Sitting of 16 April 1877

MINUTES.
— SELECT COMMITTEE — Public Offices and Buildings (Metropolis), appointed.
SUPPLY — Resolutions [5th April] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS — Ordered — First Reading —Public Libraries Acts Amendment (No. 2)* [136].
Committee — Report—Mutiny; Marine Mutiny; Settled Estates (re-comm.)* [61].
Considered as amended—Game Laws (Scotland) Amendment [122].

PARLIAMENT — PRIVILEGE — UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE BILL (PETITION FOR ALTERATION).

  ORDER FOR DISCHARGE.
  MR. J. R. YORKErose to call attention to a Petition from the University of Oxford presented on the 9th of April by the Secretary of State for War. It had 122 signatures of graduates, Heads of Houses, Professors, &c.; but there was only one name signed to the Petition itself; the others, instead of being signed to the Petition, were on separate pieces of paper and attached to the Petition by a string, which was contrary to rule. There was, however, a greater irregularity, which was that the names of five of the petitioners from Trinity College were in the same handwriting. The attention of the Petitions Committee had been called to the subject, and they had reported on it; but, considering that the Petition proceeded from men of the highest intelligence, he thought it necessary to call attention to the matter in a manner likely to attract notice. He begged to move that the Order be discharged; but, if the House was of opinion that such a course was not required, he should not persevere with the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order [9th April], That the said Petition do lie upon the Table, be read, and discharged."—(Mr. J. R. Yorke.)
  SIR CHARLES FORSTERsaid, that as no male fides was attributed, and as the irregularities were probably the result of want of acquaintance with the rules of the House, it would be an extreme course if the Motion were pressed.
  MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he had not the slightest doubt that the Petition was bonâ fide, and he hoped his hon. Friend would not press the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

QUESTIONS.
  METROPOLIS — THE CORDWAINERS' COMPANY—CHARITY TRUSTS.

    QUESTION.
    MR. D. JENKINS (for Mr. JAMES)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to an inquest into the circumstances attending the death of Mary Ann Nash, held by Mr. Humphreys on the 6th instant; whether it was stated in evidence that the deceased was in receipt of £5 a-year from the Cord-wainers' Company, which was to be forfeited in the event of her receiving parochial relief; whether the medical man stated that the cause of death was starvation, and that he had never known a worse case; whether the jury returned a verdict to that effect, adding that the regulations laid down by the Company compelled a family to starve, and requesting the coroner to write to the Company on the subject; if the coroner has complied with the jury's request; and, if there would be any objection to lay a Copy of his Letter before the House?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, he believed it was true, as stated at the inquest in question, that the deceased was in receipt of £5 a-year from the Cordwainers' Company, and the medical man did state that the cause of death was starvation; but it was untrue that the regulations laid down by the Company had anything at all to do with the case. The sum so allowed the woman was out of money which they had to dispose of under charity trusts, subject to and under direction of the Charity Commission; but certain clauses of the will bequeathing it to the Company specifically stated that such allowances wore not to be made to those who were in receipt of parochial relief. No further application was ever made to the Cordwainers' Company for any sum out of their ordinary funds, and they had no power to alter the conditions under which the sum allowed was given.

    CRIMINAL LAW — INQUEST ON MR. GEORGE WOOD.—QUESTION.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
    1210
    ment, Whether his intention has been called to the mysterious death of the late Mr. George Wood, of 296, King's Road, Chelsea, as disclosed in the "Whitehall Review" of the 31st March last; and, whether it is his intention to take any steps to obtain a full investigation into the circumstances of the case?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, he had that day seen the copy of the depositions taken at the inquest, and he should be glad to show them to the hon. and learned Member if he desired it. The coroner reported that the jury were unanimous, and that he agreed with them in their finding. He (Mr. Cross) had no reason to suppose that the coroner had conducted the inquiry in an improper manner.

  INDIA-THE CIVIL SERVICE OF INDIA.

    QUESTIONS.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been directed to some passages in a speech delivered by the Viceroy of India, at a Convocation of the Calcutta University, in which Lord Lytton expresses views regarding a new classification of civil appointments, and the necessity for the stoppage or rigid restriction of the present system of supplying young civil servants from England; and, if he can say whether the views of the Viceroy had the concurrence of the other Members of the Government of India and of the Secretary of State before being thus publicly announced to the Native Community?
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, I have read with great interest the speech alluded to by the hon. Gentleman, and in order to explain the purport of that speech, it will be necessary very shortly to state what the law is as regards these appointments in India. By an Act passed in 1861 Parliament specially reserved certain classes of appointments for the Indian Civil Service, entrance into that Service being by competition alone. In 1870 another Act of Parliament was passed, by which special facilities were given for the employment of Natives of India in offices and places hitherto reserved for the Indian Civil Service, subject to rules to be prescribed by the Governor General in Council and sanctioned by the Secretary of State in Council. Some necessary delay occurred

    1211
    in framing these rules, but they were finally agreed to in May, 1875. Such being the law, Lord Lytton took an appropriate opportunity of alluding to it at some length. He pointed out the practical difficulties of carrying out the latter Act, and the necessity of acting cautiously in "a matter in which one false step might be irrevocable and the mischief of it beyond calculation." He also pointed out that whatever was done should be carried out in such a way as to affect as little as was possible the promotion of the Civil Service; and he concluded by saying that if Natives were to be admitted to certain of the posts hitherto reserved for the Civil Service, it would be in his view advisable to reclassify the appointments, in order that the annual supply of civil servants from England might be properly regulated. The objects the Viceroy had in view seem to the Secretary of State to be in conformity with the intentions of an Imperial Act of Parliament. At the same time, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that no reduction upon the supply of young civilians now sanctioned is in immediate contemplation; and that if in future years any such reduction is necessary, it will be carried out in such a way as to avoid impairing the efficiency of the Service, or the quality of the candidates competing for that Service.
    SIR HENRY HAVELOCKasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it has been definitely decided that from next year candidates for the India Civil Service are to go up for examination between the ages of 17 and 19; if so, from what date this rate would take effect; and, whether the candidates passing the first examination on those terms are to be allowed, as heretofore, £150 a-year for two years while at the universities, on the condition that they subsequently successfully passed the final examination?
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: There will be two examinations in 1878, one for the last of the candidates selected under the older system, the other for the first of those who come under the new. To this last examination all candidates will be admitted who are 17 years of ago and are under 19 years of age on January 1 previous. In future years the candidates must be under 19 on June 1 of the year in which they are examined. With respect to the second
    1212
    part of the Question, I have to answer it in the affirmative. I cannot say at what date the first examination under the new system will be held.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT—THE LONDON DAIRIES.

    QUESTION.
    SIR GEORGE BOWYERasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether it is true that cattle are kept in the dairies in London, or premises appertaining thereto, in places defective in light and air, and not favourable to the health of the animals; and, whether he has considered the desirability, having regard to the existence of cattle plague for three months in and about London, of forbidding the keeping of cattle within the Metropolis, and, if necessary, of obtaining powers from Parliament for that purpose?
    VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, a large number of cowsheds in London are, I fear, as the hon. and learned Baronet says, in a very defective condition in regard to sanitary arrangements—a condition of things not altogether unknown, I am afraid, in other districts, both town and country. The question, however, of prohibiting the keeping of any cattle whatever within the metropolis is a very large one, and though the Government are taking very stringent measures to deal with the cattle plague in London, we are not prepared, with our present information, to propose to Parliament to take the extreme measure of forbidding all cattle being kept within its limits.

  NAVY—CLAIMS OF MR. JOHN CLARE.

