have paid £4,000,000 for these shares. We are not entitled to the dividends for 19 years, and I have seen it calculated—and I believe the calculation is an accurate one—that the present value of the shares we have purchased is about £1,250,000 or £1,500,000 sterling. Admitting it to be right that this country should not make an usurious bargain with the Khedive, the deferred value that we would have to pay him may be taken at £2,000,000, or, in, other words, we are investing £2,000,000 for the sake of £200,000 a-year to be paid by the Khedive. No clear explanation up to the present time has been given of this transaction; but, taking it in connection with the mission of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shore-ham (Mr. Cave), it appears to mix us up in an extraordinary manner with the finances of the Khedive. Lord Derby, in his speech at Edinburgh, disclaimed any idea of a Protectorate of Egypt; but do not these two transactions look something very like a financial Protectorate over Egypt? The House will, I think, await with some curiosity the explanation of the Government as to its financial dealings with the Khedive. The investment of £2,000,000 in a loan to the Khedive is either an investment that was made on exceedingly bad security, or else, if we are going to undertake to put the finances of the Khedive on a satisfactory footing, we are embarking in a very large and very hazardous

87
enterprize. When the Papers are laid on the Table, I hope they will furnish the fullest information as to the instructions which the Government gave to the right hon. Grentleman the Member for Shoreham; for I cannot help thinking that the Government of this country is placed in a somewhat unenviable position by what has taken place since the mission of the right hon. Gentleman began. It cannot be satisfactory to the Government, certainly it is not satisfactory to hon. Members of this House, to know that every Stock Exchange in Europe has been agitated from day to day by reports of the proceedings of the Envoy of our Government; that one day it should be reported that the Envoy is coming home, having quarrelled with the Khedive, and that stocks should consequently fall, whilst on the next day it should be reported that the Envoy is on good terms with the Khedive, and that the stocks should immediately rise. I trust the Government will clearly explain to the country and to Europe what is the nature of the mission with which the right hon. Gentleman has been charged, and what course the Government intend to pursue in regard to Egypt. I believe the Government will admit that there is a great deal to explain, and on them rests the burden of proving that the action they have taken was necessary for the security of the Empire. They will not deny, I think, that such transactions as the present are of a delicate nature, and only to be entered into from high political and national considerations. Conducted even without the machinery of the Stock Exchange, they would be of doubtful policy. Our Government is not adapted to interfere in the management of great industrial enterprizes of this kind; their interference in such matters would rather check than encourage private enterprize and energy. We know, however, that such transactions as this cannot be conducted without the assistance of the machinery of the Stock Exchange, and of course suspicion is easily awakened as to the character of the operation. Even in the present instance large dealings are spoken of, and reports are current of large fortunes being made. Probably there is no other country in Europe where such a transaction as this would have been effected without the character of the public men negotiating
88
it being suspected. In our case, thank Heaven, no such suspicion can be whispered; but I believe that if such transactions as this should ever unfortunately become the rule, not even the character of English statesmen would escape being called in question. I think the Government, in this matter, have much to explain; but, at the same time, I have not desired in connection with it to speak in any Party sense. If I have appeared to criticize in a hostile spirit the transaction which the Government has entered into, it is because I have deemed it the best way to elicit the information which the House and the country desire. The Government, I think, will be glad to seize this opportunity of removing the misconceptions and exaggerations which have prevailed on the subject, and of laying before the country at this late hour a frank and sincere explanation of the policy which they have pursued. I feel that I have now detained the House long enough, and I will simply thank them for the patience with which they have listened to me.
MR. DISRAELI: There is one point on which I am most happy to agree with the noble Lord who has just addressed the House, and that is in his appreciation of the ability with which the Address was moved and seconded this evening. We are always gratified at a display of ability on either side of the House, for it is to the interest of all of us to sustain its reputation; and I am not using what some might suppose to be the conventional language of Parliament when I say that I have seldom seen the difficult and delicate task of moving and seconding the Address fulfilled more ably, or, so to speak, in a bettor House-of-Commons spirit than to-night. I am sure my hon. Friends must be gratified by the reception they experienced on both sides of the House, and by the courteous recognition of their ability by the noble Lord.
Having touched on this matter the noble Lord proceeded critically to analyze the contents of the gracious Speech from the Throne, and he took a course which, I think, on the whole was convenient, and was, in some degree, an example of his rhetorical skill, by passing to some points which, though mentioned in the Gracious Speech, are not at this moment of the extreme interest of those which occupy the earlier portion

89
of it. From what I gathered the noble Lord seemed to approve the intended legislation. He seemed to think the subjects deserved the attention of Parliament; but he regretted that more details were not given of the character of the Bills about to be introduced. When the Bills are brought forward, however, I think the noble Lord will obtain, in the usual Parliamentary manner, those details which he requires.
The noble Lord seemed to treat as a mere idle phrase in the Speech from the Throne that there were other important subjects to which, if opportunity is permitted us during the Session, we shall also, besides those noticed, call the attention of Parliament. I can assure the noble Lord that that was not an idle phrase; but it appeared to us that we had of late years—both parties—rather got into the habit of giving a catalogue of measures, excellent in themselves, and which, no doubt, both sides sincerely wished to carry, but which experience had shown it was impossible to carry; and then Government was taunted at the end of the Session with their list of abortive measures, whilst those measures which they had passed—measures, perhaps, of much importance and utility—were forgotten in the reprobation excited against them by not completing the catalogue which they had announced. We have other important measures that are not specified in Her Majesty's Speech. They are quite ready; and if it is any satisfaction to the noble Lord, I may say there is a measure to prevent the pollution of rivers.
The noble Lord next proceeded to the Colonies, and touched on a subject which at this moment engages the feelings of the people of this country—namely, slavery. For my part, I do not pretend that this side of the House is more zealous than the other in its attempts to discourage and abolish slavery. It is a national policy. It is a policy accepted, and must be accepted, by all who attempt to carry on the business of this country. Each Party and every Government is influenced by the same motives, always working for the same end in this matter. I might appeal with confidence to the fact that the present Government have made strong efforts not only to discourage, but to abolish slavery, under circumstances in which it was previously thought impossible we could interfere.
90
Originally the British Government terminated slavery within its own dominions; then the great passion of the people assumed another phase—it would not be satisfied until it had entirely abolished the slave trade; and I may say these two great objects have been virtually accomplished. But this country has always hesitated to attempt to interfere with what for convenience is called domestic slavery in other countries—firstly, because of our inability to deal with the evil; and, secondly, from the consciousness that our limited interference had a necessary tendency to aggravate the evil. But it did so happen that after the settlement of the war on the West Coast of Africa, Lord Carnarvon—than whom no Colonial Minister can be animated by a more powerful desire to sustain an anti-slavery policy—had an opportunity of which he availed himself, though it was considered a dangerous experiment, absolutely to terminate domestic slavery throughout the whole of that extensive region known as the protected districts of West Africa. I am not attempting to arrogate to ourselves any peculiar claim on the confidence of the House on this head. We are perfectly willing to admit that our predecessors—as I am sure our successors also, whoever they may be—would act exactly as we have acted. Still, I think I am justified in reminding the House of our conduct on the occasion I have referred to.
The noble Lord touched upon the two Circulars which have so much attracted the attention of the country. Now, with regard to that matter, I am perfectly ready to admit that the Government are responsible for the first Circular. I am myself responsible for it, although I did not see it. I hope I am not in the loose habit of fathering mistakes on some anonymous, obscure member of the Administration'—probably a permanent clerk—and saying he is the guilty person—nothing of the kind. The Circular was issued under the usual circumstances, which ought to have insured, no doubt, a different result. The Government are responsible for it, though I am not here to defend it for a moment. But the country condoned the error—they were satisfied when it was recalled, and I need not dwell upon it further. To my mind the second Circular is a much more fit subject for our consideration. For that

91
Circular the Government is responsible. The second Circular was prepared by the Cabinet, under the direct influence of the Lord Chancellor; and, in our judgment, it is an accurate declaration of the law so far as it is possible to express the instructions which have to be laid down for the guidance of those who have to carry them out. Then the noble Lord says—"What is the necessity of any Circular at all?" "Why, the necessity of Circulars is this—that our officers on foreign stations found themselves every now and then committing acts in the most innocent-minded manner which ended in actions being brought against them, damages being incurred, and compensation being paid by this country for them. Therefore, it is easy to understand why they should appeal for instructions. But, then, I am told, and we have been told to-night by persons sitting in this House of very great authority—we have been told that, and we have heard it every day for the last two or three months in the country—Why did you let your instructions be known?—why not have secret instructions? Now, I cannot agree with that suggestion. I think that great embarrassments, that great evils have arisen in this case from their being secret instructions, and there is nothing that I would more disapprove than of secret instructions for a regular and continuous conduct. It is intelligible that in a diplomatic arrangement, where you have to gain some particular point in a temporary and transient matter, you may find it necessary to give your negotiator secret instructions; but that you should have secret instructions for the fulfilment of a permanent duty, and that by officers of Her Majesty's ships, appears to me to be a most impolitic and unwise thing. I do not agree that we should not have made our instructions public in the last instance. I think they ought to have been made public from the first, and at all times, in order that the criticism of the country and public opinion might operate upon them, and I cannot doubt that the effect of this mutual assistance between the country and the officers would be highly beneficial to the latter in the fulfilment of their duties. Well, then, the noble Lord says—"But what is the use of issuing a Commission?"—a Commission which is to inquire into treaties, into the stipulations of Treaties
92
which are all to be found, no doubt, in the archives of the Foreign Office, and upon which your Law Officers ought to be able to give a definite opinion. But the Commission to which the noble Lord refers is not to look only into the stipulations of Treaties; but it is to look also into the state of public law, and see whether it is possible or necessary to alter that law which would require negotiations with foreign countries. It is not, then, a mere, reference to the stipulations of Treaties, it is to consider the public law upon this subject—to see whether it is advisable that it should be altered, and how, by negotiation, those alterations can be effected. There is another reason for the inquiry besides these technical reasons which I think sufficient. The feeling of this country always will be on this question more or less deep, and it must be a satisfaction to the country to know that there should be a full and free and open inquiry into the subject by those most competent to form an opinion upon the matter; and therefore I cannot take that view of the case which the noble Lord does. I believe the proposition which Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to recommend to the notice of Parliament is a wise and will be a salutary arrangement. The noble Lord, having touched upon these topics with less fulness, he then proceeded to the great points of his speech.
First of all he called our attention to that part of Her Majesty's Speech in which She has informed the House that She has agreed to support the Austrian Note, which seeks to induce the Porte to carry out certain suggestions which it submits with the view of terminating the insurrection that exists in the provinces of Herzegovina and Bosnia. The noble Lord, although seeming to shrink on the present occasion from any objection to the course we have taken, expressed a fear that our intervention may have passed the line which we ought to have pursued. I do not think Her Majesty's Government acted differently from the course they should have taken in the case of the Austrian proposition. The Austrian proposition, as the House knows, is a public paper which contains a great many suggestions of changes in the administration of the Turkish Provinces in question, and many fresh proposals which, if adopted, no doubt would

93
be favourable to the Christian subjects of the Porte. Suppose, for example, we bad refused to recommend the Porte to give a favourable consideration of the Austrian Note. We should have placed ourselves in a position of isolation. As a general rule, I must say that that is not a position in public affairs which it is desirable for this country to take. Generally speaking, if you place yourself in a position of isolation and do not act with the other Powers, you may certainly in some cases avoid the imputation of having combined to bring about a result which in some degree you may not entirely approve; but you deprive yourself of the means and opportunity even in a business of which you greatly disapprove of mitigating much which you cannot sanction, and of preventing much which you would not adopt. In this case it was not our opinion that it was one in which we ought to hold aloof. But suppose we had taken another course. Suppose we had refused to sanction the Austrian Note. What would have been the consequence? The consequence would have been that the Sultan probably would have rejected it. The House must feel that this country would incur a great responsibility by taking a course which she could not sustain. It would not do to counsel the Sultan to reject the Austrian Note, and then, when he found himself opposed to all the Powers of Europe, shrink away and say—"We gave you that advice, but we are not prepared to support you in acting upon it." Would it have been prudent to support the Sultan under such circumstances in choosing the question of the government of a small province like Herzegovina as the occasion, perhaps, of deciding the fate of the Turkish Empire? I think that that course was not one which could have been pursued with any advantage. Now there was a third course proposed by eminent persons, and no doubt received the sanction of men whose judgment upon such matters is not to be despised, and that was a proposal for a Conference in the matter. Had we proposed a Conference upon the state of the insurrectionary provinces of Turkey the other Powers would scarcely have agreed to the Conference. In all probability the other Powers, who had their scheme and matured it after great sacrifices and difficulty,
94
would not have accepted our proposal. But if we had succeeded in having a Conference—what could we have done at the Conference? We could only propose the very suggestions which are made in the Austrian Note, or some somewhat identical. There are subjects which we believe can be touched, and yet the independence of the Porte be respected, and subjects of that kind, perhaps identical ones, would, after all, had there been a Conference upon our advice, probably alone have been brought forward. Then I come to this—that, under these circumstances, there was no other course for England to take but calmly and gravely to consider whether it was not better and necessary—absolutely inevitable—to support the Austrian Note and advise the Porte to accept it. But before we did that we considered our course carefully. We did not act precipitately. We did not agree to the step without hesitation—prudent and proper hesitation. We did not suddenly change our mind and agree to the course of policy which we have approved. We received assurances from Russia and from Austria which to me are satisfactory, because, I am not ashamed to say, I believe they are sincere. And if what I have said were not sufficient to make the House approve of what we have done, I think, they will agree with us when I mention the last incident in this matter. Before we agreed to support the Austrian Note, it had been intimated to us, in the most unmistakable manner, that it was the desire of the Porte, however much it might be opposed to receive such a Note, that if such a Note were presented, England should not stand aloof. I hope, therefore, the noble Lord will not feel that there is any foundation for the fears he entertains—that we have embarked rashly on an intervention to which there could be no limit. So far as England is concerned, she is as free and as independent to act in this matter—if this attempt at a settlement of the Provinces should fail—as she ever was; and she will act in the manner which becomes those—as far as her present Administration is concerned—who wish to maintain the Empire of England, its independence, and its freedom in all those quarters which are affected by this great controversy.
I now come to the question of the Sue Canal, The noble Lord found

95
a good foundation for his speech in our conduct in reference to the Suez Canal. The noble Lord's speech on the Suez Canal was of a peculiar kind, and it appeared to have affected the whole of his argument. Virtually he said this—"Did you embark in this speculation for the reason alleged by Lord Derby?"—and the noble Lord quoted words attributed to Lord Derby. Lord Derby has, in other places, alleged other reasons. I suppose the House is not surprised that there are more reasons than one. "Did you embark in this speculation for the reason alleged by Lord Derby at Edinburgh, or did you do it on account of the Eastern Question?" Well, first of all, I should like to know what the noble Lord means by the Eastern Question; and I should like to know what Member of the Government has ever used the words "Eastern Question" with regard to the Suez Canal? Why, Sir, the relations between the British Government and the Suez Canal are not relations of yesterday. This is not a subject kept in obscurity by Her Majesty's Government, or by the Government that has preceded us, who had also some experience of the Suez Canal and the nature and value of its property. The interest we felt in the Suez Canal had many ramifications. When we acceded to office two years ago, an International Commission had only just ceased its labours at Constantinople upon the dues of the Suez Canal, and upon the means of ascertaining and maintaining a limit of them, and it had arrived at reasons entirely protested against by the Proprietary. What was the state of affairs there? Lord Derby had to deal with them. The proprietary of the Canal threatened, and not only threatened but proceeded, to stop the Canal. They refused pilots; they threatened to change the signals; they took steps which would have intercepted that mode of intercourse with India. Well, what course did the English take? We appealed to the Suzerain—then more powerful on such questions than at present. But it was with extreme difficulty—it was only by exerting our influence at Constantinople, and also at Cairo, by the influence, not only of the Suzerain but of the Khedive himself, that the mischief was prevented. And how was it prevented? Why, affairs had got to such a point that a force
96
of 10,000 men was ordered to the scene of action; and it was only at the last moment that the proprietary of the Canal gave up its hostile operations, but under protest—protest still continually renewed—calling upon the Porte, as Suzerain, to re-imburse and compensate them for the losses which they had experienced by adopting the tariff forced upon them. From that moment it became a matter of interest to those responsible for the government of this country to see what could be done to remedy those relations with the Suez Canal. It was a matter of immense difficulty, but still it was not neglected by the Government; for during that period, on more than one occasion, M. Lesseps came over here himself, and entered into communication with us as he had before with our Predecessors, but there was no possible means of coming to any settlement which would be satisfactory to the proprietary. Now what was the peculiar influence—a very transitory influence, but still an influence—by which we managed to bring about a tolerable state of affairs? Why, it was the influence of the Suzerain and the Khedive—principally, of course, of the Khedive. We found him—as Governments of England have generally found him—a faithful ally; one disposed favourably to consider every fair claim of this country. It was the influence of the Khedive, who was proprietor of a moiety, certainly of two-fifths of the shares, that counteracted the dissatisfied spirit of the proprietary. But it suddenly comes to our knowledge that the Khedive, on whose influence we mainly depended, is going to part with his shares. We received a telegram from Cairo informing us that the Khedive was anxious to raise a considerable sum of money upon his shares in the Suez Canal, and offered them to England. We considered the question immediately, and it appeared to us to be a complicated transaction—one to which there were several objections; and we sent back to say that we were favourably disposed to assist the Khedive, but that, at the same time, we were only prepared to purchase the shares outright. What was the answer? The answer was that the Khedive was resolved, if he possibly could, to keep his shares, and that he could only, therefore, avail himself of a loan. There matters seemed to end.

97
Then, suddenly, there came news to the Government of this country that a French Society—the Société Générale—was prepared to offer to the Khedive a large sum of money—very little inferior to the £4,000,000—but on very onerous conditions. The Khedive communicated with us, and said the conditions were so severe that he would sooner sell the shares outright and—which I had forgotten to mention—that, in deference to his promise that England should always have the refusal of the shares if he decided to sell them, he offered them to the English Government. It was absolutely necessary to decide at that moment what course we should take. It was not a thing on which we could hesitate. We knew, on the 20th of November, that there was a French Society who was prepared—I say nothing about the terms—[An hon. MEMBER: Hear, hear!]—I say nothing about the terms, but they were severer than ours—to give the Khedive nearly £4,000,000 for his shares. Now, I must call the attention of the House to a remarkable diplomatic scene. The Papers will, no doubt, be laid on the Table of the House; but I quote from the French despatches in the Yellow Book placed upon the Table of the French Assembly. On the 20th of November it was believed in France that this French Society to which I have referred had succeeded, and had got the Khedive's shares, and the French Minister—not Ambassador, who was absent, but a gentleman we know and respect highly—M. Gavard—was absolutely instructed to call upon Lord Derby—I do not say for the purpose of pumping him—but to sound him whether England would tolerate the purchase of those shares by the French Society in question; and Lord Derby spoke with the utmost frankness on the subject. He said it was a very grave point; that he did not think England would view with favour the whole of the Khedive's shares passing to the French Company; that while we accorded to M. Lesseps the glory of this great work, and did not want the shares ourselves, we should be very glad if the Khedive retained his shares, and that things had gone on quietly, as we should have trusted to his just management. But, said Lord Derby, if you come to us for our opinion as to what the feelings of England would be in respect to the purchase of all those
98
shares by France, I will frankly tell you that she would consider such a result as a calamity, and I certainly could not look with approval upon the accomplishment of such an arrangement. Well, on the 27th of November, the French Ambassador, the Marquis d'Harcourt, returned to England and called on Lord Derby upon the same subject—the Suez Canal shares of the Khedive; and it was to ask an explanation why England had bought them, and what was the intention of England in so doing. Therefore, within those seven days—between the 20th and 27th—all those various phases had occurred in the transaction, and during that period, having only had 48 hours, we did arrive at our decision. Lord Derby told the French Ambassador why we had decided. He said we should have been very well pleased if the thing had remained as it was; but that England could not see with satisfaction all those shares in the hands of one Company, and that, therefore, we had taken the step he came to inquire about. To pretend that Lord Derby has treated this business as a mere commercial speculation, as has been stated by an hon. Member of this House, is idle. If he did not act in accordance with the principles of high policy, I should like to know what high policy is, and how a man can pursue it. Apart from looking upon this as an investment, if the shares had been offered, and if there had been no arrangement of paying interest for 19 years, so far as I am concerned, I should have been in favour of the purchase of the shares. I should have agreed with Lord Derby in thinking that England would never be satisfied if all the shares of the Suez Canal were possessed by a foreign Company. Then it is said, if any obstacles had been put in your way by the French proprietors of the Canal, you know very well that ultimately it must come to force, and you will then obtain at once the satisfaction you desire. Well, if the government of the world was a mere alternation between abstract right and overwhelming force, I agree there is a good deal in that observation; but that is not the way in which the world is governed. The world is governed by conciliation, compromise, influence, varied interests, the recognition of the rights of others, coupled with the assertion of one's own; and in addition a general conviction, resulting from explanation

99
and good understanding, that it is for the interest of all parties that matters should be conducted in a satisfactory and peaceful manner. Therefore I say that even if the arrangement had been such as the noble Lord assumes, and we had had but very little power in the representation and management of the Canal—even if that had been the case, I cannot doubt that the moral influence of England, possessing two-fifths of the shares in this great undertaking, must have made itself felt, must have had a considerable influence upon the conduct of those who managed the Company, and must have resulted in arrangements tending to mutual and general advantage. The noble Lord has sneered at our having only a few votes in a meeting of shareholders; but I think that one effect of the mission of Mr. Cave and Colonel Stokes will be to bring about a different result. It is not convenient at this moment—the House will understand when the negotiation is not absolutely finished that it is not convenient to enter into particulars; but I am justified in saying that, as far as one can form a judgment, there is every prospect of English interests being amply and adequately represented in the management of the Company. Then the noble Lord finds fault with us for not resorting to the advice of Parliament after we had completed the provisional transaction. He says—"This is a case of unprecedented expenditure, and you ought to have appealed immediately to Parliament." I would remind the noble Lord that it is not a case of unprecedented expenditure, because not a shilling has yet been expended. When the Bank Act was suspended Parliament was instantly summoned, because when the Bank proposed to pay for gold with paper the nation became much alarmed, and desired that the causes for such a course should be inquired into, in order that, if necessary, a Parliamentary indemnity should be given. There is no violation of the law in what has taken place. It is very much like a complaint I heard the other day, that we ought to have gone to the Bank of England, and not to the house of Rothschild, in reference to this purchase. The Bank of England would no more have advanced £4,000,000 for the purchase of these shares, and taken the responsibility of holding them upon themselves,
100
than they would have paid off the National Debt. The Bank of England would have been ready, I dare say, if it were legal, to advance £4,000,000 to the Government. But the house of Rothschild did not merely advance £4,000,000. "We said—" Will you purchase these shares on our engagement that we will ask the House of Commons to take them off your hands?" They did so. That was a great risk, and I believe they would not have undertaken it if they had not felt that it was of great consequence to the country that they should do so. It would be a rare and unexpected and unparalleled thing for the Bank of England, or any other bank, to undertake such a responsibility. Well, now, the noble Lord says he wants to know how this Canal purchase is to be an additional security for our route to India—is it in time of peace or in time of war that it is to be an additional security? Well, I have no hesitation in saying in time of peace, and I think I have shown him that our possessing this great interest in this undertaking, that our possessing this power and consequence, is an additional security to us—a security in times of peace. When the noble Lord asks me, Is it an additional security in time of war? I would say that I must refrain from entering into speculations of what England will do in time of war, or what will be the circumstances in the Mediterranean or the Levantin times of war. We are contemplating this purchase in reference to a time of peace, and we may form such conclusions as we like as to what might be its worth in a time of war. And in times of peace no one can doubt the advantage of this purchase, when you remember when we had not a share how we were then menaced with the shutting of the Canal. We know how there are a thousand ways, without authorizing the use of preponderating force, to assert our rights; there are a thousand ways of obstructing the navigation of the Canal, and if the interest we have obtained is merely for times of peace, it is a most important result. As for the assertion that in this affair the whole of what the noble Lord calls the "Eastern Question" is concerned, I have nothing to do with it. I have nothing more to do with that than with the idle observations that we hear every now and then on the course

101
we have pursued—that we have changed our Eastern policy, and that we have substituted another policy for that which is the ancient policy of England. I utterly deny that. The policy of England in that part of the world is much more simple than would be suspected from the cloudy descriptions of it which one sometimes encounters. England is a Mediterranean Power; a great Mediterranean Power. This is shown by the fact that in time of war always, and frequently in time of peace, she has the greatest force upon those waters. Further more she has strongholds upon those waters which she will never relinquish. The policy of England, however, is not one of aggression. It is not Provinces she wants. She will not interest herself in the re-distribution of territory on the shores of the Mediterranean as long as that re-distribution does not imperil the freedom of the seas and the dominion which she legitimately exercises. And therefore I look upon this, that in the great chain of fortresses which we possess, almost from the metropolis to India, that the Suez Canal is a means of securing the free intercourse of the waters—is a great addition to that security, and one we should prize. Now, I think I have touched upon most of the subjects, except one, which the noble Lord treated upon, and that is the analysis of the price which the shares really ought to have commanded. I will not enter upon that subject at present, because on Monday next we shall have an opportunity of going, if necessary, and if desired by the House, into the most minute details of figures. All I will now say is, that I entirely protest against, and shall be prepared to show that there is no foundation for, the statement of the noble Lord. The fact is, that though we gave £4,000,000 for the shares, there were other £4,000,000 in a hostile quarter ready to be paid for the same shares. Therefore, it is not likely that there would be two competitors who were offering the same sum, if, as the noble Lord has so satisfactorily proved, we ought to have got the shares for half the sum we have given for them. But there will be a better opportunity on Monday for the noble Lord and his Friends to go into the subject in detail than would be fitting upon the present occasion, when all discussion upon it must necessarily be desultory; although I trust I have met
102
most of the objections of the noble Lord as far as they go. On Monday next we shall again go into this question, when it may be sifted and it may be examined by men of different orders and tones of mind. Some may take an economical view of the subject, some may take a commercial view, some may take a peaceful view, some may take a warlike view of it; but of this I feel persuaded—and I speak with confidence—that when I appeal to the House of Commons for their vote they will agree with the country, that this was a purchase which was necessary to maintain the Empire, and which favours in every degree the policy which this country ought to sustain.
MR. GLADSTONE: If the House, Sir, will be good enough to favour me with its attention for a short time, I will at once seek to relieve hon. Members from the apprehension which will, perhaps, be uppermost in the minds of many, that what I am about to say at this peculiar hour will lead to a prolonged debate. I intend to confine my remarks to one or two points which will excite no controversy whatever between the two sides of the House, although they relate to the very important subject of what is termed "the Eastern Question," in respect of which I desire to discharge myself of what I feel is a peculiar responsibility cast upon me. I shall therefore make no reference whatever to the many interesting topics which have been dealt with by my noble Friend and by the right hon Gentleman, because I think with them that other opportunities are at hand when we shall be in a position to deal with them to a greater advantage than we could at the present moment. In referring to the Eastern Question, apart from the subject of the Suez Canal, the right hon. Gentleman appeared to be under the impression that the noble Marquess in his speech, not, perhaps, in the way of direct assertion, but of apprehension and doubt, had suggested something like a censure upon the conduct pursued by Her Majesty's Government in giving their adhesion to the Austrian Note. Now, Sir, for myself I have no authority, nor do I assume any, to explain the speech of the noble Marquess, but, speaking as one of the auditors of that speech, I must say that I am at a loss to conceive in what part of it, or in what words, the right hon. Gentleman discovered any such disposition

103
on the part of the noble Marquess to question or censure this portion of the Government's policy. The noble Marquess, with that prudence and wisdom which marked the whole tenour of his speech, endeavoured to warn hon. Members and the public against expecting very speedy results from any intervention that might be attempted; In the wisdom of that warning we are all disposed to concur; but, if I rightly understood the noble Marquess he expressed his unhesitating approval of the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in giving their adhesion to the Austrian Note, so far as we are acquainted with the particulars—and we are of course very imperfectly acquainted with them. But I wish to say a word or two on this special question. If, indeed, any doubt or misgiving existed in the minds of any one as to the propriety of this proceeding on the part of Her Majesty's Government, I think that the reasons which the right hon. Gentleman has given for the course they have taken, would sufficiently justify their conduct in the matter. I, however, hope that in giving the reasons he has done for the acts of the Government the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to convey the idea that there are no other and broader and deeper motives for the step they have taken than those he has assigned. At any rate, I wish to explain to the House very clearly what I conceive to be morally and historically the position of this question as it concerns this country and its relations with the Turkish Empire. To do this satisfactorily I must revert to the period of the Crimean War, and perhaps the House will excuse me for making the reference, for I am, indeed, the only man in this House who was responsible as a Minister for leading the country into that war, and therefore I may be supposed to be in some degree cognizant of the views which led us to take that step, with regard to which there has been much diversity of opinion and much misrepresentation. What was generally understood to be the purpose of the Crimean War, was expressed in the phrase that we sought to maintain the integrity and independence of the Turkish Empire. That was a phrase which was a favourite with the public at that time. It implied that we were to make very vigorous efforts to repress the designs and attempts by the Russian Empire which appeared
104
to be dangerous to the peace of Europe. Some persons thought that England had a separate interest in that war independent of that of Europe, but that was an idea that I never entertained. But in upholding the integrity and in dependence of the Turkish Empire I will venture to say for myself and the Government of that day that they entertained the strongest opinion as to the conditions which were requisite for that integrity and that independence. I am not going to refer to anything so slight and trivial and so likely to be misleadiag as individual recollections, but I point to facts which amount to demonstration of the proposition. References have been made to-night to the opinion of Lord Palmerston that he was most anxious to maintain the independence and integrity of Turkey. Lord Palmerston, there can be no doubt, was sanguine beyond most men in his belief that these would be maintained. He had a freshness and almost youthfulness of faith on the subject, which no one could regard without interest, especially when his long and distinguished life was approaching its close. But Lord Palmerston knew on all occasions that a vital and essential condition of that state of things was the redress of grievances within the Turkish Empire; that it was totally impossible in the face of Christian Europe that the state of things prevailing at that period between the Mahomedan Power and the subject Christian population, especially the Europeans, could be persisted in, and the people of these countries, anxious as they were to stop Russian aggression, never would have entered on that war unless they had received what they thought conclusive and sufficient guarantees that these grievances would be redressed. This was not a mere matter of individual opinion, and so strong was this feeling in Europe that in the very heat of the crisis the Sultan, by a most solemn instrument, was compelled to pledge himself, as far as the constitutions of the country would permit him, to redress those grievances, and to place them upon a religious—of course, I do not say a political—equality with the rest of his subjects. That instrument was one of the great and fundamental facts of the time of the Crimean War, and my proposition is this—that, after the Crimean War, after that effusion of life and treasure, after Europe had been involved