    QUESTION.
    MR. BIGGARasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Why the Memorial, dated 12th February 1873, endorsed by the note of the Right honourable Richard Assheton Cross, and signed by Sir Thomas Bazley, M.P., and Mr. Henry Brinsley Sheridan, M.P., on the case and claims of Mr. John Clare, the inventor, patentee, designer, promoter, and upholder of the Metal Ship-building of the State Navy since 1853, and the plaintiff in "Clare v. The Queen," has neither been replied to nor acted upon by either the Admiralty or Treasury departments, and that after Her Ma-

    1213
    jesty the Queen's command, bearing date 13th May 1874, to Mr. Clare "to apply to the Government departments "for the liquidation of his claims on the British Nation; and, whether he has any objection to lay the said Memorial, and the Letter that accompanied it to the Right honourable W. E. Gladstone, upon the Table of the House?
    MR. HUNT,in reply, said, that Mr. Clare brought an action against the Crown in 1873, and a verdict was then given against him. Subsequently a letter to the late Prime Minister, and a memorial, undated and unsigned, were sent, but no answer to either was given by Mr. Gladstone. Under those circumstances, the present Government did not think it necessary to take any further steps in the matter; but there was no objection to that memorial being laid on the Table.

    CRIMINAL LAW—DEATH OF A DISCHARGED PRISONER.—QUESTION.
    MR. PARNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to an account in the "Liverpool Daily Post" of an inquest on the body of a prisoner recently discharged from Walton Gaol; and, if so, whether he will direct a post-mortem examination of the body to be made, and a fresh inquiry to be held?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, it would be impossible to order a post-mortem examination; and, if it could be done, no good would result from it. The unfortunate prisoner died as long ago as the 18th of February of virulent small-pox. An inquest was held by one of the most experienced coroners in the country, who -took the precaution of having a perfectly independent medical gentleman called in order to give his opinion of the case before the jury. The jury were a most intelligent jury, and gave patient attention to the case, and the result of their verdict was that the boy died of virulent small-pox, which apparently came on very suddenly. The visiting justices made a searching inquiry, and said they could find no trace of any treatment in the gaol which called for any remark on their part. Under these circumstances, I consider it is not desirable to hold another inquiry.

    WILD FOWL PRESERVATION ACT—SALE OF WILD FOWL.—QUESTION.
    MR. R. W. DUFFasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in consequence of the admitted evasion of the Wild bowl Preservation Act, 1876, he will place that Act in the same relative position as the Salmon Preservation Act, 24th and 25th years of Victoria, chapter 109, section 19, whereby the burden of proving the commodity exposed for sale during close time is imported is thrown on the salesman? He further asked, if the attention of the right hon. Gentleman had been called to two cases reported in the "Times" of that morning, where the presiding magistrates appeared to have come to different conclusions?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, his attention had been called to the two police-court cases reported in The Times of that morning. He hoped the question raised would be settled in one of them by a Superior Court, and until some decision was arrived at he did not think it would be expedient to legislate with the object referred to in the Question.

  ARMY — CAMPAIGN IN THE MALAY PENINSULA—MEDAL FOR TROOPS.

    QUESTION.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is intended to grant a medal in recognition of the arduous and gallant services of the Officers and Troops engaged in the late campaign in the Malay Peninsula?
    MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, while I am willing to give the greatest credit to the gallantry of the troops employed in the Malay Peninsula, it is not thought to be of a character to require a medal.

    RAILWAYS—LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY—HARRISON'S LEVEL CROSSING.—QUESTION.
    MR. BRIGGSasked the President of the Board of Trade, What steps, if any, are being taken by the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company to remedy the dangerous condition of Harrison 's level crossing, by which five lives have already been sacrificed?
    SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY,in reply, said, that an inquiry was being held,

    1215
    and when the Report of the Inspector was received, he would lay it on the Table of the House.

  SPAIN—THE SOOLOO ARCHIPELAGO.

    QUESTION.
    MR. MARK STEWARTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If a treaty has been signed by England and Germany with Spain in regard to the Sooloo Islands; and, if so, to state the nature of it, and lay a Copy of the same upon the Table of the House?
    MR. BOURKE,in reply, said, that a Treaty had been signed at Madrid by the Representatives of Germany, England, and Spain; and the Protocol as well as the Despatches relating to it would be laid on the Table of the House tomorrow.

    TURKEY—ALLEGED CRUELTY TO A TURKISH STUDENT.—QUESTION.
    MR. HANBURYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any information has been received respecting the case of the student alleged to have died in the circumstances telegraphed to the "Times" last week, contradicted by Musurus Pasha, but described more fully in a letter published in the "Times" that morning?
    MR. BOURKE: Sir, my hon. Friend has no doubt seen the explanation which Musurus Pasha has given with respect to this matter, and which has been published in The Times newspaper. We sent a telegram on the subject to Mr. Jocelyn, and he has ascertained that no student at the Military School was bastinadoed.

    TURKEY—RUSSIAN OFFICERS IN SERVIA.—QUESTION.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked, Whether the Government has received any information of the fact stated in the "Morning Post" of to-day, that on the 3rd instant, while Russia was insisting upon the immediate disarmament of Turkey, the Russian Colonel Miloradovitch, together with four other Russian officers, was engaged in Servia in reorganising the lately disbanded corps of volunteers for the service of the Russian Government?
    MR. BOURKE: Sir, we have heard that an agent of the Moscow Slav Committee has been endeavouring to procure recruits in Belgrade to join Despotovitch, the insurrectionary leader in Herzegovina, and has been especially trying to get volunteers from the disbanded corps which served during the war with Turkey under Colonel Miloradovitch; but we have not heard that the latter was himself engaged in recruiting. By the last reports it appears that the office of this agent had been closed.

  TURKEY — THE BULGARIAN ATROCITIES—SENTENCES ON CRIMINALS.

    QUESTIONS.
    MR. GLADSTONEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When it is likely that the account of arrests, sentences, and execution of sentences, on account of the Bulgarian rising and its suppression, for which Her Majesty's Government telegraphed to Constantinople on or soon after the 12th of February, will be in the possession of the House; and, whether Her Majesty's Government are in possession of any information proving that, at the commencement of that rising, six Turkish policemen were burnt slowly to death in quicklime by the insurgents?
    MR. BOURKE: In reply, Sir, to the first part of the Question of the right hon. Gentleman, in reference to the account which we have been endeavouring to get for some time in consequence of a Return which he moved for, I have to state that we have received the Returns with regard to the sentences and executions of the prisoners under the commissions held at Philippopolis, Sophia, and Adrianople. Mr. Jocelyn has been using his best endeavours to get at the facts, and we have received several telegrams from him on the subject of obtaining further information as to other places. The Returns which we have already received will be laid on the Table whenever the right hon. Gentleman expresses a wish on the subject; the others will be as soon as possible. In regard to the second part of the Question, the House is, no doubt, aware that in the Blue Books that were presented last year, Mr. Monson reported to our agent at Ragusa, in April, 1876, that it was stated in that place that some Zaptiehs had been burnt alive; but that relates to a

    1217
    different part of the country to that which the right hon. Gentleman referred to. With regard to Bulgaria, we did hear that in September last, at Bilovar, some Zaptiehs were killed at the time that the burning of the station took place. There was also a report, which was mentioned at the time, that some Zaptiehs had been covered with petroleum and burnt; but it will be in the recollection of the House that Mr. Baring's remarks upon that subject showed the story to be utterly untrue. In regard to Zaptiehs being burnt to death in quicklime, I cannot find anything in the Papers relating to the subject that have been presented to the House.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman, in regard to the particulars mentioned by Mr. Monson, referred to in the report regarding the affairs at Ragusa, Whether he has provided us with all the information, which seems to have been rather undefined, as to time and place; and whether he has been able to verify or to disprove that report, or can afford any clue by which we may clear up those points?
    MR. BOURKE: No, Sir. The only information is contained in the despatches to which I have already referred, and in those despatches it will be remembered there is an explanation by the Turkish Government of the reasons for their having been obliged to resort to the appointment of Bashi-Bazouks.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.