105
in the struggle, and its whole existence, as it were, suspended upon it for those years, and after it was made known to Turkey that it was absolutely necessary, in view of those who supported her, that stringent and effectual provision should be made for the redress of those grievances, it is doubly impossible after those facts have been placed on record, that the Government of this country could fold its arms and say that the relations of the Turkish Ruler and his Christian subjects are to us matters of no concern. We cannot now turn round and say—" We have no right to expect anything from the Sultan, and the Christian population of Turkey has no right to expect anything at our hands." I am most grateful, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government, instead of being actuated by that principle—a principle totally inconsistent with the facts of history and with the most obvious and most elementary obligations of national duty—have given in their adhesion to the Austrian Note. I do not enter fully into this question at the present moment, because I do not feel myself prepared to do so; but all I can say is, that I am most thankful that the Government have not taken a course of abstentation upon this important occasion. When we know the terms of Count Andrassy's Note, it will be our duty to consider them, and all further steps that are taken in this matter will be subject to the control and the government of this House. But at the present moment, recollecting as I do that there were many apparently friendly counsellors of the Government, at the period when they had this matter under deliberation, who were warning them—in the Press—to do nothing at all; I for my part congratulate and express my acknowledgments to the Government for declining to be inveigled and misled by those unwise counsellors. I will not now enter into the question whether the promises of the Ottoman Government with regard to its Christian subjects have or have not been shamelessly broken. This I must say—the Ottoman Government has been well represented to us in many of its personal Representatives. It has had Ministers of great ability within our memory; but, unfortunately, most of those men, whose energies and talents induced Lord Palmerston to entertain such sanguine expectations with regard to Turkey, have been
106
removed by early death. In this country for nearly 30 years, I think, if not more, we have had the advantage of seeing the Porte represented at the Court of our Sovereign by a Minister who enjoys the respect and regard of all who have the pleasure of his acquaintance. When the Sultan of that extended Empire visited this country, the impression which his personal demeanour produced upon those who were brought into contact with him was an impression of the most satisfactory description. I think I am bound to say, in justice to the Ottoman Government, that I believe that the resolutions which were announced at Constantinople at the time when that Government promised internal reforms were sincerely made. But the difficulty of the case of Turkey is this—it has not, as a general rule, or it has only to a very scanty degree, a class of men of power, influence, education, and station, without whom it is impossible to give effect to the decisions of the Government. In certain cases, no doubt, improvements were effected shortly after the Crimean War, in accordance with the provisions of the Firman or Hatihumayoun which had been issued by the Sultan. It will be for the Government, when the time has arrived, to give us full information of the particulars of the recent intervention, and to give us such information as may enable us to judge whether the promises that were so solemnly made have been kept, and whether we have reason to hope that if those promises are now renewed, they will be more effectually kept in future. But I fear that a want of executive power will defeat the best intentions of the Government of Turkey. This proposition, for my own part, I maintain, that if promises such as these so solemnly given have really failed in their fulfilment, it is not possible to go on with a mere repetition of promises. Europe, the Christian conscience, and the conscience of mankind will expect some other sort of security for the redress of great and dreadful grievances than mere words can afford; and however desirous we may be to maintain the integrity and independence of the Turkish Empire, that integrity and independence can never be effectually maintained unless it can be proved to the world—and proved not by words, but by acts—that the Government of Turkey has the power to administer a fair measure of justice to

107
all its subjects alike, whether Christian or Mahomedan. Believing myself that this is a subject on which we have no difference of opinion according to our political separation, and that at the same time it is a subject of great importance, I was very desirous to make these brief explanations, and I thank the House for the kindness with which it has listened to them.
MR. BUTLER-JOHNSTONEsaid, that if it had not been for the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Gladstone), he should not have thought fit to present himself to the attention of the House; but the right hon. Gentleman had, under the cloak of approving a particular act of the Government, recommended a policy which was not the policy of the Government, and which he was happy to say was directly contrary to the spirit of the policy of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that by the insertion into the Treaty of Paris of the promise of reforms made by the Sultan on that occasion, European Powers had acquired the right—a moral right at any rate—to see those reforms properly carried out. He would ask whether that was a right which only dated from to-day, and whether, during all the many years that the right hon. Gentleman was at the head of affairs, he had once remonstrated in a friendly way with the Porte relative to the condition of the country, when those remonstrances might have been effective and could not be interpreted as hostile acts? Then, again, the right hon. Gentleman went back to the year 1856, at the close of the Crimean War. He (Mr. Butler-Johnstone) would ask to be allowed to go back to that year too, and to say that all the troubles and difficulties in which Turkey was at the present time involved were owing to what occurred at that epoch. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to Turkey as a despotic form of government. Well, previous to that year Turkey was the least despotically-governed country in the world. It was a government essentially of checks and counter-checks: the Pasha elected by the Divan, the Cadi by the chief of the Law, the local administration of the Provinces, all independent of each other, and at Constantinople no Imperial measure decided on without due deliberation by a Divan. In 1856, as a result
108
of the Crimean War, the influence of European nations—of the Western nations—became predominant, and, under cover of this predominance, Ali Pasha introduced a revolution in the government of Turkey, from which it has ever since been suffering—namely, from being a constitutional government, he converted it into a despotism by the abolition of the constitutional Divan. What were the cardinal vices of the Turkish Empire at the present day? The first great grievance in Turkey was the maladministration of the Provinces, which arose principally from the fact that the Pashas were changed at the mere will of the Sovereign. The under-officials, when the eye over them was being constantly changed, became corrupt; but, in former times, the Sultan had no power to change the Governors of Provinces without consultation, with his Divan. Another source of corruption was that Firmans and decrees were continually being passed by the Sultan and were not yet obeyed in the Provinces. Thirdly, there was the financial condition arising from its Debt. Now, each one of these vices arose from the pernicious change introduced when the Divan was abolished and the Government of Turkey revolutionized into a despotism. These Firmans and decrees had no binding force in Turkey, because no arbitrary decrees could by the Constitution of Turkey—which was centuries old and had never been legally abolished—be issued; and if you wished to see these decrees and Firmans enforced and carried out, you must try to bring about the revival of the old Turkish Constitution. If your efforts were devoted to this end, you might effect a, great and beneficial reform in the Turkish Empire which mere adhesion to the Austrian Note could never effect. If the Government thought that the reception of the Andrassy Note was the conclusion of the Eastern difficulty, he could only congratulate them upon ther simplicity. He trusted that the Government would preserve absolute freedom of action, so that in time to come their policy might not be fettered. Anybody who expected that the Ottoman Empire had no sources of vitality in it would be entirely disappointed. As to the Suez Canal purchase, he did not remember such another unanimous verdict of approval in this country as had ratified that transaction,

109
therefore it was not worth while to defend it. He would only venture this criticism, that the new order of things which had been introduced by this purchase seemed to recognize the importance to us of the marine highway to India; but this highway could not be of much importance unless England was absolute mistress of the seas. She could not be this until she had annulled the Declaration of Paris, to which, in a fatal moment, she put her hand. The purchase of the Canal shares to him seemed to imply the annulling the Declaration of Paris.
MR. MITCHELL HENRY: I am one of those hon. Members who survived the horrors of the middle passage in the rush to the House of Lords this afternoon. I went into that Assembly in the hope of hearing something that would be satisfactory to that portion of the United Kingdom which my hon. Friends around me, and myself, as well as some of those on the other side of the House, represent. I confess that during that passage I thought that if the time comes, as I think it will come, when perhaps even Her gracious Majesty herself will open Parliament in another place, her retinue will be able to manage the ceremonial somewhat more respectfully so far as the Commons are concerned. I do not know if I should to-night have ventured to intrude upon the House of Commons, if it had not been for the observations which fell from the hen. Member for Downpatrick (Mr. Mulholland) who seconded the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, who expressed his satisfaction at a circumstance which, I feel certain, will produce an exactly opposite feeling across the Channel. The people of Ireland will not feel satisfaction at the statement that the condition of the country is a matter of absolute indifference to Her Majesty. The hon. Gentleman to whose speech I refer stated that Ireland was tranquil, that Ireland was prosperous, and he very justly said that the Irish people were thankful to Providence for the excellent harvest with which they were blest last year. The Irish people have, indeed, reason to be thankful to Providence, for it is little they get from man. When, however, he told us that there was satisfaction, prosperity, and tranquillity in the country, he might have remembered that at this present
110
moment—the House of Commons may feel proud under the circumstances—that there are, I believe, now—within the last three weeks—six counties in Ireland enjoying the ordinary rights of British subjects. The rest of Ireland is under the galling code of coercion, which is the heritage of the last Session. Finding, as the Irish Members have, that the interests of their country are not sufficient to occupy the attention of Her Majesty's Government, and being desirous of showing their fellow-subjects in England that the statement that Ireland is governed by the same laws as this country is not the fact, they have decided to introduce Bills which will give this House an opportunity of pronouncing an opinion whether or not the statement that Ireland lives under English law is true or false. It is perfectly untrue that Ireland is governed by the same laws as England. The Parliamentary franchise, the municipal franchise, and the municipal privileges of Ireland are quite different from those of England. We have been so fortunate as to obtain in the Ballot such a position as will enable us soon to bring some of these matters before the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman, whom I am proud to follow, will submit to the House a subject which might have been thought well worthy of an intellectual Cabinet—ameasure for improving higher education in Ireland. He will also introduce a Bill designed to amend some glaring and patent defects in the law relating to the tenure of land in that country. The other Bills which will be introduced will, at all events, show that there is on the part of the Irish people a determination that no stone shall be left unturned to show to the Houses of Parliament that they desire to be judged fairly. If their legislation is neglected they will, as far as they can, and as long as they are obliged to come to this House for their local legislation, endeavour to repair the errors which I think will be shown to exist, and which might have met with some attention on the part of Her Majesty's Government. I can only say that they will give the House of Commons an opportunity of learning what it is that Ireland demands. There will be no shrinking from any debate on the subject of the demand of Ireland for the restoration of her national Parliament and for the modification of

111
the powers of that Parliament. Although I will not touch on the subject of foreign policy, which Her Majesty's Ministers think quite sufficient to fill all the void in the minds of the people of England and Ireland—for it appears that we are to have a Session devoted chiefly to foreign policy—I wish to guard against the idea that Ireland concurs in or is satisfied with the foreign policy of England. The Irish people are disposed to support a policy founded on good faith and justice, and which will make this great country invulnerable to its enemies. To effect this, however, they must be united among themselves; and if the tone of the speech of the hon. Member for Downpatrick (Mr. Mulholland) is to be regarded as an expression of the sentiments of this House, I am sure they will not be united. It is a calumny to say as, I trust, will be proved to demonstration in the course of this Session, that it is the intention of the Irish Members to obstruct legislation in this House. Their desire, on the contrary, is that the grievances of their country should be redressed, and they will endeavour to give the Government and the House an opportunity of redressing them.
MR. RONAYNEsaid, he had also heard with great astonishment the hon. Member for Downpatrick (Mr. Mulholland) congratulate his country on being treated with sovereign contempt. With regard to the alleged prosperity of Ireland, if the statements he had been hearing on that subject from his youth upwards, from Lords Lieutenant, and in Speeches from the Throne, were true, Ireland ought to be the wealthiest and most prosperous country in the world. He knew nothing personally about the linen trade of the North, which the hon. Member had described as being in a prosperous condition, but he had been assured by many gentlemen who were connected with that trade that for the last three years it had been the reverse of prosperous, and that there was nothing but grumbling and growling at its state. If bad trade, small profits, short time for the workers, and several heavy failures were evidence of prosperity the hon. Member was right, not otherwise. With regard to the rest of the country, if the hon. Member had given them the number of Civil Bill processes, the number of notices to quit, and the number of ejectments which had been issued last
112
year he would have furnished them with some means of forming an idea of the prosperity of the country. The Chairman of the Munster Bank, a Member of that House, had recently stated to his constituents that last year was the worst the bank had ever had. With respect to the deposits in the Irish banks, which had been said to have increased, they did not, taken altogether, equal the amount deposited in the London and Westminster Bank alone. He denied that the increase of deposits in the Irish banks was any proof of the prosperity of the country; the reason was that the people had more security now than they felt they had formerly, and they now kept less money in their own hands, and they were encouraged to do so because, in addition to security, they also received interest upon their deposits. Some years ago there were several grounds which prevented them from having any confidence in the banks, and among them such banks as the Sadlier's banks. It was true that labouring men in Ireland now had better wages and more continuous occupation than they used to have, but a shilling used to go twice as far as it did now, and the existence of higher wages was owing to the fact that there were fewer hands. You had got rid of the surplus population, half of them had gone to their graves and half to America, and, of course, the people that remained were better off; but that did not prove that Ireland was wealthier or more productive. For instance, if two persons had a little shop by which they earned 10 s. a-week between them, they would be starving, if you killed one, the other would be comparatively well off, but that would be no proof that the shop was producing any more. The produce of Ireland had decreased, the land of Ireland was going out of cultivation, and the people were decreasing, and he could not therefore allow the House to be misled by a misstatement as to the prosperity of the country which was not borne out by facts. These things indicated in other countries decline, but in Ireland they were regarded as signs of prosperity.
MR. WARDsaid, that the Irish Members in that House and the people of Ireland outside its walls were aware that Ireland was neglected, and had not the just measure of legislation that she was entitled to. They were told that if

113
they brought the grievances and requirements of Ireland before the English Parliament, they would obtain a just consideration and redress. Now, he must say that there "were many, very many questions in Ireland which called for just legislation, and which had not yet received it; and it was only three years ago the then Prime Minister declared that the state of education in Ireland was intolerably bad and called for legislative improvement; yet now, after three years, there had not been a single proposal put forward by Her Majesty's Government to improve the state of education in that country. They were told that something was to be done for University education in England; but not a single proposition for relieving the educational wants of Ireland was made by the Government. The only other topic to which he would advert was one of some delicacy. He meant the question of dealing with the political prisoners. The present was a favourable opportunity for the Government to have done a graceful act by enabling Her Gracious Majesty to announce in Her Speech that there had been an end put to the imprisonment of those men who had already expiated any offence of which they had been guilty by a most cruel imprisonment of 10 years. There was a large mass of people in Ireland, and in England also, who considered it cruel and impolitic to keep those men in prison any longer, especially after the liberation of their leaders.
SIR JOHN SCOURFIELDwished that Her Majesty's Government would redress the grievances which arose in this country from the importation of cattle from Ireland. On one side of the water the Government Inspector passed the cattle, and on this side he stopped them. He considered it unjust to impose expenditure on one county for carrying out the cost of quarantine in another. He thought instructions ought to be given to the Government Inspectors to regulate matters in reference to this question in a just and satisfactory manner.
MR. PARNELLsaid, the Prime Minister might be assured that the continued imprisonment of the Irish prisoners was not conducive either to the interests of humanity or the interests of his Government. It was not worth the while of the Government to keep Ireland
114
in a chronic state of discontent by keeping these men in prison, and the Government could do nothing which would give such satisfaction to Irishmen as the release of the political prisoners. They were not even ringleaders, but bravo soldiers and sailors who had fought well for England.
Motion agreed to.
Committee appointed, to draw up an Address to be presented to Her Majesty upon the said Resolution:—Mr. RIDLET, Mr. MULHOLLAND, Mr. DISRAELI, Mr. CHANCELLOR. of the EXCHEQUER, Mr. Secretary Cross, Mr. Secretary HARDY, Mr. HUNT, Sir CHARLES ADDERLEY, Lord John MASNERS, Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH, Viscount SANDON, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Mr. BOURIKE, Viscount BARRINGTON, Sir JAMES ELPHINSTOSE, Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, and Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE, or any Three of them:—To withdraw immediately.
House adjourned at a quarter after Nino o'clock.

Preamble
THE PARLIAMENT, which had been Prorogued successively from the 13th day of August, 1875, to the 29th day of October; thence to the 15th day of December; thence to Tuesday, the 8th day of February, 1876, met this day for the Despatch of Business.
The Session of PARLIAMENT was opened by THE QUEEN in Person.

THE QUEEN'S SPEECH.
Her Majesty, being seated on the Throne, adorned with Her Crown and Regal Ornaments, and attended by Her Officers of State, (the Lords being in their robes)—commanded the Yeoman
2
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, in pursuance of Her Majesty's Commands, delivered Her Majesty's Speech as follows:—
"My Lords, and Gentlemen,
"IT is with much satisfaction that I again resort to the advice and assistance of my Parliament.
"My relations with all Foreign Powers continue to be of a cordial character.
"The insurrectionary movement, which, during the last six months, has been maintained in the Turkish Provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and which the troops of the Sultan have, up to the present time, been unable to repress, has excited the attention and interest of the great European Powers. I have considered it my duty not to stand aloof from the efforts now being made by allied and friendly Governments to bring about a pacification of the disturbed districts, and I have accordingly, while respecting the independence of the Porte, joined in urging on the Sultan the expediency of adopting such measures of administrative reform as may remove all reasonable cause of discontent on the part of his Christian subjects.
"I have agreed to purchase, subject to your sanction, the shares which belonged to the Khedive of Egypt in the Suez Canal, and I rely with confidence on your enabling me to complete a transaction in which the public interests are deeply involved.
"The representations which I addressed to the Chinese Government, as to the attack made in the course of last year on the Expedition sent from Burmah to the Western Provinces of China, have been received in a friendly spirit. The circumstances of that lamentable outrage are now the subject of an inquiry, in which I have thought it right to request that a Member of my Diplomatic Service should take part. I await the result of this inquiry in the firm conviction that it will be so conducted as to lead to the discovery and punishment of the offenders.
"Papers on all these subjects will be laid before you.
"I am deeply thankful for the uninterrupted health which my dear Son, the Prince of Wales, has enjoyed during his journey through India. The hearty affection with which he has been received by my Indian subjects of all classes and races assures me that they are happy under my rule, and loyal to my throne. At the time that the direct Government of my Indian Empire was transferred to the Crown, no formal addition was made to the style and titles of the Sovereign. I have deemed the present a fitting opportunity for supplying this omission, and a Bill upon the subject will be presented to you.
"The humane and enlightened policy consistently pursued by this country in putting an end to slavery within her own dependencies, and in suppressing the Slave Trade throughout the world, makes it important that the action of British National ships in the territorial waters of Foreign States should be in harmony with these great principles. I have, therefore, given directions for the issue of a Royal Commission to inquire into all Treaty engagements and other International obligations bearing upon this subject, and all instructions from time to time issued to my naval officers, with a view to ascertain whether any steps ought to be taken to secure for my ships and their Commanders abroad greater power for the maintenance of the right of personal liberty.
"A Bill will be laid before you for punishing Slave Traders who are subjects of Native Indian Princes.
"The affairs of my Colonial Empire, the general prosperity of which has continued to advance, have received a large share of my attention.

5
Papers of importance and interest will soon be in your hands showing the proceedings with respect to a Conference of the South African Colonies and States.
"The murder of a high officer of the Straits Settlements whilst acting as Resident in a neighbouring Malay State, and the disorders ensuing on that outrage, have demanded the interference of my troops. I trust that the operations, which have been ably and energetically conducted, though not without the loss of some valuable lives, have restored order, and re-established the just influence and authority of this country.
"Gentlemen of the House of Commons,
"I have directed the Estimates of the year to be prepared and presented to you without delay.
"My Lords, and Gentlemen,
"Bills for regulating the Ultimate Tribunal of Appeal for the United Kingdom, and for the amendment of the Merchant Shipping Laws, will be immediately submitted to you.
"Legislation will be proposed relating to the Universities and to Primary Education.
"Your attention will be called also to the Acts relating to the Inclosure of Commons, and to a measure for promoting economy and efficiency in the management of Prisons, and at the same time effecting a relief of local burthens.
"Other important measures, as the time of the Session permits, will be introduced to your notice; and I pray that your deliberations may, under the Divine blessing, result in the happiness and contentment of my people."
And then Her Majesty was pleased to retire.
And the Commons withdrew.
ROLL OF THE LORDS—Garter King of Arms attending, delivered at the Table (in the usual manner) a List of the Lords Temporal in the Third Session of the Twenty-first Parliament of the United Kingdom: 'The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

NEW PEERS.
John Ralph Ormsby-Gore, Esquire, having been created Baron Harlech of Harlech in the county of Merioneth—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
John Tollemache, Esquire, having been created Baron Tollemache of Helmingham Hall in the county of Suffolk—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
Sir Robert Tolver Gerard, Baronet, having been created Baron Gerard of Bryn in the county palatine of Lancaster—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

SAT FIRST.
The Lord Dorchester, after the death of his Cousin.
SELECT VESTRIES.
Bill, pro formâ, read 1a.

THE QUEEN'S SPEECH. ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
The QUEEN'S SPEECH reported by The LORD CHANCELLOR.
THE EARL OF ABERDEEN, in moving an humble Address to Her Majesty, in answer to Her Majesty's most gracious Speech from the Throne, said:—My Lords, the circumstances under which Parliament this year assembles will be viewed by your Lordships and the nation at large with a sense of loyal satisfaction. It is a matter of congratulation to every subject of Her Majesty that, after an interval of several years, Her Majesty has been again enabled to inaugurate the proceedings of Parliament by Her presence. The fact that Her Majesty has to-day appeared on the

7
Throne in your Lordships' House may be taken as a gratifying indication that She is still favoured with that health and energy which for so many years have enabled Her to perform the duties of a Throne so illustrious as Hers. This circumstance is made still more gratifying by contrasting the present circumstances of the Royal Family with those which were the main cause of Her Majesty's absence last year. A Member of Her Majesty's Family was only then beginning to recover from a dangerous illness—I am happy to say that Prince Leopold is now entirely re-established in health.
My Lords, I will now proceed to make a few observations on the topics adverted to in the Speech from the Throne: but, before doing so, I will bespeak an exercise of that indulgence which your Lordships are accustomed to extend to noble Lords in my position. Her Majesty's most gracious Speech commences with a reference to Foreign Affairs. Intelligence of those affairs is always important, but it will be received on this occasion with special interest. The state of our foreign relations has been, perhaps, the most prominent subject in the public mind during the Recess, and it is therefore most satisfactory to hear that our relations with Foreign Powers continue to be of the most cordial character. It will be in the recollection of your Lordships that some time ago a revolt broke out in Bosnia and Herzegovina. That revolt was at first of small proportions; but it gradually gained strength, partly because of the inefficiency of the armed forces of Turkey, and partly from the financial collapse of the Turkish Government. Under those circumstances intervention on the part of the Powers of Europe was deemed expedient—indeed, became inevitable; and if there must be interference—for that is the proper word—it was clear that such interference must, in the natural course of things, emanate from Austria, because the frontier territory of Austria in the neighbourhood of the disturbed Provinces being inhabited by an excitable people, was endangered by the hostile operations in its neighbourhood. I believe that the conduct of Austria in this matter has been characterized by energy, temperance, and discretion; and the course which has been taken by Her Majesty's Government in
8
reference to that action will, I think, meet with general approval. In the Speech from the Throne, Her Majesty says—
"I have considered it my duty not to stand aloof from the efforts now being made by allied and friendly Governments to bring about a pacification of the disturbed districts."
That is an attitude of a kind which does not unduly commit this country to any definite line of future policy. It requires but little reflection to show that had any other course been adopted grave difficulties might have ensued. Had this country stood aloof from all representations made to Turkey, we might have been accused of an indifference which savoured of cowardice. On the other hand, if the alternative of that course had been adopted—had this country recommended Turkey to concede what was asked by the other Powers, a responsibility might have attached to this country which would have been unnecessary and which certainly would not have been desirable. I think there is strong reason to hope that what has been done by England and the other Powers will lead to peace in the disturbed Provinces and to the establishment of religious toleration for the Christians who inhabit them.
My Lords, the next reference in the Royal Speech is to another topic of much importance and one which has excited much public interest. It will be remembered that two years ago much interest was felt in reference to the position of this country in regard to the Suez Canal, and it was the subject of a discussion in your Lordships' House. On that occasion the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs said that there was no opportunity of acquiring the Canal from M. Lesseps and the shareholders. But in the course of the last autumn, owing to the financial embarrassments of the Viceroy of Egypt, circumstances were altered, and an opportunity did present itself by which England was enabled to acquire a definite and tangible position in respect of the undertaking. It must be acknowledged that it was not a satisfactory state of things that while England contributed three-quarters of the entire traffic of the Canal she should have no voice in the management of the Canal except what she might be supposed to derive from vague claims and indirect interests,

9
Now, however, this country is in a position to represent one-half of the proprietary interest. The opportunity for attaining that desirable end arose with some suddenness, and it had to be at once seized or allowed to pass. As your Lordships are aware it was not allowed to pass, and I believe the opinion of Parliament and the country to be that the conduct of the Government in this matter has been characterized by energy, by diligence, and promptitude. The Papers on the subject will be laid before Parliament, and I venture to think that the action of Her Majesty's Government will be endorsed by Parliament as thoroughly as it has been approved by the country. Your Lordships will observe that while acting with decision for themselves, Her Majesty's Government have duly respected the constitutional forms and rights of Parliament, in accordance with which both Houses will be afforded an opportunity of expressing their judgment on the matter.
My Lords, the paragraph in the Royal Speech having reference to the affairs of China and to the expedition sent from Burmah to the Western Provinces of China will be welcome to all who remember the threatening aspect of affairs in that quarter at the end of last Session. The murder of Mr. Margary will be made the subject of grave inquiry, and there can be no doubt that it will not be allowed to drop before satisfaction has been received, and reparation made for the atrocious assault made upon our Envoy last year.
My Lords, I am sure that the passage of the Speech which refers to the success of the visit of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to India will meet with a loyal response. It is a cause of thankfulness that the health of His Royal Highness has been preserved, notwithstanding the trying climate of India and the energy which has characterized the movements of the Prince during his tour.
I now come to a subject which has excited the public mind very much during the Vacation, and respecting which much misapprehension—or rather, I should say, uncertainty—still prevails. When I speak of uncertainty in connection with Slavery, your Lordships will understand me as confining myself to the legal aspect of the question. As to
10
Slavery and the Slave Trade, the attitude of the country has long been fixed and certain, and the attitude of the Government in respect of both is also fixed; but there is uncertainty, as regards the legal aspect of the question, which it is well should be ascertained and settled in a positive manner, and I am sure your Lordships will concur with me in thinking that the Government have done well to refer that part of the question to the careful consideration of a Royal Commission. It would indeed be strange that anyone should suppose that on the question of Slavery itself there is any uncertainty in the minds of a Government which has concluded a treaty with the Seyyid of Zanzibar that promises to result in the complete extinction of slavery within the territories of that Potentate, and which has brought about the annexation of Fiji—one of the objects of this annexation being the suppression of a species of slavery which existed in those parts.
Her Majesty's gracious Speech next refers to the Conference with respect to the Confederation of the South African Colonies. There is much reason to hope that what has been proposed by the Government will have the effect of placing on a better basis the relations of the several races which inhabit those regions.
My Lords, it is a matter for congratulation that the outbreak in the Malay Peninsula seems to have been effectually quelled.
Among the subjects on which legislation is promised in Her Majesty's Speech, one of the most important is that of the Merchant Shipping Laws. Scarcely a Session has passed within the last 30 or 40 years without some legislation on that subject. The measure passed last Session was admittedly a temporary one; but it afferds a basis for satisfactory legislation of a permanent character, and the present time is one eminently favourable for satisfactory legislation. There has been time for the various interests concerned to consider the matter with calmness, and your Lordships will all agree that it would be impossible that any permanent legislation on the subject could be satisfactory if it did not, to some extent at least, receive the co-operation of all the interests involved in such legislation. It will not appear surprising that some difficulty should be felt in dealing with

11
the question of we consider what has been the advance of our shipping trade. From the Board of Trade Returns I find that in 1846 the British vessels engaged in the foreign trade amounted to about 6,000,000 of tons, and that in 1874 they amounted to 30,000,000 of tons. These are exclusive of the British ships engaged in the coasting trade. My Lords, in speaking on this subject, it is impossible not to refer to the zeal shown by an individual in the cause of our seafaring men. I believe that even those who hold that the figures and allegations of fact brought forward by Mr. Plimsoll are not borne out by the facts of the case, are not disposed to deny to that Gentleman a grateful recognition for having kept alive the question, and having brought forward circumstances of much importance in connection with a discussion of our Shipping Laws.
Coming to the paragraph in the Royal Speech which has reference to Education, I will remind your Lordships that the legislative changes already brought about with respect to our Universities have been carried out by the authorities, and it cannot be doubted that whatever further changes Parliament may think it necessary to make, if conceived in a moderate spirit, will be favourably received, and will be carried out in the best manner possible. As regards Primary Education—a subject which in recent Sessions has been much discussed by both Houses of Parliament—I have only to observe that your Lordships will see with satisfaction that Her Majesty's Government have lost no time in the endeavour to complete the legislation already in operation on that important matter.
The Inclosure of Commons unquestionably is a matter which demands the attention of Parliament. It appears that some machinery is necessary; but I feel sure that the Government do not intend any interference with the local management of commons, which for many reasons must be the best.
Any measure for promoting economy and efficiency in the management of Prisons, and at the same time effecting a relief of Local Burdens, must, I presume, be of a financial character, and will, therefore, be dealt with mainly in the other House of Parliament; and, consequently, I will do no more than call the attention of your Lord-
12
ships to the fact that these subjects have not been forgotten in the Queen's Speech. Experience has shown that successive Governments find the greatest difficulty in passing all the measures proposed for the Session in the Speech from the Throne. For that reason it appears to me that one of the most satisfactory features of the Speech addressed to Parliament to-day is that it does not promise too many measures; but if the measures which it does promise are passed in the present Session, then the time of Parliament will have been well spent.
My Lords, I will conclude by moving that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, thanking Her Majesty for Her Majesty's most Gracious Speech from the Throne, as follows:—
MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN,
"WE, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in Parliament assembled, bog leave to offer our humble thanks to Tour Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Tour Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
"We humbly thank Tour Majesty for informing us that Tour Majesty's relations with all Foreign Powers continue to be of a cordial character.
"We humbly thank Tour Majesty for informing us that Tour Majesty has considered it your duty not to stand aloof from the efforts now being made by allied and friendly Governments to bring about a pacification of the disturbed districts of Bosnia and Herzegovina; and that Tour Majesty has accordingly, while respecting the independence of the Porte, joined in urging on the Sultan the expediency of adopting such measures of administrative reform as may remove all reasonable cause of discontent on the part of his Christian subjects.
"We humbly thank Tour Majesty for informing us that Tour Majesty has agreed to purchase, subject to the sanction of Parliament the shares which belonged to the Khedive of Egypt in the Suez Canal.
"We humbly thank Tour Majesty for informing us that the representations which Tour Majesty addressed to the Chinese Government, as to the attack made in the course of last year on the Expedition sent from Burmah to the Western Provinces of China, have been received in a friendly spirit, and that the circumstances of that lamentable outrage are now the subject of an inquiry.