    MUTINY BILL.
    (Mr. Gathorne Hardy, The Judge Advocate General, Mr. Stanley.)
    COMMITTEE. [Progress 12 th April.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses 94 to 103, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 104 (Militia may be attached to regular forces).
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONmoved, as an Amendment, in line 7, after "passed," to insert the words—
    "Provided, That no Militia officer shall be eligible to command any portion of the Regular Forces, unless such officer belongs to a regiment or corps which is at the time embodied for service or assembled for training."
    MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, as he did not wish to put any slight on the Militia officers, he could not assent to the Amendment of the hon. and gallant General, because it provided for a contingency which was not likely to happen, and which could not happen without the cognizance of the military authorities. He could assure the hon. and gallant General that the military authorities would take care that the Regular Troops should always be commanded by officers I of the Army. He should not like, there' fore, to insert a provision which might be thought to cast a slight on Militia officers.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR,thought that the feelings of the Regular Forces as well as of the Militia should be considered.
    COLONEL MUREobjected to the Amendment, and hoped that the Secretary of State for War would not give way.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 105 agreed to.
    Clause 106 (Liability of soldier to maintain wife and children).
    MR. P. A. TAYLOR,in moving, as an Amendment, in page 63, line 23, to leave out "may," and insert "shall thereupon," said, he did it in order that the clause should have the effect of rendering more effective the provisions in reference to soldiers' liability for the maintenance of their families. In past years this Bill did not excite sufficient attention, and the result was that a clause crept into it, exempting soldiers from liability to the support of their wives and children. That was the case for many years, and, although some alterations had been made, they were so qualified that they did not effect any real improvement. Under existing regulations a magistrate's order upon a soldier to contribute to the support of his family might be overruled by the War Office, and if summonses were granted at the instance of soldiers' wives against their husbands who were stationed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court from which the summonses issued, service of such processes would be invalid unless the soldier summoned was provided with sufficient money by his wife to enable him to appear at the Court, and, after

    1219
    the hearing, to return to his quarters. This, he contended, would in many cases deprive starving wives of any remedy against their defaulting husbands. By a Return laid on the Table of the House, he found that during the last year there were 629 wives of soldiers and 1,241 children receiving relief from the poor rate, which, he contended, was a great injury to the ratepayers. The law also as it stood prohibited a soldier, if he married without leave, from giving any support to his wife and children. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in page 63, line 23, to leave out the word "may," and insert the words "shall thereupon."—(Mr. P. A. Taylor.)
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKopposed the Amendment on the ground that the soldier had no legal redress for his pay against the Secretary of State for War, and where the primary claim of the soldier could not be enforced, à fortiori, a secondary claim could not. If the Amendment were carried, it would come into conflict with the 177th Article of War, which empowered the Secretary of State, if he thought fit, to withhold a portion of the soldier's pay. For seven years past, under the provisions of that Article, there had been a perfect administration of the soldier's money, and a soldier's wife who was of good character was not put to any cost in enforcing her claim. He hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment, inasmuch as this subject had been already fully discussed. The practice at present was that when a wife or when Guardians of the poor applied to the War Office, the question was referred to the commanding officer of the soldier. If the soldier did not object, the stoppage was made at once; but if he did object, the character of the wife was inquired into, and if the inquiries were satisfactory the stoppage from the pay was immediately enforced. In cases where a soldier married without leave, no step whatever was taken in this matter.
    Question put, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 218; Noes 122: Majority 96.—(Div. List, No. 68.)
    Amendment proposed, in page 63, line 27, after the word "decree," to leave out to the end of the Clause.—(Mr. P. A. Taylor.)
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 213; Noes 126: Majority 87.—(Div. List, No. 69.)
    Clause agreed to.
    Remaining clauses agreed to.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURmoved the insertion of the following Clause:—
    (Return showing the number of soldiers actually maintained to be laid before Parliament.)
    "And in order that Parliament may be in.. formed as to whether the numbers maintained during the year have been below or above the total numbers provided for in the Preamble Be it further Enacted, That the Secretary of State shall annually present to Parliament, as early as the same can be done, a certified statement of the effectives of the several arms on the first day of each month of the previous year, showing the numbers of the respective arms in the United Kingdom, in depots, in Her Majesty's Possessions, and in India, and totals thereof, with a separate column to show the numbers in excess or below the numbers in the Preamble."
    MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the Returns were given already in the Estimates, and also in the Report of the Inspector of Recruiting, and the adoption of the clause would involve an unnecessary multiplication of Returns. He therefore hoped the hon. Gentleman would not put the House to the trouble of dividing upon it.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that notwithstanding what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, it was impossible to obtain in this country information in a shape corresponding to that in which similar information was regularly published in France.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    Schedule read, and agreed to.
    Preamble read.
    On Question, "That it be agreed to,"
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURmoved, as an Amendment, in page 1,

    1221
    line 12, after "numbers," to leave out "serving," and insert "according to the establishment fixed for," his object being to revert to the terms of the Mutiny Act in the time of the East India Company, so far as to limit the number of men at any time in England belonging to the Indian Establishment. If it was necessary to make up the depôts in India the men, instead of being taken from those serving in India, should be drawn from the depôts at home.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, the proposed Amendment was useless, and would not improve the Preamble in the sense intended by the hon. Gentleman. The numbers in the depôts in India were known, and if the Amendment were adopted they could not be very accurately computed.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that the words "belonging to regiments in India" had always been used in Mutiny Acts, and he believed it was only in 1863 that the phraseology had been altered. He thought that the words he proposed were more in accordance with the good government of the troops.
    MR. F. STANLEYsaid, that all the depôts were now merged, which necessitated an alteration. The Preamble as it stood was in conformity with the mode of payment which was adopted as between this country and India.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that, having brought the subject forward, and being opposed by the Government, it was useless his forcing the House to a division. He would therefore reluctantly withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday.
    MR. GATHORNE HARDYgave Notice he would propose that the Bill be considered as the first Order on Thursday, and that it receive its final reading then, in order that it might go up to the House of Lords without further delay.

    MARINE MUTINY BILL.
    (Mr. Hunt, Mr. A. F. Egerton, Sir Massey Lopes.)
    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committe read.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses 1 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 18 (Swearing and summoning witnesses).
    CAPTAIN PIMmoved, as an Amendment, the insertion of a clause to follow Clause 17, providing that in all trials by courts martial prisoners who desired it might have the assistance of counsel.
    MR. HUNTsaid, that the Amendment well deserved consideration; but he was not, at present, prepared to accept it, because it would make so great a change in the procedure of courts martial. If it were adopted in the Navy, it should also have a place in the Army Mutiny Bill, and in that case it would be necessary to make other alterations in both Bills, so as to make their provisions conformable to it. If, however, the hon. and gallant Gentleman would withdraw it, he would confer with the Secretary of State for War and see whether some such change could not be introduced next year into both Bills as would virtually carry out the desired object. It was too late now to introduce it, as a similar clause had not been introduced in the Army Mutiny Bill that had just passed through the Committee.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 19 agreed to.
    Clause 20 (Crimes punishable with death).
    MR. PARNELLsaid, it might be in the recollection of the Committee that he drew attention to a similar clause in the Army Mutiny Bill, and pointed out that there were many offences in the clause which he thought ought to be punished by a sentence of penal servitude. He referred to the higher classes of military offences, such as joining in any mutiny, or not using the utmost exertion to suppress such mutiny, or conspiring with any person to cause such mutiny. He had pointed out that many of the offences in the clause were of such a character as ought not to be at-

    1223
    tended with reformatory discipline which was intended for the criminal classes who had led immoral and depraved lives, and whose natures had become hardened by constant contact with others like themselves. He would suggest that there should be some classification of offence in the clause, and that any offences which did not involve any moral depravity, and which did not involve any injury to an officer or to any other person, might be punished by imprisonment, with or without hard labour, instead of penal servitude, which was necessarily a punishment of a reformatory character. It was not his intention to move an Amendment until ho had more time to consider what shape that Amendment ought to take. He would move his Amendment on the Report of the Bill, and would content himself meanwhile by directing the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty to the matter.
    MR. HUNTsaid, that the matter had been fully discussed when the Army Mutiny Bill was before the Committee, and he must abide by the decision that was then come to.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that the answer was not at all satisfactory. He must deny that the matter was discussed at all, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War seeming to treat it with contempt. He could easily imagine circumstances in which such extremely degrading penalties would be quite undervalued. How would the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt) himself like, supposing on those occasions, when he unfortunately fell asleep at his post, he incurred the penalties of penal servitude, death, or imprisonment? Why then should such extreme penalties be allotted to a soldier who fell asleep at his post?
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 21 (Commutation of death for penal servitude or imprisonment, &c.).
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERmoved to insert the words—
    "Provided always, That the solitary confinement hereinbefore mentioned shall in no case exceed seven days, at intervals of not less than 14 days between each period of such confinement."
    He objected to perpetual solitary confinement being added to the punishment of penal servitude.
    MR. PARNELLsupported the Amendment, pointing out that the effect of the clause as it stood was that the commanding officer could inflict solitary confinement during the whole term of a prisoner's confinement. That was such a fearful, horrible punishment that it could scarcely be the intention to inflict it. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the proposal.
    MR. HUNTsaid the Bill in this particular only followed the lines of that the Committee had just passed.
    MR. PARNELLurged that the Amendment would simply place those prisoners whose sentence had been commuted upon the same footing in regard to the punishment by solitary confinement as those prisoners undergoing the original sentence of penal servitude from a court martial.
    MR. CHILDERSsupported the Amendment.
    MR. HUNTpointed out that Clause 38 limited the term of solitary confinement to 14 days, and from the wording of the clause he was disposed to think that that limitation extended to the whole of the Bill. [Mr. O'CONNOR POWER dissented.] His hon. and learned Friend near him thought it did so apply. It was inconvenient that an Amendment of the kind should be brought forward without Notice, and if hon. Gentlemen wished to raise the question, he hoped they would raise it at a future stage.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERunderstood there were differences of opinion on the subject on the Treasury bench. If the right hon. Gentleman thought that the limitation in Clause 38 reflected upon Clause 21 there could be no objection to the Amendment.
    MR. PARNELLagreed it was desirable to give Notice of Amendments, but it was not the custom to bar Amendments unless that was done, and he regretted the right hon. Gentleman did not seem perfectly acquainted with the Bill.
    MR. HUNTsaid, he was unwilling to accept the Amendment without more consideration.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERcommented upon this as a most unsatisfactory answer, and said there had been no argument against the Amendment.
    MR. HUNTadmitted that the power of inflicting solitary confinement ought to be limited; but, at the same time, it

    1225
    was impossible at a moment's notice to accept the Amendment without reference to the Legal Advisers of the Government. There might be no discussion on the Report, but he found it desirable to introduce a limitation such as that proposed. The Bill should be re-committed for the purpose.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 22 to 27, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 28 (Power to inflict corporal punishment in certain cases).
    MR. MONKsaid, there was a strong feeling that, as corporal punishment had been practically got rid of in the Army, it was desirable to abolish it also in connection with the Navy. He should move, as an Amendment, that so much of the clause as related to corporal punishment be omitted.
    Amendment proposed, in page 16, line 21, to leave out the words "in time of peace."—(Mr. Monk.)
    MR. HUNTsaid, that the same words occurred in the Army Bill, and the hon. Member ought to have raised the discussion upon that. He ought, moreover, to have given Notice of his Amendment, which he had not done. In consequence he (Mr. Hunt) could not immediately decide as to what course he should pursue. He would, however, promise the hon. Gentleman to give the question a careful consideration.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 103; Noes 70: Majority 33.—(Div. List, No. 70.)
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERmoved an Amendment providing for the reduction of the number of lashes which might be inflicted under the clause from 50 to 25, in order to mitigate the punishment of flogging which the Committee had refused to abolish; but which, in his opinion, was not at all necessary. He confessed he saw no reason for inflicting 50 lashes on any man, for, unless the victim was possessed of an unusually good constitution, he lost consciousness after the first 10 or dozen strokes.
    Amendment proposed, in page 16, line 27, to leave out the word "fifty," in order to insert the words "twenty-five."—(Mr. O' Connor Power.)
    SIR JOHN HAYhoped the hon. Member did not mean to refuse to the Navy a power of punishment which was exercised in civil life. By an Act of 1863 persons committing some offences in civil life were liable to be sentenced to 50 lashes, and surely that was not too great a punishment to hang over the heads of desperate men who, in time of war, could not be restrained by any other means from the gravest breaches of discipline.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERavowed himself an opponent of flogging civil offenders as well as soldiers and sailors.
    MR. M'LARENspoke in favour of the Amendment. The maximum punishment was never inflicted, and if corporal punishment was to be retained he thought the punishment authorized by the Act should be brought more into harmony with that which was usually inflicted. The old Mosaic dispensation, with its principle of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, was not very remarkable for leniency, yet there the amount of flogging was 40 stripes, save one, while the Bill gave that number, and 11 in addition. It should be further remembered that the punishment of flogging exercised a strong influence in deterring men from entering the Naval Service.
    COLONEL BERESFORDsaid, as the application of the "cat" had a wholesome effect on garotters, there was reason for retaining it in cases where men disgraced Her Majesty's Service.
    MR. A. M'ARTHURdenied that the crime of garotting had in any way been affected by corporal punishment.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, it would be time enough to discuss the amount of flogging for garotters and wife beaters when that subject occupied their attention; but it was surely not desirable that our gallant sailors should be classed with those criminals. He considered that flogging ought not to be inflicted for the offences of insubordination, drunkenness, or desertion. If there was one thing which had made a great impression on him in reference to this subject, it was reading the account an officer gave of the first time he witnessed the

    1227
    punishment inflicted on as good and brave a soldier as ever stepped in uniform. The man had gone through the Crimean War, the Kaffir War, and the Indian Mutiny; but, because he was carried away by that desire for drink, so common to cold climates, he was lashed to the triangles and flogged in such a way that strong, healthy men fainted at the sight. He (Mr. Parnell) denied that even a garotter ought to be flogged, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would yield to the dictates of humanity and consent to this inhuman and disgusting punishment—which it was seldom necessary to inflict on our gallant soldiers—being altogether removed from the Statute Book.
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out to the Committee that the question had not reference to flogging in the Army but in the Marines.
    MR. SULLIVANthought that it was scarcely creditable to the House, when we were on the brink of a European war, to be discussing the question of the torture of our Marines. If it was necessary, in order to preserve order, to have a torture of some kind, he would suggest that Her Majesty's Government would find the thumb-screw and the "scavenger's daughter" far more efficacious than the lash. We might disguise the fact from ourselves as much as we chose, but it was evident that we were equally barbarous with our forefathers, seeing that we merely changed one instrument of torture for another, which was just as bad and more degrading than the "scavenger's daughter" or the thumb-screw. Indeed, it was a disgrace when Russia had flung down the knout that England should retain the cat.
    Question put, "That the word 'fifty' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 86; Noes 64: Majority 22.—(Div. List, No. 71.)
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 29 (Power to inflict corporal punishment and imprisonment).
    MR. PARNELLmoved an Amendment restricting the duration of solitary confinement to seven days. The other evening he took a division upon the Amendment restricting the time to three days in the Army. The Committee,
    1228
    however, had adopted seven days, and he did not wish to lay himself open to the charge of obstruction by proposing three days again. He, therefore, proposed that the limit of solitary confinement should be seven days, and intervals between such confinement of not less than 14 days. To many temperaments solitary confinement was a more fearful punishment than the cat, and, indeed, temporary insanity had been known to ensue. He would provide that out of each 336 days of penal servitude in no case should a prisoner suffer more than 49 days' solitary confinement.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 16, line 31, to leave out the words "the periods" to the end of the Clause, in order to add the words "seven days at a time, nor forty-nine days in any one period of three hundred and thirty-six days, with intervals of not less than fourteen days between the periods of solitary confinement."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    MR. HUNTpointed out that to agree to the Amendment after the course that had been taken upon the Army Mutiny Bill would be to make an invidious distinction between the treatment of soldiers and sailors. This he did not think the Committee would consent to do.
    MR. PARNELLthought the objection made by the First Lord of the Admiralty was absurd and illogical, and that it was not because the Mutiny Bill had slipped superficially through the Committee that the Committee should refuse to entertain the Motion he now proposed.
    MR. CHILDERSobserved that the hon. Member for Meath was prejudicing his case by urging a Motion on a subject now which had not been thoroughly considered in itself. The present was not an opportune moment for raising so large a question, and the hon. Member would do well to bring it forward in an abstract form after information on the subject had been obtained concerning it from the medical and other officers of military and naval prisons.
    MR. PARNELLsaid he had brought forward the Motion because he believed that the prolongation of solitary confinement was a cruel and inhuman practice. The matter had been so long before the country that no further information could be required with respect to it. It was very difficult for private Members to get an opportunity of raising such questions, and entertaining the strong