13
"We rejoice to learn that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales has enjoyed uninterrupted health during his journey through India; and that the hearty affection with which he has been received by Your Majesty's Indian subjects is an assurance to Your Majesty that they are happy under Your Majesty's rule, and loyal to Your throne.
"We humbly thank Your Majesty for reminding us that at the time that the direct Government of Your Majesty's Indian Empire was transferred to the Crown, no formal addition was made to the style and titles of the Sovereign, and we rejoice to learn that Your Majesty deems the present a fitting opportunity for supplying this omission.
"We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that Your Majesty has given directions for the issue of a Royal Commission to in-quire into all Treaty engagements and other International obligations bearing upon the subject of the Slave Trade, and the action of British national ships in territorial waters of Foreign States, with a view to ascertain whether any steps ought to be taken to secure for Your Majesty's ships and their Commanders abroad greater power for the maintenance of the right of personal liberty.
"We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that a Bill will be laid before us for punishing Slave Traders who are the subjects of native Indian Princes.
"We rejoice to learn that the general prosperity of Your Majesty's Colonial Empire has continued to advance.
"We join with Your Majesty in trusting that the operations conducted by Your Majesty's troops in Malay have restored order and reestablished the just influence and authority of this country.
"We humbly assure Your Majesty that our careful consideration shall be given to the measures which may be submitted to us, and that we earnestly join in Your Majesty's prayer that our deliberations may, under the Divine blessing, result in the happiness and contentment of Your Majesty's people."
THE EARL OF ELLESMERE—My Lords, in seconding the Motion of my noble Friend who has just sat down, I have in the first place to solicit the indulgence of your Lordships on this my first occasion of addressing you. My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to commence my observations by joining with my noble Friend the Mover of this Address, in expressing satisfaction that
14
Her Majesty has been able to come down and in person to open this Session of Parliament. I think that perhaps the most important part of the Speech from the Throne is that relating to the insurrection in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It seems to me to threaten the gravest results. It must be remembered that the state of things as regards the East is very different in 1876 from what it was in 1853 and 1854, when disturbances in the Northern parts of Turkey were raging. At that time Russia was adopting a policy of her own. Now, when an insurrection in Bosnia and Herzegovina has arisen, Austria, to whose Government the insurrection is naturally the cause of great uneasiness, has come forward and, acting in concert with Russia and with the German Empire, which did not exist in 1854, has recommended to the Porte measures calculated to restore peace in the disturbed Provinces. To that diplomatic movement Her Majesty's Government have given their assistance, and the reply given by the Porte is a sufficient answer to those who said that Her Majesty's Government should have held aloof. As to the purchase of the shares of the Suez Canal, the proceeding of Her Majesty's Government is so exceptional in its nature, that without hearing an explanation of all the circumstances attending that course of action, it would be hardly proper to offer any opinion at all; but, as has been pointed out by the noble Earl who moved the Address, this is not the first occasion on which the question has arisen of England obtaining an influence in the management of the Canal by the purchase of shares. The noble Earl has also pointed out that if Her Majesty's Government had not purchased at once, when the opportunity arose, that opportunity would have quickly passed away—the Khedive would soon have found ready purchasers for those shares. As regards the paragraph in the Royal Speech having reference to China, our diplomatic proceedings in relation to the event alluded to in that paragraph have been perfectly successful, and have given one further proof that England is always ready and willing to defend British subjects, and demand reparation for wrongs inflicted upon them, and if the expedition now on the way to Yunan should be finally successful, I think the prestige of England in those regions will be

15
materially increased. If the news I read the other day be true—namely, that the Chinese official in the Province where Mr. Margary had been murdered is recalled—it will show that the Chinese Government is inclined to do justice in the case. It must be a source of gratification to every one that the visit to India of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales has been a marked success, and that the health of His Royal Highness has not suffered from the trying duties which he has performed in such a climate. The outbursts of loyalty with which the Prince has been greeted in all parts of India which he has visited are in the highest degree satisfactory, and now this country awaits the return of His Royal Highness in unimpaired health and with increased knowledge of the great Empire over which at a future day—may that day be distant—he will be called upon to rule. My Lords, I will not enter into the question of the Slave Circular, because the whole subject is to be investigated by a Royal Commission. I will merely observe that the actual state of the law is to be regarded as most unsatisfactory and ambiguous, and that therefore it is easy to understand that at times the position of naval commanders must be a very difficult one. It will be an advantage to have a uniform method laid down for dealing with fugitive slaves—regard being, of course, had to exceptional cases. I will not anticipate what may be the conclusions of the Royal Commission, but it would be absurd to suppose that in this year of 1876 any Englishman can have a bias in favour of Slavery. As regards the South African Colonies, I will only allude to the affairs of Natal, and only to say that it was natural that the Government of this country after a disturbance had been put down in a colony should recommend measures to prevent a recurrence of such a misfortune, and that some uniform principle should be laid down for dealing with the Native tribes. The first proposition of the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies did not meet with the approval of all the statesmen of the South African Colonies; but I think that, on reflection, they will see that it would be attended with great advantages even if they did not see all the benefits which were likely to arise from the Confederation. The Royal Speech promises a Bill for regulating the Ultimate
16
Tribunal of Appeal. That is a rather abstruse question, and your Lordships will pardon me for not going into it; but as to the Bill which we are promised for the amendment of the Merchant Shipping Law, I may refer to the fact that on receiving a deputation which waited on him a few days ago, the First Lord of the Treasury said Her Majesty's Government were determined that another Session should not pass without legislation on the subject, and this declaration will, I think, be received with satisfaction by your Lordships and the country. As to Education, I may be allowed to express a hope that any measure introduced by the Government for the purpose of effecting changes in the Universities will be Conservative in its spirit—that it will aid the progress of University education without destroying the character and ruining the prestige of the Universities. I presume that any measure having reference to Primary Education will follow on the lines laid down in 1870. I am aware that School Boards are unpopular with some persons; but I believe that time and a further experience of the Act of 1870 will do much to remove acerbities now existing. With regard to the Inclosure of Commons, legislation is necessary; but I hope that no Bill will pass which will deprive the people of open spaces desirable for their health and recreation. My Lords, I will conclude by seconding the Motion for the Address. [See Page 12].
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords—Both my noble Friends—the noble Earl who moved and the noble Earl who seconded the Address—have made allusion to the indulgence which Peers in their position usually receive from your Lordships' House on occasions like the present. I venture to think that it has been a source of great satisfaction to this House, and very creditable to it, that for many years successive Governments have selected noble Lords not of advanced age or of great, experience in debate who have been able, with very great distinction, to do what, in my opinion, are two of the most difficult things in the world—to move and second the Address in answer to the Speech from the Throne. With regard to the noble Earl who moved the Address on this occasion, I must say that I feel the satisfaction which I am sure all your Lordships feel at seeing him perform such a

17
duty in a House in which his grandfather occupied such a distinguished position. This House will sincerely join in the satisfaction expressed both by the noble Earl who moved the Address and by my noble Relative who seconded it at the fact that Her Majesty has been able to appear on the Throne this day to open in person this Session of Parliament. The speeches of my noble Friends were highly creditable to them; but I remarked that in regard to some of the subjects mentioned in the Speech from the Throne both the noble Earls summed up their observations very briefly. Both noble Earls seemed anxious to avoid any allusion to the Bill for regulating the Ultimate Tribunal of Appeal. Well, there are some things over which it is better to throw a veil, and perhaps the noble Earls thought that this was one of them. Again, my Lords, it occurred to me as I heard the enumeration of those measures that there were some rather remarkable omissions from the Speech of to-day. Last year, to judge by the Speech from the Throne at the commencement of the Session, the Public Health was an object of greatest solicitude to Her Majesty's Government; but in the Speech from the Throne today there was no mention whatever of a question which had been in former years an object of such anxious solicitude. I hope I may infer that the public health is now in a satisfactory state, seeing that there is a most remarkable silence on the part of the Government in reference to their once favourite topic. Even the Pollution of Rivers Bill of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) finds no place in the Speech now before your Lordships' House. With regard to Education, I am glad the Government are applying themselves to that subject, and I shall await with anxiety the measures which they intend to introduce with reference to the Universities and to the Primary Education of the country—because I venture to think it will require all that skilful management in which my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council is so successful to enable him to reconcile the conflicting views of his Colleagues on the subject of Primary Education. The Home Secretary is said to be the friend of compulsory education; while, as I understand, the Prime Minister, in his private capacity, joined a majority to
18
prevent the only means that was suggested of carrying out the Agricultural Education Act from being adopted in Buckinghamshire. I will reserve my judgment on the question until I see the Bill. I think the Bills which have been brought to our notice to-night are Bills of the greatest importance, and worthy of the greatest consideration on the part of your Lordships. I recollect hearing of a gentleman who said to an author that the pleasure he enjoyed in reading his books was equal to the pleasure he enjoyed in receiving them—which was not much; but I have no hesitation in saying that if the bill of fare presented to Parliament by Her Majesty's Government this Session be carried out in well-considered measures, and are steadfastly carried through Parliament, it will give satisfaction to Parliament and to the country at large. My Lords, there is one subject not referred to in the Speech from the Throne, but I cannot help alluding to it shortly, because it has occupied the attention of the public mind very much during the Recess. I mean the state of the Navy and the administration of the Admiralty. Serious charges—charges which would appear to be difficult to be answered—have been brought against the administration of the First Lord of the Admiralty. Now, those charges have undoubtedly received increased strength by the Fugitive Slave Circular. The accusation against the right hon. Gentleman based on that Circular is certainly undeserved: and I think it only right to pointout that there are questions involved which are not merely of a departmental nature, and that, as the noble Earl opposite knows, the First Lord is not responsible for questions of that character. It is quite clear that my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs is responsible for that Circular, and that the First Lord of the Admiralty is not responsible for it. There are, however, other charges against the First Lord; but he has reserved his defence for his place in Parliament, and that being so, I think it is more becoming for me to await that defence before making any observation on those subjects. There are in your Lordships' House the Lord Privy Seal and other noble Lords who, no doubt, will be quite ready to defend him; but, as there will be a more fitting opportunity for entering on a discussion

19
of these charges, I shall mate no further allusion to them on this occasion. My Lords, there is a topic which, of necessity, has been brought prominently before your Lordships in Her Majesty's Speech; and here again I must give due credit for what I thought the appropriate manner in which the noble Earl, the Seconder of the Address, spoke of the triumphant and successful progress of the Prince of Wales in India, and the good results which are likely to follow from his journey through that Empire. It must certainly have been a great satisfaction to Government to be able to give in the Speech from the Throne a confirmation of the general impressions of the country of the affection and respect with which His Royal Highness has been received in India. In Her Majesty's Speech it was observed—
"At the time that the direct Government of my Indian Empire was transferred to the Crown, no formal addition was made to the style and titles of the Sovereign. I have deemed the present a fitting opportunity for supplying this omission, and a Bill upon the subject will be presented to you."
I infer from that passage in the Speech that Her Majesty thinks it desirable to move in this matter, from considerations of the effect of such movement on the Native population, in connection with the visit of the Prince of Wales to that country. My Lords, I venture to say that, in regard of the dignity of Her Majesty herself, no name can appeal to the imagination so forcibly as that of Victoria, Queen of Great Britain and Ireland. My Lords, the noble Earls who moved and seconded the Address referred, in complimentary terms, to the administration of the Colonies. No doubt the administration of the Colonies has been viewed with favour by the country at large; but even on the Sun there are spots, and perhaps the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) will forgive me if I touch upon some of the spots of his administration. The Prime Minister, at the Mansion House some time ago, with that desire to render compliments to his Colleagues which so frequently characterizes his allusions to them, went a little beyond the ground on which he was standing, and spoke of the Confederation of the South African Colonies, remarking at the same time, that the Confederation of the North American Provinces was due to the Members of the
20
present Government. I thought that the person who possessed sufficiently large and comprehensive views of Colonial policy to carry out a scheme of this kind was my noble Friend (the Earl of Kimberley), who now sits behind mo. I am certain the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) will admit that the real work of the Confederation of North America was done in the time of my noble Friend, who afforded his sanction and encouragement to that measure, and during whose term of office that celebrated agreement was carried into effect in Canada, and also, I think, in Nova Scotia. The noble Earl, no doubt, deserves great credit for the manner in which he took up the questions that were left to his hands, and it must have been with great satisfaction that he applied himself to the introduction and passing through Parliament the Imperial Act that was to carry that Confederation into effect. Several questions were, however, left behind—questions not altogether easy of solution—the purchase of the Hudson's Bay Territory, the question of the Vancouver Territory, and also of Prince Edward's Island, which, under my noble Friend, joined that Confederation. I am afraid that there is at this moment the question of Newfoundland and its fisheries, which still remains open, and is not very easy of settlement. I said there were spots on the Sun, and with all the noble Earl's ability, industry, and patriotism, if he has a defect it is, perhaps, that he is so desirous to promote a policy that finds acceptance and which is desirable in itself, that he is a little too anxious to publish his opinions, and does not take quite sufficient care to mature his plans so as to bring them to the most favourable issue. When the noble Earl introduced a now policy for the administration of the affairs of the Natives of Natal it certainly did strike me that it was an imprudent thing to publish a despatch which was sure to be translated in the colony, and which described the position of the Chiefs and Natives. The noble Earl, after describing the enthusiastic devotion of the Natives towards their Chiefs, went on to state that it was desirable to diminish that attachment and to detach the Natives from the Chiefs. That was not, I think, a prudent declaration, when you consider the influence of the Chiefs and the inexhaustible number of Natives

21
with whom you have to deal in Natal. In the same way the noble Earl under-took a measure which I believe to be of the greatest importance, and which I hope he will be able to carry through—for it is a measure which will do him great credit—I moan the Confederation to which Mr. Disraeli alluded. That is a proposal of the greatest importance and advantage; but the noble Earl directed the immediate publication of a despatch containing errors which he was afterwards obliged to retract—errors which might have been corrected by a little more communication with the Governor of the Colony and the local authorities.
THE EARL OF CARNARVON: I bog the noble Earl's pardon. I am not aware that I have retracted any errors.
EARL GRANVILLE: At any rate the noble Earl used language which, justly or unjustly, was sure to be irritating to certain persons belonging to the Colonial Government, and there can be no doubt that the noble Earl did afterwards withdraw the names of those particular persons. There is also another point connected with this Confederation, upon which the Government will be required to give explanations. I should desire to know what is the exact position of a very eminent man, of great intellectual powers—Mr. Froude—who was sent to that colony by the Colonial Office. We shall also require to know what are the conditions under which he has acted, and whether it is true that—after the noble Earl himself had laid down in the clearest manner the constitutional relations between the Home Government and the Colonial Government—the Delegate, or the Commissioner, or whatever post Mr. Froude occupied, absolutely "stumped" the colony at meetings of the most hostile character to the existing Government of the colony. I shall be curious to know whether that conduct has been approved or disapproved by the noble Earl. I do not see why because a colony having representative institutions is small, you should not be as punctilious in your relations with it as you would be with the largest of your colonies. I now approach the subject of Foreign Affairs. I have been now for some time in Parliament, and I cannot reproach myself with ever having intentionally said anything to embarrass a Secretary of State, whoever
22
he might be, in his negotiations or relations with foreign Governments, and I feel that such a course is perfectly consistent with the freest discussion of Foreign Affairs in Parliament. I am bound to say that during the first 18 months of the present Administration it would have boon very difficult for me or any of my friends to attack the Foreign Minister. There was no question of very great importance going on, and, as far as I know, no mistakes were made by the noble Earl. I am not sure there were not a few people in the country who regretted that the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) did not do anything a little foolish and a little sensational. But the case is different now. At the present moment—during the Recess—three questions have arisen which have in an extraordinary degree occupied the public mind. As to one the country has waited with prudent reticence to hoar the statement which will be made by the Government in Parliament, and has abstained from prejudicing the question one way or the other. I refer to the complications which have been referred to by the Mover and Seconder of the Address as having arisen in consequence of the insurrection in Herzegovina, and also to the concluding act of the Government in joining in the Andrassy Note to the Government of Constantinople. If I remember right, in October last the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, when he spoke at Liverpool, treated the matter very lightly, and expressed his belief that we should hear little more about it. He also expressed his conviction as to the readiness of the Porte to do what was right in regard to the Christian subjects of the Sultan; and he pointed out with excellent judgment some of the difficulties that attended the question. A month later the Prime Minister, speaking at the Mansion House, was obliged to take a much graver view of the insurrection: and the noble Earl himself a month afterwards naturally took a graver, view of the insurrection than he had done before. He said he might be thought a dupe, but he certainly thought that the other Powers were in earnest in co-operating for the peaceful settlement of the question. I am not one of those who think that the noble Earl was a dupe in entertaining that belief. I think he was right in that belief, which was