    1229
    opinions he did with respect to it, he must press the Motion to a division.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLmaintained that the Bill strictly proportioned the term a solitary confinement to the length and severity of the imprisonment. That was exemplified in Clauses 21, 29, 30 and 37.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that the facts were not so, but he agreed with the principle stated. Where the period of imprisonment was short, the period of solitary confinement was also short; but then, where the period of imprisonment was long, the period of solitary confinement was also long. Now that was inconsistent with the principle contended for by the last speaker—that the less severe the sentence of imprisonment, the larger might be the proportion it passed in solitary confinement. It seemed to him to be very cruel to sentence a man both to a long term of imprisonment and to a long period of solitary confinement.
    MR. BIGGARsupported the Amendment as one required in the interests of humanity. He would remark, with reference to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ponte-fract, that the surgeons always reported in favour of increased punishments.
    MR. W. WHITWORTHsaid, that in his opinion, founded on his own experience, these severe and cruel punishments instead of being deterrent, had a directly opposite effect. He should certainly vote for the Amendment. He had once ordered a man to be flogged, and he should never forgive himself; but he had known a whole ship's crew flogged. If they had a man so bad that it required him to be sentenced to seven days' solitary confinement, in addition to a term of imprisonment, they had better dismiss him the Service.
    MR. SULLIVANwould like to hear the opinion of some medical Member of the House present in Committee on the subject. Solitary confinement was a form of torture to a Marine or seaman accustomed to active life and to the society of his messmates. Nothing could in fact be more injurious to a man's mind than to have seven days' solitary confinement, followed after an interval by a further period. He believed that the effect of solitary confinement in our prisons had been most disastrous; for when protracted, it would injure the mind of any man of active temperament.
    1230
    Now, although he did not wish to detract from the severity of the punishment given to criminals, he did not think it should be pushed to an extent which would have this effect. It ought to be given with such intervals as would leave the offender fit for his duties. He should, therefore, vote with the hon. Member for Meath.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsupported the Amendment. That was the most appropriate time for bringing forward the Motion.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: — Ayes 81; Noes 51: Majority 30. — (Div. List, No. 72.)
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 30 (Power to commute corporal punishment).
    Amendment proposed, in page 17, line 4, to leave out the words "twenty-five," in order to insert the word "twelve."—(Mr. O'Connor Power.)
    Question put, "That the words 'twenty-five' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: — Ayes 86; Noes 53: Majority 33. — (Div. List, No. 73.)
    MR. PARNELLmoved that in the term of imprisonment contemplated by the clause, or inflicted under it, no period of solitary imprisonment should follow another at a less interval than 14 days. As the principle of this Amendment was that which he had moved but a short time ago, he should not trouble the Committee with any observations, but should content himself with simply moving the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in page 17, line 6, to leave out the word "seven," in order to insert the word "fourteen." —(Mr. Parnell.)
    Question put, "That the word 'seven' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 96; Noes 47: Majority 49.—(Div. List, No. 74.)
    MR. SULLIVANmoved to insert after Clause 30—
    "Provided always, That the lashes aforesaid shall not be administered by any instrument save one approved and duly stamped by the Lords of the Admiralty."

    1231
    [Laughter.] Hon. Members who laughed would find out very well, if they had just been subjected to the experiment, that there might be a great difference in the instrument of torture applied. An Irish witness was once asked what was the size of a stone, and he replied it was the size of a lump of chalk. There was nothing that really stamped or settled what was to be the cat, and if they were to retain that barbarous torture he, at all events, would demand that the First Lord of the Admiralty should set his seal upon every such instrument of torture before it was issued. He was quite willing to avow, in moving this addition, that he was actuated by a feeling that they were that night killing the cat, and that, in fact, they were doing more by these divisions to extinguish torture in the Navy than was done the other evening by his hon. and esteemed Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor).
    MR. FORSYTHasked whether the hon. Member was in Order in proposing the imposition of a "stamp" on the subject? It depended on the nature of the stamp.
    THE CHAIRMANobserved that it was perfectly competent for the hon. Member to propose the imposition of the kind of stamp which the Amendment appeared to contemplate.
    MR. W. WHITWORTHthought that the addition proposed by the hon. Member for Louth should not be made to the clause, unless it could be shown either that the "cats" now employed in the Navy were in themselves unfair instruments of punishment, or that captains used them in an unfair and unfeeling manner. Indeed, he could not but regard the Amendment as a direct slur upon the humanity of the captains of our Navy. He had not had a great deal of communication with those gentlemen; but, so far as he knew anything of them, he believed that they were humane and honourable men, and he was sure that they would scorn to take advantage of a poor wretch by using an instrument that was unusual or cruel. Of course he was opposed to the infliction of such punishment altogether; but while it remained in force he objected to such a slur being cast on captains in the Navy.
    MR. SULLIVANsaid, the hon. Member for Newry had had very little experience of this matter. The hon. Member had never seen a man flogged in his
    1232
    life but once under his own sentence, and to his great honour he had regretted it ever since. As he (Mr. Sullivan) understood, there were two different cats used in the Navy—one called the "thieves' cat," the other the ordinary cat—showing that it was necessary his Amendment should be adopted. He was also told that when a victim was flogged by a left-handed man that the whole thing was so botched that it was abhorrent to all who were standing by at the time. He should like to see specimens of both sorts brought into the House to show hon. Members what they were like. There was a great difference in the severity of the punishment inflicted by the two, and he had seen gentlemen of the press in Dublin who had come away from witnessing the worst form of punishment with their faces bespattered with the blood and torn flesh of the victims. ["Oh, oh!"] He was delighted to hear that there was humanity there if not elsewhere. He stated solemnly what had been recorded in the newspapers of his native city. He insisted that this matter of flogging should be subjected to the closest scrutiny. He had no objection to leave the selection of the instrument to the humanity and honour of the Secretary of State for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty; but he objected to its being left to the caprice of any commander in the Navy.
    MR. O'CONNOR, POWERsaid, that if they were to rely upon the humanity and honour of captains in the Navy, why need they fix a limit of 50 lashes? Unfortunately, they could not trust to the clemency or humanity of officers in the Navy or Army. They were human, and were as liable to be swayed by passion as other men, and were consequently capable of performing acts of cruelty. Although they had been beaten several times in divisions, he believed they were engaged in a work which would yet be of great benefit to the Army and Navy.
    LORD FRANCIS CONYNGHAMsaid, that having served in the Navy for many years, he voted for the abolition of flogging in the Navy from a conviction that it was unnecessary for the preservation of discipline. He entered the Navy at 13 years of age, and he had frequently seen three and four men flogged before breakfast, and some with the thieves' cat. The common cat had nine lines of white cord. The thieves' cat had