23
based on the great interests which the different Powers have in the peaceful settlement of the question. If all those Powers had the same views or interests the matter might be serious; but any statesman, however bold, would hesitate to incur the responsibility of breaking up the Ottoman Empire, and dealing with the Mussulman and Christian populations of the Sultan. No doubt there must be differences of opinion and separate views and interests among the Great Powers, and I think that was a sufficient reason for the noble Earl's belief in a moderate settlement of the matters in question. The question for the public is threefold. Austria would naturally take the initiative in these representations to the Porte. I do not in the slightest degree object to that; but what the House will wish to know is whether we took any part in the negotiations that led the three Powers to frame the Note, or whether we were only consulted by the three Powers when the Note was settled. The next question, of the greatest importance, is, whether the Treaty does or does not infringe the provisions of the Treaty of 1856 as revised in 1871?
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that the noble Earl had spoken of the Note by mistake as a Treaty.
EARL GRANVILLE: What I want to know is whether the presentation of the Note affected in any way the Treaty of 1856 and the revised Treaty of 1871? Now, I apprehend that any effect of that kind would depend upon Article 7 and Article 9 of the Treaty of 1856—the first of those Articles securing the independence of the Ottoman Empire and the latter referring to the spontaneous promises of the Sultan to grant certain rights to his Christian subjects. It is very important to know whether the mode in which the Note was presented was calculated to infringe upon those Articles. Subject to that reservation, I venture to express the opinion that there has been no infringement in what we have learnt has been done, and neither Lord Palmerston nor Lord Clarendon ever considered that the Treaty precluded us from attempting, in common with other Powers, to obtain from the Porte the fulfilment of the promises which it admitted were embodied in that Treaty. If the Government have no statement to make on this point so much the better;
24
and if they decline to speak on matters of so delicate a character, I am not the person to press them to do what may be inconvenient or disadvantageous. I now refer to another subject which has awakened very general interest in the public mind—the purchase of the Suez Canal shares. I must say that I think it very creditable to the impulses and instincts of the people of this country that they have received the announcement of the three matters of which I am speaking in the way they have done. That of the Suez Canal purchase was received with very general approbation, which I am not sure has not diminished to some extent. I think the history of the Canal is one of the most extraordinary illustrations it is possible to imagine of the French proverb—Man proposes and God disposes. We all remember how Lord Palmerston opposed the Canal. With regard to the engineering mistake, that could hardly be imputed to him, for he spoke on the engineering authority of this country; and, as regards his financial prophecies, I can only hope that they may be equally falsified, though it can hardly be said they have been up to the present moment. There can be no doubt that the reasons which influenced him were of the most purely patriotic character, and that he was entirely carried away by very much the same sort of considerations as I believe influenced Napoleon III. and the French in their great anxiety to promote the scheme. But one effect of Lord Palmerston's opposition, whatever other effects it may have had, was to excite a strong feeling in France. I do not know how far it diminished the investments of English capital in the Canal—but I generally find that British capitalists are extremely apt to look after their own affairs and to think they know better than official gentlemen. At all events, Lord Palmerston's opposition was the cause of M. Lesseps' getting funds in France. Mr. Senior, in his amusing Journal, tells us that there was no shopkeeper in Paris who did not buy a share to have his revenge on those English; and M. Lesseps tells of a gentleman who came to him for shares in a railway in the island of Sweden, to whom M. Lesseps replied—"It is not a railway, it is not an island, it is not Sweden; but it is a canal, it is an isthmus, and it is Suez." "Never mind," said this enthusiastic

25
gentleman, "it is to spite the English, and it is all the same." The French people who thus laid down their money, and who have been out of it all this time, have certainly conferred great benefits on this country. The question of England acquiring some interest in the Canal was not entirely dormant during the administration of the late Government. M. Lesseps came to this country, and it was generally considered a grateful tribute to the ability with which he had carried out an enterprise so beneficial to this country when the Queen presented to him one of the highest of our Orders. Proposals were at that time made to our capitalists and suggestions were made by our Consul General in Egypt and by English gentlemen connected with the Suez Canal; but none of those proposals were in the slightest degree definite enough to call upon the Government to regard the matter, as they otherwise would have done, as one for very grave consideration. The Prime Minister authorized Mr. Lefevre, the Secretary to the Board of Trade, to see M. Lesseps and to obtain the data on which any proposal should be made. Mr. Lefevre and M. Lesseps met several times; and at the last interview M. Lesseps told Mr. Lefevre that though he had powers to enter into arrangements with the English Government, it must be a sine quâ non that the control and direction of the Canal must remain with himself and the French Council; and that I own made it unnecessary to go further into the matter. I think it would be a great mistake to go into any serious discussion of the purchase of the shares, as we have not the Papers before us; but I may be allowed to point out one or two matters which we may at once dispose of, and which need not impede the progress of the serious discussion when it comes on. Praise and blame have been bestowed on the Government, neither of which I think is of great importance. It has been said that things had not gone well with the Government in the last Session, and that they had got into some scrapes during the Recess, and that by this transaction they hoped to divert public attention from their misfortunes, and to turn it into other channels. Now, I wish to state that—whether this purchase strengthens or weakens our position in time of peace or in time
26
of war—whether it is wise or unwise—I have not the slightest doubt Her Majesty's Government went into the matter with the single-minded view to the maintenance of our most important line of communication with India. Again, it has been said—and it was intended to be complimentary—that this was the beginning of a new, great, comprehensive, and spirited foreign policy; that the Government wished to obtain a protectorate over Egypt, and that they wished to depart from our traditional policy on the Eastern Question. But the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary repudiated, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, any intention of the sort. This was not only an honest and sensible thing to do, but it required some moral courage on his part entirely to throw away this oriel glory. But if the noble Earl would decline to accept the exalted position of Chatham, some of his friends thought it complimentary to represent him as the most accomplished disciple of Machiavelli, and to suggest that his real object was that which he disavowed: but if he really desired to obtain Egypt, the noble Earl would have been more skilful had he held his tongue until the proper moment had arrived. I must say the noble Earl held very proud and proper language at Edinburgh, when he said—"We have said what we want, and why we want it, and Europe is accustomed to believe what we say." It is a proud boast, and I believe he was entitled to use it. We are occasionally abused abroad—sometimes with justice, sometimes without; but I do believe our reputation for truthfulness stands very high indeed, and I cannot imagine anything more injurious to our influence for good than that either opponents or friends should suspect that Her Majesty's Government would hold, directly or indirectly, language which would have the effect of throwing doubts over the plainest assertion of the Foreign Secretary, and make it believed abroad that his character, his position, and his powers of clear expression were intended to be used only to conceal his thoughts. There is another point on which I wish to make a remark. At the outset, when the purchase was first announced, it was said it was a good commercial transaction, and I think the noble Earl assured us we should never lose a penny by it; since then various statements and

27
counter-statements have been made by persons of authority. I am inclined to doubt whether good commercial transactions are ever conducted in a hurry, and I conceive some explanation is necessary when the transaction is the purchase of a long reversion at a price above the market value. I do not know whether it has ever happened to any of your Lordships to have dealings of that kind; but I have often heard that when in such a case a person proposed to take time to consider in order to ascertain something about the value of the security, the ready answer always was, "for God's sake don't; there is an old lady round the corner who is quite determined to have it, and I cannot disappoint the old lady, if you don't have it." But I believe it is generally found afterwards that the article is not quite so valuable as it was represented to be. But there is another thing which one can hardly conceive—namely, the lending of money at £5 per cent to one who borrows in the market at £9 per cent. My own inclination is to believe that, as a commercial speculation, the purchase of these shares was not a good one: but I shall be content to rely entirely on the statements which, I trust, the Government will be able to lay before Parliament. But even if they can prove that it is an excellent speculation that of itself will not justify them in what they have done; and, on the other hand, if its opponents prove that the speculation was unprofitable, I say that is by no means fatal to the wisdom of the act. The question really turns on this—whether the step was taken with reference to any well understood measure of policy—upon that it must float or sink. I will not argue the case one way or another. I should, however, like to know whether at the time of this purchase the Government were acquainted with the constitution of the Company and the amount of influence which the possession of these shares would command—whether the shares were purchased as a means of obtaining an effectual control over the management of the Canal—whether they knew that however large the number of shares they bought, they would have only a certain limited number of votes; and whether they knew that M. Lesseps had secured to himself the permanent management of the Canal for a certain number of years? I should also like to
28
know, while the Canal has been in the possession of a French Company, what amount of practical inconvenience up to tills time has been suffered by commerce, and whether in time of peace the Government without the possession of these shares would not have sufficient influence to prevent inconvenience to commerce? In case of disputes among the shareholders themselves, I want to know whether the course taken by the Government would in any way increase or diminish that influence? I should like also to know whether the possession of these shares in respect of which they can derive no pecuniary interest for. 19 years can in time of war protect our road to India, further than our influence in having the immense share as customers of the Canal and more than the maritime supremacy of England? These are the points on which I want to hear what can be stated by the Government. There is one point connected with this, whether the purchase was right or wrong—whether Parliament should meet only this day instead of in December. My own opinion is that, considering that it involved a loan from Messrs. Rothschild of £4,000,000—a transaction of a new and unusual character—the Government was wrong in not calling Parliament together in December. It is unwise to create a new precedent in a doubtful matter. Lord Melbourne had a maxim which I think was a very sound one—that when the Government had anything doubtful to do the quicker they were in calling Parliament together to share the responsibility the better. I quite share that opinion; and therefore when I find that Her Majesty's Government did not call Parliament together, I cannot help thinking that the Government in this case have acted as if they had no information which would stand Parliamentary investigation; and that it was more convenient for them to wait two months in order to get that information. This brings me to another point on which I should like information—I mean the mission of Mr. Cave. I do not know that that mission has anything to do with these Canal shares; but I am curious to know in what capacity Mr. Cave has gone out, and for what purpose. I feel curious to know whether the Khedive applied, as he has done before, for the assistance of some Englishman of high character to advise him,

29
or under what inducement Her Majesty's Government sent out, with very considerable ostentation, their Paymaster General, accompanied with officials of other Departments. I should like to know what instructions were given to Mr. Cave. Was he sent out solely to ascertain the value of these shares, or to go into the whole finances of the Khedive? Of one thing there can be no doubt—the moral effect of the interference of the Government with the finances of that country. The natural result is that people believe that the Government in some way or other have taken the management of the finances of Egypt, and that people have been "bearing" and "bulling" large sums, and all in consequence of this ostentatious commission, which was certainly of a very unusual character, and which will require a great deal of explanation to reconcile it to your Lordships. I come now to refer to another matter which aroused a spirit of, I may say, indignation throughout the country—I mean the famous Fugitive Slave Circular. The excitement which it caused was great, not only among Liberal Members but among Conservative Members. Even the Chancellor of the Exchequer, forgetting his official prudence, denounced it in a speech, which was reported in all the newspapers next day, in which he altogether repudiated the Circular, and said he did not know what it meant or who was responsible for it. Mr. Cave, the Paymaster General—a most loyal Colleague—said it was no doubt a blunder, but a blunder committed during the Recess and in the absence of the chief of the Department. Now, I believe Mr. Cave is a very good man of business, but I do trust he will be a little more accurate in getting up his facts about the finances of Egypt than he was about this Circular. The noble Earl the Minister for Foreign Affairs was the first who dealt with the Circular, and he put the case very briefly and with his usual judgment. He said it was issued on the advice of the highest legal authorities. These must be the Law Officers of the Crown, or perhaps the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack himself. Now, if there was any doubt as to the law, the position was no doubt a difficult one: and yet in the second Circular you unfortunately retained the principle of that policy which,
30
rightly or wrongly, was condemned almost universally by the country. Now, at a later period, two Members of the Government based their defence of the Circular upon precedents said to have been afforded by the late Government. All I can say in reply to that is, that as far as I myself am concerned, it has never been my duty, as a Minister of the Crown, to criticize slave circulars. I will go further, and say that I do not think the subject of a slave circular was ever mooted in any Cabinet with which I had the honour to be connected. There was certainly a letter issued by Lord Clarendon on the subject, which to some extent might be regarded as in some degree favouring the tone of the policy embodied in the second Circular of the present Government; but upon close examination I think your Lordships will agree with me that that similarity is rather scant, and that it does not really justify the course which has been taken. So far as I can see it is perfectly impossible for the Government to maintain their second Circular any more than they were able to maintain the first. I do not mean that the noble Earl could not justify it by "the first legal opinions" received in the beginning, and subsequently by the more matured opinion that he got. The noble Earl may attempt to justify it also by the precedents of former Governments; but I believe there was no Government of late years which ever dreamed of ordering the surrender of slaves who had taken refuge on our ships out of territorial waters. When you consider that up to the present time there has been such progress all over the world in the abolition of the Slave Trade, when you consider the excitement produced in the public mind—not only the lay mind, but the legal—and the discussions which have been advanced, and when you consider that upon the whole subject the greatest alarm has been felt on all sides, I believe it would be perfectly impossible for Her Majesty's Government to adhere to that Circular. Therefore I was prepared and not surprised at their having beat a retreat; but I confess I was not equally prepared for the mode of the retreat. Now, what is it? They have had recourse to their old friend a Royal Commission. It is their resource in all difficulties. If a cloud no bigger than a man's hand

31
appears on the horizon, immediately a Royal Commission is sought for. And what is this Royal Commission to inquire into? We are told in the Speech from the Throne that it is—
"To inquire into all Treaty engagements and otter International obligations bearing upon this subject, and all instructions from time to time issued to my naval officers, with a view to ascertain whether any steps ought to be taken to secure for my ships and their Commanders abroad greater power for the maintenance of the right of personal liberty."
Well, these instructions are of two kinds. First of all, the Royal Commission is to collect information which I stake my credit could be obtained in one afternoon from a clerk in the Slave Trade Department and from the head of that Department. But it is to collect information. Well and good; but do your Lordships think that when the Government issued their first Circular they had not all the information at their command which they can possibly have now? They talk of precedents; but must not these precedents have been in their mind when they first undertook to deal with the question? To talk, therefore, of collecting information on such a subject by means of a Royal Commission is nothing more than a delusion and a sham. What, in short, has the Commission to do? Why, it has a much more important task than that of collecting information—it has to frame a policy for Her Majesty's Government. Well, speaking for myself I must say that I do not think the people of England will consent to this. They are powerful in both Houses of Parliament; they are powerful in the country: but depend upon it the feeling of the country on this subject is not to be trifled with. Lord Castlereagh once made a speech on the Slave Trade, and when he sat down Mr. Wilberforce rose and said—
"I know the noble Lord, and I know he hates slavery; but if the noble Lord had been in favour of slavery, if he had been a promoter of the Slave Trade, I believe that this is exactly the speech which in that case he would have made."
Now, I know Her Majesty's Government. Nobody can have a doubt of their detestation of slavery; but I do feel strongly that in taking these means of evading the difficulty—in trying, as they are about to do, to throw the responsibility of their slavery legislation on the
32
irresponsible shoulders of a Royal Commission—they are adopting a course which will induce the country to think that they are procrastinating on this question. This is no Party question. No Party has a right to arrogate to itself an exclusive interest in the abolition of slavery, or an exclusive interest in its detestation of slavery. It is a great national question; and I do trust that Her Majesty's Government will feel that by coming forward and taking upon themselves the responsibility of what is to be done, and not seeking to get quit of it by delegating it to a Royal Commission, they will be adopting the best and the surest course.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords—I am sure your Lordships will not expect, and it certainly has not been the custom on former occasions of a similar kind, that I, or that any Member of the Government should enter into a full and detailed discussion of any one of the various subjects which are treated in the Speech from the Throne. There would be two obvious objections to such a course in the present instance—one that the Papers which relate to the various transactions, and on which your information will necessarily be for the most part based, are not yet in your Lordships' hands; and the second objection is that, owing to the multiplicity of the subjects mentioned, it would be impossible to deal exhaustively with any one of them in a consecutive and a continuous discussion. Not long ago a very eminent Member of the House of Commons—who was a sportsman as well as a statesman—likened a debate on the Address to a day's coursing where there were too many hares on the ground—you started a fresh hare every moment and caught none. I therefore propose now to touch only on a few of the main questions which have been indicated in the Speech from the Throne, and which have been referred to by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville). But before doing so, I must join with him in the agreeable duty of expressing what I think is the general feeling of your Lordships as to the manner in which the Mover and Seconder of the Address have discharged their difficult and delicate duty. They have discharged their office with good taste and good judgment. I am sure, from the ability both have shown, that your Lordships will feel

33
gratified if they should take a part in our discussions on future occasions. It is impossible, as I have said, to discuss the various questions of domestic legislation which have been referred to in the Speech from the Throne; but I will just say this—that if the list of measures to be brought before Parliament is not so large as it has been on some other occasions, we have been guided by important considerations. In the first place, we have been influenced by the wish not to undertake more than we have a reasonable prospect of being able to accomplish; and, in the next place, we have been taught by former experience that if more measures are brought forward during one Session than can be conveniently dealt with they are almost sure to be in one another's way—they fail to pass, and "Most haste is worst speed." But if, as I have said, our list is not as long as it has been on some former occasions, the subjects dealt with are not inconsiderable. We propose to deal with the Ultimate Tribunal of Appellate Jurisdiction, with the laws relating to Merchant Shipping, with University Reform and Primary Education, with the question of Inclosures, and with the re-organization of our Prison System. These are not small results to aim at, and if we succeed in effecting them the Session will not have been wasted. The noble Earl (Earl Granville) referred to the subject of Appellate Jurisdiction, mentioning the fact that the Mover and Seconder had taken no notice of that subject; and he said that perhaps the reason was that it is one of those questions over which it might be convenient to throw a veil. If there is any "veil" in the case—of which I am not aware—I think my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack will not be long before he takes it off. The noble Earl also referred to the want of any sanitary measures in the programme submitted to Parliament. Now, we are deeply and warmly interested insanitary reforms; but I am not aware that we ever promised to introduce a new Public Health Bill every year. Last year there was a Bill of 400 clauses; and I do not suppose that those who take the deepest interest in those questions would think it convenient or satisfactory that we should every year add to or alter the mass of existing legislation upon them. My Lords, I do
34
not think I need dwell at any length upon the questions of Indian and Colonial policy which are referred to in the Royal Speech. The proposed addition to the style and titles of the Sovereign will mark more clearly the relation which She holds to the Native Princes of India, but it raises no controverted question—it makes no change in the relations between governors and governed—it involves no doubtful point of constitutional law—and it is not, therefore, a proposal likely to lead to difference of opinion. The disorders in the Malay Peninsula, which at one moment undoubtedly bore a threatening aspect, have been put an end to by prompt action on the spot; and I think I may say that throughout the vast area of territory under the administration of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies there is no disorder; I believe I may add, there is no discontent. When the time comes, my noble Friend will be able to explain to your Lordships the progress made in the important scheme of Confederation of the South African Colonies; and I may say that my noble Friend will also take an early opportunity of eliciting the opinion of Parliament upon a subject which, in its present state, it was not thought desirable to mention in the Speech from the Throne—I mean the negotiations on which we last year entered for an exchange of territory with France upon the West Coast of Africa. That is a subject which has been much discussed in the public Press, and I may therefore remind your Lordships that it was stated on the part of the Government last year that no steps would be taken in regard to it without giving to the country and to Parliament the fullest opportunity of expressing its opinion upon the measure. To that pledge we adhere, and I only mention it now to show that it has not been forgotten. The noble Earl (Earl Granville) spoke in very complimentary and well-deserved terms of the Colonial administration of my noble Friend. But the unintentional compliment paid by the noble Earl was even higher than that which he expressed, because he was obliged to go back to two matters which I should think hardly any one in this country would have thought of as subjects of criticism—one the publication of a despatch relating to the affairs of Natal; the other,

35
the appointment of a certain person to act in an official capacity in South Africa. Almost the highest compliment which could be paid to the head of any Department is that his critic should dwell upon matters so small in themselves, because it furnishes the most conclusive proof that causes of complaint have been looked for, and that none of any importance could be found. I turn now to a class of questions as to which I neither expect nor desire unanimity—questions with which I am depart-mentally connected, and relating to our foreign policy. I will take one by one the most important points that arise. The noble Earl did not, I think, refer to the affairs of China. In truth I have but little to add to the statement contained in the Speech from the Throne. Your Lordships are aware of what occurred in the course of last summer—the attack upon the Yunan Mission and the lamentable murder of Mr. Margary. "We have insisted that that matter shall be thoroughly and strictly investigated, and we have required the presence of English officials to assist in the investigation as a security that it shall be real and not collusive. So much we have secured after protracted negotiations, in which Sir Thomas Wade has displayed his accustomed energy and ability. The inquiry is now in progress. The result remains to be seen. I need hardly say that we have the most anxious desire to remain on friendly terms with the Government of China. We can have no inducement and no desire to engage in a costly war carried on in a distant and unhealthy country, and in which no great honour can be gained. We can have no desire to injure our growing commerce in that quarter of the world. We can have no desire to help to break up the vast Empire of China or to have another "sick man" on our hands. We have every motive to induce us to insist upon nothing beyond what is strictly reasonable. But what we have demanded from China we cannot go back from; and I sincerely hope that the Chinese authorities will be well advised in this matter, and will not attempt, by any evasion or any delay, to shield those whose guilt may be proved, whatever may be the rank or official position of those persons. From that remoter scene I pass to another country, nearer to pur own, with
36
the affairs of which, during the last 20 years, we have been continually connected—I mean the Empire of Turkey. I need not allude to what you all know—the state of things which has prevailed during the last six months in a part of the Turkish Empire. The insurrection which broke out in Bosnia and Herzegovina was from a military point of view insignificant, and I do not know that even now it deserves any other name. It might have been speedily suppressed by an efficient and energetic Government. The noble Earl (Earl Granville) is right in supposing that when I referred to the subject last October I did so in the belief that the contest was not likely to assume serious proportions; and I think that belief was justified by the state of things then existing. But, as a matter of fact, efficiency and energy were not shown by those concerned in dealing with the insurrection; and when at last some action was taken, it coincided in point of time with that financial collapse which though important enough in other ways, and a cause of suffering to many of our countrymen, is most important and most significant as a sign of general maladministration. Naturally, by this act of repudiation the friends of Turkey were discouraged, and the insurgents gained hope and strength. They have not even now, as far as I can see, obtained any great success, but they have certainly not been put down; and apprehensions are entertained—probably not without reasonable cause—that, if the contest be not promptly suppressed, its area will be extended; Servia and Montenegro may be drawn into it, and there may be produced in those countries a general state of disturbance and confusion which will re-open the whole Eastern Question. That is not a prospect to which any one can look forward with satisfaction A war of that kind, however it may begin, would infallibly as it went on become a religious war—a war between Mussulman and Christian; and even in districts where there might be no actual conflict, feelings of mutual animosity and antagonism would be created between the two religions which, let me say in passing, would probably not be confined to Europe, but might be a source of trouble, and even of danger, to us in another part of the world. Under those circumstances it is not sur-

37
prising that the Governments of Austria, Russia, and Germany should have been anxious to find a means of pacification. Your Lordships know from the Press the general purport of what has passed. The Note of Count Andrassy, which has now become public property, embodies the proposals which were agreed upon between the three Governments of Austria, Russia, and Germany. The noble Earl asks me whether we were consulted in framing the Note. My Lords, I have no hesitation in answering the question. The Note was framed, in the first instance, between the three Governments of Austria, Russia, and Germany. The three other States which have been concerned in the matter—namely, France, England, and Italy—were appealed to subsequently as to the course they would take. We agreed, as your Lordships are aware, to give a general support to the plan indicated in the Note. That decision was undoubtedly one of considerable importance, and I am bound to state clearly the reasons which led us to it. In this instance not only were the three traditional courses open to us, but there were four possible alternatives which we might have adopted. We might have retired from the whole matter, saying that it was no concern of ours. That would have been a very simple and a very easy course; but, my Lords, I do not think it would have been consistent with English policy or satisfactory to the country. It would have deprived us of all influence or right to make our voice heard in regard to future complications which might arise in the Turkish Empire. I ought, perhaps, to mention that not only were we solicited to take the step which we did take by every one of the other European Powers, but from communications we received we have good reason to believe that the Government of the Porte itself was most anxious that we should not stand aloof. Well, we might, in the second instance, have advised the Porte in a contrary sense to the advice embodied in the Austrian proposition. But either our advice would have been taken, or it would have been refused. If it had been rejected, we should have been placed in a false, and even ridiculous position, as being more zealous for Turkish independence than the Turks themselves; while, if such (advice had been tendered by us and
38
accepted by the Porte, we undoubtedly should have been mainly responsible for any calamity which might have befallen the Porte in consequence of acting upon our advice; and having made ourselves so responsible, it would have been difficult for us honourably to withdraw from the business, and to say—"It is no affair of ours." Again, we might, as a third alternative, have proposed some different course if we had had one to propose. It has been suggested, for instance, that the matters in dispute might have been referred to a Conference. But the objections to any proceeding of that kind are obvious. In the first place, we should have stood alone in making that proposition. Then, it would have been of no use to go into a Conference unless we had some definite proposal to bring before it:—so that the mode of proceeding suggested would only have ended in the consideration of some such scheme as has now been placed before the Porte, while there would, of course, have been a great loss of time which might have altogether prevented the work of pacification that we desire to promote. It seemed to us, therefore, that we had practically very little option as to the course we should adopt, both in the interest of the Porte and in that of the populations concerned. Then the question may be asked—"Do you believe that, assuming the Porte to act on the advice given, the insurgents will accept the conditions and will lay down their arms?" Well, that is a point on which no one can speak with certainty. Still, it should be borne in mind that by far the greater part of the strength of the insurrection appears to have been derived from districts lying beyond the Turkish frontier. Everybody knows how strong and general is the sympathy of the neighbouring populations; and I believe if the Austrian Government fulfils in an efficient manner, as it has undertaken to do, the duty which international obligations impose upon it—the duty, I mean, of properly watching its frontier—that the area of hostilities will be greatly limited. In that case, even if a total pacification does not occur, the whole affair will be reduced to the dimensions of a local disturbance, and will cease to be of European importance. If, however, the war should continue as before, it will be for Her Majesty's Government and the other Go-

39
vernments of Europe to consider what steps to take—and I do not think the noble Earl opposite would expect me to state now what course we should take in the event of certain contingencies which it is impossible at present to foresee. I may, however, say now that as regards all future proceedings, we hold ourselves entirely free. We have given a general support to this Austrian proposition because we believe that, on the whole, its acceptance is the wisest course for the Porte to adopt; but it is quite within our power—I do not say to withdraw, for there is no withdrawal in the question—but to abstain from further action, without anyone being able to say that we have either disappointed expectations which we have created or broken any engagements into which we have entered. I am aware that the course we have adopted may be attacked from two opposite points of view. Some persons may think that any interference in the internal affairs of Turkey is indefensible on principle, and is a breach of Treaty engagements. Now, my Lords, to that my answer is two-fold. In the first place I say. Volenti non fit injuria. Our adhesion to the Austrian proposal was regarded by the Porte as a benefit. In the next place, I do not think that Treaty obligations apply to such a ease as the present. You do not, as a rule, enter your neighbour's house without his leave; but if Ms house is on fire, if he cannot or will not put it out, and if the fire is likely to spread, you are not likely to be scrupulous about committing a trespass. On the other hand, there are many persons whose opinion is deserving of all respect who think that nothing ought to be done to avert or postpone the general breaking up of the Turkish Empire. That, my Lords, is not a matter within our power. We may abstain from interfering; but it does not follow that other Powers will do so. There are other Governments besides Turkey which, in their own interests, are not inclined to allow of a wide-spread agitation among the Sclavonic races, having for its object the creation of a powerful Sclave State. For my part, I repeat that a war between the Mahomedan and the Christian populations of Turkey would be a great evil to the world and possibly a danger to ourselves; and I hold that if, without too deeply compromising ourselves, we
40
can stave off that event, we should have done a good work for ourselves, for Turkey, and for civilization. I do not think the noble Earl (Earl Granville) expects an immediate reply to the rather large questions which he put to me on this subject. One was, whether the Note affected in any way the provisions of the Treaty of Paris. I do not know what particular stipulation of the Treaty the noble Earl had in mind; but I believe there is in the Note no contravention of that Treaty. I have now, I think, said enough on the question of the Austrian Note, and by a natural transition I pass on to Egypt. The question of the Suez Canal will, no doubt, come before your Lordships and the other House of Parliament at a very early period: you will not, therefore, expect that I should at the present moment enter into it in detail, and I shall confine myself to saying a few words on the point of principle. It appears to me that ever since the Suez Canal was constructed it has been felt that it was a misfortune to England that the undertaking should have been entirely executed by a foreign Company. It is of no use discussing now the manner in which that state of things came about. I do not wish to be unjust to Lord Palmerston, or to accuse him of having taken a mistaken view of the situation—there were many circumstances connected with the scheme of the Canal, as it was originally brought out, which may naturally have exercised a powerful influence over the mind of a Minister in his position:—but the fact remains that the Canal was made by the aid of foreign capital, it was made in spite of the opposition of the English Government, and its management remained in French hands. There was, however, a double check on the administration of the company—one the authority of the Sultan, and the other the influence possessed over the Canal by the Viceroy of Egypt, partly in his territorial capacity of Ruler of the country through which it passed, and partly, also, as being the person most largely interested, as a shareholder, in its success. Now, it is evident that, under existing circumstances, the power of the Sultan over M. Lesseps and his Company must have been in some degree diminished; and when the Viceroy was anxious to sell his shares, and when a French Com-