    1233
    three knots on each line, and so severe was the pain inflicted by it that it was very properly only administered when a thief was discovered on beard ship, who, he need not say, was a man cordially detested by every blue-jacket. It was his sincere conviction that the discipline of the finest Service in the world, to which he was so proud to belong, would be improved by the abolition of this accursed practice.
    MR. A. F. EGERTONsaid, that not having had Notice of the Amendment, he had not been able to make inquiries; but he was under the impression that the cats were supplied to the Navy from the dockyards according to a certain pattern; and if that was the case the pattern must have been approved by the Lords of the Admiralty, so that the Amendment was unnecessary.
    SIR HENRY HAVELOCKsaid, the less the cat was used the better, and the Navy in that respect should be put under the same rules as the Army. In that Service, the punishment of flogging could not be inflicted except upon the sentence of a court martial upon sworn evidence, whereas, as he understood, it might be still inflicted in the Navy on the order of one man.
    ADMIRAL SIR WILLIAM EDMONSTONEdenied that such was the case. At least two officers had to decide on the matter.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that it was notorious that some captains were much more severe in their discipline than others, and he thought the Amendment of the hon. Member for Louth was a perfectly reasonable one.
    MR. HOPWOODsupported the Amendment. He thought it would have a good effect to see Members of the Board of Admiralty sitting in grim judgment upon the cat, and perhaps in playfulness trying its effect upon each others shoulders.
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that no doubt the punishment was both a severe and disgusting one. He would, however, remind the Committee that the clause did not apply to the Navy, but to the Marines; and no Marine could be flogged except for some such offence as rendered civilians liable to the same punishment. Yet all civilians did not feel degraded thereby. Under those circumstances it would be just as reasonable to ask the learned Judges of the
    1234
    land to try upon each other the effects of the cat used in the common gaols.
    MR. PEASEwould wish to see the punishment entirely done away with; but if the time had not come for that, he thought the object of the hon. Member for Louth would be met if the First Lord of the Admiralty would accept the proposal that there should be a standard cat adopted for the Service. It was hardly worth while for the right hon. Gentleman to oppose the Amendment, seeing that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. A. F. Egerton) "was under the impression" there was a pattern cat approved of by the Admiralty, and that therefore it should appear in the Mutiny Act seemed almost necessary—as, whilst this punishment was in force, it could not be contended that commanders should choose the instrument with which it was to be inflicted.
    MR. HERMONobjected to the proposal that the cat should be stamped, but suggested that the hon. Member for Louth's (Mr. Sullivan's) purpose would be equally effected if the cat used were one authorized by the Department. The question might be settled by a Committee or a Board.
    MR. GOSCHENapproved of the suggestion of the hon. Member who had just spoken, and hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt) would adopt it. When he or his right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract were in office they did not see their way to doing away with the cat, and they would not in opposition vote differently to what they did when in office.
    MR. FORSYTHsuggested the withdrawal of the Amendment and the substitution of another proposing that the cat used should be of a regulation pattern.
    SIR JOHN HAYthought that if the proposal made was merely to have a "cat" of the same pattern as to length and thickness for all cases, there could be no difficulty in carrying it out. In fact, that was practically done already.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYpointed out that if a captain violated the Admiralty regulations by using a cat different from that sanctioned by the authorities, he could only be punished by the Admiralty; but if he violated the Act of Parliament, he would commit a crime, and render himself liable to a criminal prosecution or an action-at-law. He there-

    1235
    fore could not advise his hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment.
    MR. HUNTsaid, he did not think any necessity existed for putting any words about the cat into the Bill. It was right that the cat should be of a regulation pattern, and he thought it was so; but the matter was one that could be dealt with by the Admiralty regulations, and he was willing to deal with it in that way. He could not agree to the Amendment proposed for the stamping of the "cat."
    MR. SULLIVANoffered to omit the words "and duly stamped."
    MR. CHILDERSappealed to the First Lord of the Admiralty not to persist in objecting to the Amendment as it had been modified.
    Amendment amended, by omitting the words "and duly stamped," and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 31 to 36, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 37 (Power of imprisonment by general, district, and garrison courts-martial).
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he had an Amendment to move to the clause. The clause provided that a garrison court martial must sentence a Marine to imprisonment with or without labour. He wished to point out that the clause gave him an opportunity of settling the principle, that where a long term of imprisonment is given the amount of solitary confinement should be small. He thought it was important that a man sentenced to a long term of imprisonment should not be subjected to a long period of solitary confinement. By the clause power was sought to give a man sentenced to a year's imprisonment solitary confinement for a period not exceeding 14 days, and not more than 84 days in one year, he proposed to substitute seven days for 14 days and 49 days for 84 days.
    THE CHAIRMANruled that the two Amendments could not be put together.
    MR. PARNELLmoved to substitute seven days for 14 days.
    Amendment proposed, in page 21, line 41, to leave out the word "fourteen," in order to insert the word "seven."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    Question put, "That the word 'fourteen' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 139; Noes 64: Majority 75.—(Div. List, No. 75.)
    Amendment proposed, in page 21, line 41, to leave out the words "eighty-four," in order to insert the words "forty-nine."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    Question put, "That the words 'eighty-four' stand part of the Clause." The Committee divided:—Ayes 159; Noes 53: Majority 106.—(Div. List, No. 76.)
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 38 to 72, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 73 (Billeting of marines).
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the clause regulated the billeting of Royal Marines on shore, and, according to the present system, the officers were not compelled to pay for the night's lodging where they were billeted. This was a matter which affected Ireland more than England, because in Ireland the accommodation was very limited. He therefore moved to amend the clause by leaving out the words "Provided always that no officer shall be compelled to pay for the lodging on which he may be billeted."
    THE CHAIRMANhaving put the Question—
    MR. PARNELLcomplained of the want of courtesy on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty in not giving an explanation.
    MR. HUNTsaid, he had not risen to give any reasons to either this or the preceding Amendments of the lion. Member, because he considered they had been only proposed to obstruct the progress of the Bill. The innkeepers did not object to receiving officers on those terms, because if they did not pay for their lodgings they paid for a good many other things.
    MR. PARNELLsaid that innkeepers in England might not object, but they certainly did object in Ireland.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause agreed to
    Remaining clauses agreed to.
    House resumed.
    MR. HUNTgave Notice that he would take the Bill as amended into consideration on Thursday, when he hoped to be able to pass it through its final stage.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday.

    MARINE MUTINY BILL.
      WAYS AND MEANS.

        COMMITTEE.
        Order for Committee read.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
        CAPTAIN NOLAN,in rising to move—
        "That in levying Income Tax a certain portion of each income should be exempted from this tax, and that this sum should be the same for all incomes,"
        said, he considered that the incidence of the tax as at present levied was grossly unjust and unfair as regarded certain classes. He maintained that in order to place the matter on a proper footing a certain sum ought to be deducted from every income before it was subjected to this tax, and that the tax should be made on the over-plus. The principle on which the income tax was supposed to rest was that every person should pay according to his income, but the existing system entirely violated that principle; because one was made to pay not only according to his income, but also on articles of consumption to the Excise and Customs. If the matter was taken ad valorem it would be found that in this way the poor paid more on articles of consumption than did the rich. He trusted the Government would take the matter into consideration, with a view to placing the tax on a more satisfactory footing. The tax was a varying one, and no one could tell how high it would be in a short time if the country were to have a war tax. A man with a limited income of £160 a-year paid more in proportion on his spirits and beer in duty to the Excise than the rich man paid on his wine. Suppose a man spent 6d. a-day in spirits and beer—and that was not very much—he would pay to the Revenue £7 a-year; and thus it was that the poor man with a family paid twice over—first to the Income Tax, and next to the Excise. Therefore, on the principle that the necessaries of life ought not to be taxed, there ought to be exempted from the Income Tax an amount of income upon which the tax would amount to £7. This would be £840, with a minimum tax of 2d. in the pound, and £105 with the maximum as yet reached of 1s. 4d. in the pound. That, however, was imposed in time of war, when some indirect duties would
        1238
        be also raised; so that, perhaps, £120 might be reasonably taken as the lowest amount of the necessary expenditure of a family that ought to escape taxation. It might be thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would lose a great deal of revenue if he permitted a uniform deduction to be made from very large incomes. He had, however, looked over the figures, and he found that if at the present rate of Income Tax it was in no case charged upon the first £150, the rich would gain very little, and that the great gain would accrue to persons of moderate income. He contended that people with incomes of from £400 to £600 deserved to be exempted from payment on the first £120 or £150, because at present they were paying double—first on the Income Tax and then by their expenditure on the Customs and Excise. With the tax at 3d. in the pound, the total loss to the Exchequer by this universal exemption would be only £3,750. Of course in the case of a war, if the Income Tax rose to 1s. in the pound, an additional 1d. in the pound would have to be put on to cover the cost of these exemptions, which would be quite fair and reasonable. He did not propose any change in the Budget this year; but he wished the House to agree to his Resolution, in order to justify the Chancellor of the Exchequer on some future day in placing these exemptions on a just and more equitable footing. He begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
        Amendment proposed,
        To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in levying Income Tax, a certain portion of each income should be exempted from this tax, and that this sum should be the same for all incomes,"—(captain Nolan,)
        —instead thereof.
        Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
        THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwished to acknowledge the pains which the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Captain Nolan) had taken; but it was the same subject that was discussed on the Budget Resolutions of last year, and one which had been brought before successive Houses of Commons ever since the Income Tax was revived

        1239
        by Sir Robert Peel. There was undoubtedly at first sight some plausibility in the proposal which the hon. and gallant Member now made; but at the same time he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was not very clear as to the nature of the hon. and gallant Member's argument in regard to the payment which he said a man made from his income through Excise and Customs. The sums a man contributed to Customs and Excise duties were governed by other circumstances than the mere amount of his income, and were, in fact, no more than he found it right or convenient to spend. The systems of taxation upon income and of taxation by Customs and Excise duties to a certain extent balancing and supplementing one another seemed to him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) more nearly a fair system of taxation than one resting solely upon the one or the other. He felt that in all these attempts to re-adjust the Income Tax they were pursuing something which was very much in the nature of a phantom—a shadow; they were trying to catch that which could not be caught; endeavouring to balance an egg upon its end; because, whatever might be done in order to get the tax perfectly fair, they would find that it lurched to one side or the other. What they had to do was to get a system which was tolerably and fairly workable, and which upon the whole exhibited as little as might be of gross inequality. Any attempt to get any adjustment with precise and absolute accuracy would, he thought, be found a failure. In regard to exemptions, he did not at all see the fairness of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman proposed. He did not see why they should take off from a rich man an arbitrary sum and say they would tax him upon his income, minus that particular and arbitrary sum. If incomes up to £150 were exempt, it was hardly fair that a man having an income of £151 should be taxed to the full amount. It was for this reason that the exemptions were introduced; but, in the cases of large incomes, it could not be said that it was necessary to give them the £150 exemption. In fact, to admit the principle would land them in an untenable, and sometimes an absurd, position. It was a very different thing when they were at the bottom of the scale; what they had then to consider
        1240
        was not to tax a man upon income if he had not more than enough to support life. On that ground it had always been considered desirable to take a certain sum as the minimum taxable amount, and it was fair that from incomes somewhat above the minimum a deduction should be made, in order that there might not be a sudden difference between the taxation of an amount immediately below and that of an amount immediately above the minimum. That was done partly for convenience; but, in the case of a man with £1,000 a-year, it would be absurd to allow him £150 to live upon, and to treat the rest as surplusage. Ho would not discuss the figures which had been submitted to the House, further than to say that the adoption of the hon. and gallant Member's proposal would undoubtedly entail a considerable loss upon the Exchequer, the effect of which would be to render an increase in the tax necessary. He maintained, as a question of principle, that it would be a mistake to introduce this new complication into the Income Tax, for it was not so simple a thing as the hon. and gallant Member seemed to suppose to exempt the first £150 of incomes. Exemptions gave a great deal of trouble, and if they were extended to all incomes, much additional labour would be thrown upon the Inland Revenue officers, and inconvenience caused to the taxpayers themselves. Therefore, while fully acknowledging the spirit in which the hon. and gallant Member had brought forward the subject, he trusted the proposal would not be accepted by the House.
        MR. CHARLES LEWISagreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in attempting to adjust the Income Tax they were trying to catch a shadow, and believed that to be one of the reasons why the Income Tax had been so unpopular; and so long as it existed in its present form it would be the source at different periods of continual agitation. The proposition of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Nolan) would exempt no less than £25,000,000 of income—taking into account only incomes of over £400 a-year—from the Income Tax, and, although at present the tax was but lightly felt, the House ought to consider what the effect would be if war were to break out, and that

        1241
        large sum were relieved of a tax at the rate of 1s. to 1s. 4d. in the pound. Such an exemption was utterly worthless and unnecessary so far as the higher class of incomes was concerned, and could only have been introduced from a respect for abstract symmetry. For his own part, he thought that instead of extending exemptions, we ought to limit them or abolish them altogether. They were fully discussed last year, and he could not help thinking still that the system was of a pernicious character. They ought to bear in mind that the tax had now passed from an occasional impost for war or other extraordinary circumstances to a part of the financial system of the country.
        MR. MORGAN LLOYD,after adverting to the different modes that had been suggested for adapting the Income Tax to the capabilities of the different classes that had to pay it, said, it did not seem to him to be at all right that a man with an income of £400 should pay nothing, while a man with £500 should pay the full amount. He thought the fair thing would be a graduated scale, extending from the highest to the lowest, without the inequalities and exemptions which existed in the present system. It was right that all incomes—except, perhaps, those below £100—should be liable to the tax; but ho thought the percentage of the charge should increase at a uniform ratio proportionate to the amount of the income, so that the incidence of the tax should fall heaviest upon the wealthy. He could not approve of the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway.
        MR. CHILDERSsaid, he desired to bear witness to the fair and moderate manner in which the Motion had been brought forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway; but the present moment, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had nothing to spare, was a somewhat inconvenient time for discussing a difficult proposition. If the same amount of revenue was to be raised by means of the tax as at present, he asked his hon. and gallant Friend whether he proposed to relieve the higher incomes at the cost of the lower, or the lower incomes at the cost of the higher? So far as he could follow his hon. and gallant Friend, they would really be left in the same position they were in at present, if the system he advocated were carried
        1242
        out, as the first result of it would be that the rate of the tax should be increased if the exemptions of which he spoke were made. That would be necessary to secure the same return from that source of Revenue. He would not go into the question as to other results of the change, but it was necessary in the first instance that they should have a clear understanding as to whether the higher incomes were to be relieved at the cost of the lower or the lower at the cost of the higher.
        MR. CHADWICKsaid, that all the most eminent financial authorities of the country—Mr. Farr, Mr. Newmarch, the principal bankers, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London's (Mr. Hubbard's) Committee—had concurred in holding that a graduated Income Tax, approximating to an equitable Income Tax, was a thing perfectly possible and attainable. With a war before us, it would be deceiving ourselves to suppose that a tax which Sir Robert Peel meant to last for only a year or two would be removed in our time, and hence the great necessity there was for placing it on a more just foundation. He believed that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would refer the question to the heads of the financial Departments, he would receive a Report on the subject to which he might well give effect. He (Mr. Chadwick) regarded the tax as a permanent impost, and it was therefore all the more necessary that it should be justly assessed. He had come to look upon it as a very good and very honest tax; but as one most unjustly and inequitably levied. The incidence of the tax was full of injustice at every point. They could not point to a single Schedule that was not full of glaring anomalies; and, that being so, why should the Chancellor of the Exchequer continue to shut his eyes, instead of grappling with and endeavouring to remove the injustice? There had been no legal definition of income, and he believed no better definition would be made than was put forward by Adam Smith in his time. There was no doubt some difficulty in the way of re-adjustment on equitable principles, but it was high time that the difficulty should be faced. Was it just that the owner of freehold property should be assessed at the same rate as the owner of property held for 19, or, perhaps, nine years?