41
pany was ready to buy them, it was clear that if they had done so their power over the Canal would have become more absolute and complete than at any former time. We did not think that would be a desirable result, considering that the Canal is our high road to India, and that more than three-fourths—I believe it would be more accurate to say four-fifths, of the tonnage passing through it belongs to us. I cannot believe that our desire to have, under the circumstances, an increased control over the Canal was unreasonable. We saw our way to acquire the influence necessary for that purpose, and we seized the opportunity. I do not in the least care to deny that the transaction is one of an unusual character. It is, I dare say, a somewhat out-of-the-way thing for the Government of a great State to become shareholders in a commercial undertaking; but it is an equally peculiar thing that a foreign and private Company should hold possession of that which has become, not indeed the only, but the principal means of communication between England and a dependency which is in itself an Empire. The noble Earl (Earl Granville) has referred to various reports in connection with this subject, and he has expressed it to be his opinion that the transaction ought not to have been concluded without calling Parliament together at the earliest possible moment. Now, I need not point out—what the noble Earl himself admits, and what, indeed, is obvious—that although the Government may have bound themselves, they have not bound and could not bind Parliament in the matter. We took upon ourselves the risk and the responsibility of recommending to Parliament the purchase of those shares. Legally and constitutionally we could do nothing more than this; Parliament was free to reject the bargain; and I think we are entitled to contend that, in postponing the meeting of Parliament till the usual time, we were not influenced by any undue motive. We acted in that respect against our own interests. There is no doubt that if Parliament had been summoned on the earliest possible day to become a party to the purchase, there would have been much less discussion than will probably be the case now, and the transaction would have been completed under an impulse of general enthusiasm. I do not,
42
however, think that would have been desirable on public grounds. I look upon the question as a grave matter, and one which ought to be discussed in a deliberate manner. If, then, any one complains of delay because a period of two months has been allowed to elapse before Parliament was summoned, in my opinion there would have been quite as good reason, had Parliament been summoned at once, for complaining that we were taking the country by surprise, and not affording the opportunity for having the subject fully and calmly discussed. I need add nothing as to the consideration—though it is one not wholly without importance—that much public inconvenience is caused by the assembling of Parliament before the usual time, and that when it does assemble under such circumstances it is very often deprived of the assistance of some of its most useful Members who, being in distant parts of the world, are not able to arrive in time for its meeting. That, I believe, is all I have to say on this part of the subject; but I may, perhaps, be allowed shortly to refer to the view the noble Earl takes as to the commercial aspect of the transaction, which I agree with him in thinking is certainly not its most important feature. I have good hopes that in a financial point of view the bargain will not turn out to be a bad one. I have expressed that opinion before, and I repeat it; but I do not hesitate to say that if financially it turned out to be a bad bargain, that would be a consideration not to be set against its other advantages; and, on the other hand, that we should not have been justified in concluding the purchase merely on the ground that it would pay well. It is no part of our business to invest the public money in a foreign commercial undertaking because it gives a good return, and if we had acted on any ground of that kind we should be justly liable to criticism. What we desired was influence over the administration of the Canal. I have been told that we have not obtained it, because the voting power connected with the shares which we have bought is limited. Certainly I cannot prove the contrary. If a man denies that two and two make four, I know of no argument that will convince him; and anyone who contends that you may hold two-fifths of the capital

43
of an undertaking like the Suez Canal and yet exercise no influence over it, seems to me to stand in the same position. Holding that large sum, we might if we pleased create a constituency which would not be far from a majority of the whole body of voters, and that is a power which, although we may not choose to exercise it, yet is not unimportant to hold in reserve. I am supposed to have said somewhere—I believe in Edinburgh—that I did not think any political significance was to be attached to this transaction. Now, my Lords, I never made any assertion half so foolish. I never said that the transaction was one of no political significance. What I did say, and what I now repeat, in answer to the observations of the noble Earl, is that it seems to me eminently desirable to repudiate that particular political significance which by many persons—not so much in England as abroad—has been attached to it. It was thought that the purchase was made for the purpose of establishing an exclusive Protectorate over Egypt, and that we had adopted the very policy which we opposed at the time of the Crimean War—that of a partition of the Turkish Empire. I hold that to ascribe to us a policy of that kind is an imputation on this country, and one which it is desirable to repudiate in a most distinct way. What we want is an uninterrupted passage through Egypt and the absence of any foreign control over that country. We want no exclusive use—no monopoly—of the Canal. What we desire is that no such exclusive monopoly should be established by others. We have a greater interest in the East than any other Power; but while we desire to maintain a free passage to the East, we are aware that others have the same wish, and we are bound to respect their interests, as we expect our own to be respected. During the last two or three years a good many difficulties have arisen with regard to the Suez Canal. They were not of a very grave character, and they have been adjusted in a more or less satisfactory manner; but they were and are constantly recurring, and it is their recurrence which we desire to prevent. M. de Lesseps has met us in a friendly spirit, and we are engaged in negotiations with him which I hope will result in a settlement of the various differences which have arisen
44
between the Company and those who use the Canal, and also in the introduction of an English element into the management. I do not speak of that as a result which we are certain of obtaining, but we have reason to be hopeful. The state of the case is briefly this—on the one hand, we do not claim credit for a deep-laid and long-meditated act of policy. There has been nothing underhand—nothing done in secret; we used an opportunity which presented itself, and that was all. On the other hand, after the first moment of natural surprise, I do not believe there exists, or has existed, in any country in the world the slightest feeling of irritation or of distrust as to our policy on this subject. The noble Earl has referred to the financial mission of Mr. Cave. The history of that mission is simple. Every one knows that the Ruler of Egypt has been extremely active in promoting useful public works intended for the development of the resources of Egypt. These works are undertakings which involve a large expenditure of capital, and which are not immediately productive. The result is a certain amount of financial embarrassment. Her Majesty's Government in November last were applied to for the services of two English gentlemen, experienced in financial matters, to assist the Khedive in remedying the confusion which he stated to exist in many branches of his financial administration. We were willing to comply with that request; but it did not appear altogether clear in what capacity these gentlemen were to be sent out, and what was the nature of the services they were expected to perform. We therefore thought it better, before sending them out, to send some one well acquainted with finance and administration generally, and possessing the confidence of the Government, to ascertain more exactly than could be done by correspondence what it was that the Khedive wanted. We thought it desirable, also, that the gentleman whom we sent should be one who might offer him advice and be able to report to us what the financial situation of Egypt really was. The Khedive readily accepted that offer on the part of Her Majesty's Government, and gave Mr. Cave a friendly and even cordial reception. The noble Earl has referred to speculative transactions as having occurred in consequence of

45
this mission. All I can say is, that if a Government is to abstain from doing any act which might lead people to speculate on the Stock Exchange, I really do not know what act of any State might not be liable to a similar objection. No doubt, there may have been a good deal of speculation in consequence of Mr. Cave's visit. If a Government goes to war with another, the effect of that proceeding is to raise the price of horses in the country concerned; but no one would accuse the Government in question of going to war in order to encourage speculation in horses, or hold them responsible for losses that might ensue. In the same way, if speculation should arise in consequence of this mission, we may regret it, but we do not admit that the fault is ours. We have instructed Mr. Cave to abstain most carefully from even appearing to mix himself up with any of those financial schemes which are frequently being laid before the Khedive, and we have no reason to suppose that he has departed from our instructions. We disclaim all desire to interfere in the internal affairs of the Khedive; but we have an interest in his prosperity, and we have shown it, among other things, in inducing him, without pressure or menace, but by mere friendly advice, to withdraw from what we believe to be an unintentional and inadvertent aggression on the territory of Zanzibar. I call it "inadvertent" because it does not appear to have been in the first instance sanctioned by the Government of the Khedive, but was an act done by the officer in command on his own responsibility. We have also obtained from the Khedive an assurance that he will not entertain any such projects as have been attributed to Mm of effecting the conquest of Abyssinia. We have reason to think that an honourable peace will before long be concluded with that country, and that the Egyptian troops will be withdrawn. My Lords, I have done with Egypt, and I now turn to a subject which I fully admit to the noble Earl has excited a feeling in this country disproportionate to any practical results which are likely to arise out of it. I mean the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into our national duties and obligations in regard to slaves who may escape on board our vessels in the waters of coun-
46
tries where Slavery is the law of the land. My Lords, I do not often agree with Mr. Bright, but I do agree with what he said in a recent speech, when he observed that this subject was not so free from difficulty as might appear at first sight. I think that any person acquainted with what has passed will admit that considerable uncertainty, confusion, and contradiction exist as to what our obligations really are. I have seen the Circular that was first put forward and subsequently withdrawn spoken of as if it had been a volunteered expression of opinion on the part of the Government. I do not know what your Lordships' experience may be, but my experience is that Government Departments are not fond of volunteering expressions of opinion on abstract propositions, and particularly in regard to doubtful questions, and where a good deal of unpopularity may be incurred. The fact is, that certain cases occurred which required that instructions should be issued. The Government were asked for those instructions, and we were bound to supply them. It has been said that we might have left the officers to act on their own responsibility; but subject to the condition that we were free to disavow their proceedings if we did not agree with them. That is a course which might be convenient to the Government, but it would be an evasion of responsibility, and unfair to the officers concerned. The question was referred to the Foreign Office, and, as is usual in such cases, we placed it in the hands of the Law Officers of the Crown. That Circular about which so much discussion has arisen was, as I stated at Liverpool, prepared by the highest legal authority. It was framed upon an opinion given by Sir John Karslake, Sir Richard Baggallay, the late Attorney General, and by the present Attorney General, Sir John Holker. We all know what sort of client a layman is proverbially said to have when he becomes his own lawyer, and for my part, and on behalf of my lay Colleagues, I am not ashamed to admit that we did not consider ourselves bettor qualified to decide a point of law than the Law Officers of the Crown. I agree with the noble Earl that no Party considerations are involved in this question. There is no Pro-Slavery or Anti-Slavery Party in this country—the whole Slavery

47
contest has been dead and buried for 40 years. But, then, the question may be asked, why, having issued that Circular, we withdrew it? We suspended the first Circular for two reasons: partly from a feeling of which I shall never be ashamed—that it is exceedingly undesirable to go against the general feeling of the country unless you are absolutely obliged to do so, and especially at a time when, Parliament not being in Session, detailed discussion and explanation are impossible. We had another reason which is equally intelligible. We suspended the first Circular and subsequently withdrew it, because an even higher legal authority—if it is not invidious to say so—I mean my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack—led us to believe that in that matter we had probably been wrongly, or, at any rate, doubtfully, advised. That was our position. My noble and learned Friend entertained grave doubts of the soundness of the law laid down by the Law Officers of the Crown; and in that conflict of opinion we were not prepared to commit ourselves to the defence of what might prove to be an untenable position. As to the Circular last issued, we are prepared to contend, and we think we can prove, that it accurately represents the state of the law. We have no wish, unnecessarily, to set ourselves against a strong and almost universal expression of public feeling; and if the public opinion of this country considers that existing international rules, such as we find them, ought to undergo modification, that is a result which it may not be impossible to accomplish, either by agreement with other Powers or in some other manner. But the first point is to know exactly how we stand, and there is no better way of ascertaining that than to obtain from a body of men who will command general respect an authoritative and impartial declaration of what our obligations and rights in the matter are supposed to be. The noble Earl opposite rather laughed at the notion of a Commission of Inquiry into such a matter; but I think I recollect that a Commission of Inquiry sat upon the subject of the Neutrality Laws—which was quite as much a matter of policy as this—and no one ever disputed that great advantage was derived from it in subsequent discussions. So, again, years ago, when I sat in the
48
other House, various questions connected with Treaties of Extradition, upon which there was considerable doubt, came before us; they were referred to a Select Committee, and the result was the framing of the system under which our present Extradition Treaties have been negotiated. To whatever extent we may legislate or negotiate, it is desirable, in the first instance, that we should ascertain, in an authoritative manner, what our rights and obligations really are. This is the object of the step we have taken. I do not suppose the inquiry will occupy any length of time, and when the result is known we shall be prepared to act upon it. I have detained your Lordships an unreasonable length, but after the appeal made to me by the noble Earl, and considering the various subjects of interest on which information is expected by the public, I could adopt no other course.
THE DUKE OF SOMERSET: My Lords, there are two or three observations I wish to make. And first with regard to the Suez Canal—and in regard to that I think my noble Friend has scarcely done justice to Lord Palmerston—I had frequent opportunities of conversing with Lord Palmerston upon the subject, and therefore I am able to state fairly what his opinions were. The noble Lord objected to the Canal on these grounds—He said we have now an open course to India for our commercial fleets and soldiers, and if new communications are to be opened there will be competition—for either Russia or Franco may seriously compromise our communication with India. You may remember that at that time there was a Napoleonic idea respecting Egypt, to the effect that it might become a French appanage, which had considerable influence on Lord Palmerston's mind. He knew the hereditary appetite for Egypt in the mind of the Emperor, and therefore he saw that great difficulties might arise. If the Canal did not succeed, Suez would still be a French town, and that would be a serious inconvenience to our existing communication; and if, on the other hand, it did succeed, it would be in the hands of a French party, supported by the French Government. If we look back to the time preceding the Emperor's attempt to march to Berlin, matters will wear a different aspect from that they present now; for

49
had it succeeded, the Emperor might have gratified his hereditary appetite for Egypt. On that account Lord Palmerston objected to the occupation of Egypt by the French, which he foresaw would be the consequence of the making of this Canal. He said it might not be in our time that complexities would arise, but arise they must from the making of that communication; and we know that a year ago complications did arise about tonnage dues, and the Company wanted to stop the communication altogether. The Company objected to the exemption claimed for the parts of a ship occupied by machinery, or provided for the accommodation of sailors, and there was a discussion at Constantinople. This was just one of those difficulties which justified Lord Palmerston in objecting to the Canal. He saw its advantages, no doubt, but he thought it probable the disadvantages would be greater; and I am not so sure we are yet altogether clear of the difficulties the possibility of which he foresaw. I do not agree that it would have been well to have called Parliament together in December last. If Parliament had met in December, the purchase would have been approved with acclamation, and Parliament would have passed at once any measure that the Government might have proposed. But the feeling of the country has changed a little since then, and Parliament will now calmly consider this important matter. As to the proposed Commission on the Slavery question, I would ask whether it is wise to appoint such a Commission at all? You cannot lay down any hard-and-fast rules applicable to every case; and you must trust to the discretion of individual officers, in the cases that arise, for the exercise of their judgment. Legislation in a sense unfavourable to the slave will not be tolerated by this country, and a measure which may be popular here may embarrass us if rigidly applied in different parts of the world; and we shall be obliged at last to trust to the discretion of our officers, whom I have found on the whole to act with very great judgment in these cases. Many of them are as it were brought up to the practice of dealing with these eases of slavery, they are constantly discussing them, and they have a greater knowledge of the points involved than can be possessed by us in England;
50
because the actual cases with all the circumstances do not come before us. In dealing with the subject of Merchant Shipping, I hope the Government will not fall into the error of attempting to put everything into one Bill, but will separate the construction and loading of ships, the treatment of the men, and the subject of insurance; because by dealing with different branches of the matter separately, they will facilitate the passing of their Bills, and they will greatly facilitate the future amendment and consolidation of the law—for such future amendment will be inevitable—and if Acts are comparatively short they can be repealed and re-enacted with Amendments, which is a far better and less puzzling course than to pass amending Bills which contain only ambiguous references to former and inaccessible Acts.
Address agreed to, remine dissentiente, and ordered to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
The Lord REDESDALE appointed, nemine dissentiente, to take the Chair in all Committees of this House for this Session.
COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES—Appointed.
SUB-COMMITTEE FOR THE JOURNALS—Appointed.
APPEAL COMMITTEE—Appointed.
House adjourned at half past Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Four o'clock.