        1243
        Take trades. The mine owner had to pay on his capital as well as his income. So also had the cotton-spinner, neither being allowed anything whatever for the annual depreciation of their property. He charged the Chancellor of the Exchequer and all who were in office in that Department in allowing these anomalies to exist, when it was proved that they were inducements to the making of false returns. There was no doubt that a great number of fraudulent returns were made, as less than 1,000 persons returned their income above £10,000 a-year under Schedule D, whereas London alone should return a greater number, and the entire country at least 10,000, and perhaps 20,000 such incomes. Resident farmers, again, were assessed on totally different bases in the three Kingdoms. In short, the whole system of the present Income Tax was a piece of patchwork, and fragments, and there was no justice in the mode in which it was levied. If the tax were honestly levied and collected, and proper deductions made in the case of precarious incomes, short leases, and depreciation, he believed it would produce 33 per cent more than it did now.
        SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLwished, as a Liberal Member, to say one word on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. Fault had been found with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the course he had taken last year with reference to the Income Tax. But, so far from blaming the right hon. Gentleman, he thought that, on that occasion, the right hon. Gentleman had taken a step in the right direction, and had remedied a great blot in its incidence. At the same time, he agreed with those who thought that the Income Tax required still further re-adjustment, and thought that it should be still farther graduated so as to fall heavier on large incomes which paid less in other ways, and lighter on small incomes which paid more in other ways.
        CAPTAIN NOLANintimated his readiness to withdraw his Amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
        MR. PEASEmoved the Adjournment of the Debate, as it would be useless to go into Committee at so late an hour
        1244
        (midnight). He further wished to give the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. W. Holms) an opportunity of bringing forward a Resolution of which he had given Notice on the incidence of Imperial Taxation, and its pressure on the poorer classes.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." —(Mr. Pease.)
        THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was always reluctant to take important Business at a late hour; but he must remind the House of the position in which matters stood. On Thursday last he made his Financial Statement; and the propositions in that Statement were in fact nil. He had not suggested any new tax; he had not proposed any alteration in taxation, and he thought it would not be an unreasonable thing if, in these circumstances, the Government should have been allowed on Thursday last either to have a short debate and then go on with other Business, or else be permitted to pass the Resolutions. But the Members of the Committee raised a discussion in which the Estimates he had submitted were challenged by some right hon. Gentlemen of authority in the House, and they were left in the present position. It was desirable there should be an opportunity of vindicating the Estimates, which he was prepared to do, and, at the same time, of having any discussion which might be necessary in order to satisfy hon. Members of the soundness of the financial position. The unexpectedly long discussion upon the Mutiny Bill had made it impossible to get into Committee of Ways and Means until late in the evening, and now it was proposed to adjourn the Committee in order, as he understood, to give the hon. Member for Paisley an opportunity of raising a discussion on the general incidence of taxation. That was a very large question, and one which might be raised at almost any time in the course of their financial discussions; but it was hardly reasonable to ask that the whole of the Business should be suspended in order that it might be brought forward.
        MR. GOSCHENsaid, he must demur entirely to the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Although there was to be no change in the taxation of the

        1245
        country, yet the state of the finances of the country was then as deserving of the serious examination and consideration of the House as at any other time. They would not be disharging their duty, if they allowed the unambitious and modest Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pass without subjecting the Estimates and the whole financial policy of the Government to such criticism as hon. Members thought necessary. He sympathized with the Government at the great length of time that had been occupied in discussing the Mutiny Bills. They had taken a much longer time than had ever been the case before; and no doubt the Government had been somewhat embarrassed by it; but still that was not sufficient to ask the House to refrain from discussing the Budget. He thought the Resolutions ought to be postponed in order that the hon. Member for Paisley might have an opportunity of bringing forward his Motion.
        MR. W. H. SMITHsuggested that the hon. Member for Paisley might make his speech at once.
        MR. CHILDERSsaid, it would be impossible at that late hour (12 o'clock) to proceed with a discussion on so important a question.
        THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was obviously impossible to resist the wish for an Adjournment.
        Question put, and agreed to.
        Debate adjourned till Wednesday.

        SUPPLY—REPORT.
        Resolutions [5th April] reported.

        (1.) "That a sum, not exceeding £34,105, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, for the Maintenance and Repair of Royal Palaces."

        (2.) "That a sum, not exceeding £117,645, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."

        First Resolution agreed to.
        Second Resolution read a second time.
        MR. DILLWYNsaid, he again intended to renew the objection which had been raised on a previous evening by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) to the sum of
        1246
        £155 for the feeding of pheasants in Richmond Park. Although he did not admit the propriety of voting public money in aid of the amusements of the Ranger of the park, it was not on that ground that either he or the hon. Baronet were opposed to the item just mentioned; but on the ground that the preservation of game in the parks was incompatible with the full and free enjoyment of them by the public. He thought it was time to call attention to that subject, because complaints were made by people living in the neighbourhood of Richmond of increasing encroachments on the park, and he believed that the same thing was going on in Great Windsor Park to the exclusion of the public. He begged, therefore, to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £155.
        Amendment proposed, to leave out "£117,645," in order to insert "£117,490,"—(Mr. Dillwyn,)—instead thereof.
        MR. GERARD NOELwas sorry that the hon. Member for Swansea had brought that question forward again, because a satisfactory answer regarding it had been given a few nights ago. That sum of £155 was taken for rearing and preserving a small amount of game in Richmond Park, and any hon. Gentleman who had experience of the matter knew how small was the quantity of game that could be preserved for that sum. In fact, the greater part of the expense incurred was borne by the Ranger, who had the privilege of shooting over the Park, and ho reserved what game he liked for himself. The rest went to the Queen, who disposed of it as she thought right; and those who read the newspapers knew that Her Majesty periodically sent game to the London Hospitals, and also to the poor and sick at Windsor. He had seen in The Times, a few days ago, a letter written by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea, stating that those parks were mainly used by the Crown authorities for the preservation of game, instead of for the benefit of the public. To that statement he now gave the most unqualified contradiction. The number of people who walked in the parks, who picniced there, and who drove there, were annually on the increase. They might roam about as much

        1247
        as they pleased, so long as they did not break into the plantations or commit any depredation. Those plantations were not made for the preservation of game; but for the purpose of beautifying the Park and of restoring the timber which was cut down every year, and which formed a source of revenue to the country. He would ask the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) if he had a plantation in his own park, whether he would allow the villagers to go indiscriminately into it and to mutilate and destroy the trees? If the Office of Works did not guard against such an evil they would be justly blamed. He did not think it was just or right to bring against persons occupying official positions charges which were based upon mere rumour, and without having obtained evidence for the correctness of the statements.
        SIR CHARLES W. DILKEexplained that he should not have dreamt of writing the letter to which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had alluded, had not the question been wholly misrepresented in the papers, and he had no opportunity of referring to it through any other channel. The right hon. Gentleman had made a most official speech which furnished a strong argument in support of the Motion. He had spoken of the public, for whose use the Park was intended, as trespassers, and of the Board of Works as if they were private owners of the property. [Mr. GERARD NOEL: I said the public had perfect liberty to roam everywhere they pleased; except in the plantations.] Instead of a light iron fence which could easily be climbed over, the plantations were surrounded by a great deer fence, and the public were thus excluded from a large portion of the Park. The only reason for this exclusion that he could see was the preservation of game. It was true the amount challenged was small, but they desired to take the opinion of the House upon it as a question of principle.
        MR. M. BROOKShoped the Motion would not be persevered with. He could not see any harm in having game in Richmond Park, for he thought the people who frequented the Park derived much pleasure from seeing the pheasants and other game. Dubliners who visited Richmond Park regretted that their own Phœnix Park was not equally well taken care of.
        Question put, "That '£117,645' stand part of the said Resolution."
        The House divided:—Ayes 123; Noes 51: Majority 72.—(Div. List, No. 77.)

        GAME LAWS (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 25.]
        (Mr. M'Lagan, Sir William Stirling Maxwell Sir Edward Colebrooke, Mr. John Maitland.)

        CONSIDERATION.
        Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
        Bill, as amended, considered.
        MR. M'LAGAN (for Mr. J. W. BAR-CLAY)proposed to amend Clause 6 by leaving out line 16 and inserting—
        "Six days before each time the valuator appointed by the lessee to assess the damage inspects such grass for the purpose of estimating such damage."
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 2, line 38, to leave out the words "harboured on the lands of the lessor," in order to insert the words "six days before the grass is inspected, for the purpose of having such damage valued,"—(Mr. M'Lagan,)
        —instead thereof.
        Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
        MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, in the absence of the hon. Member who had given Notice of the Amendment, he thought the House ought not to agree to it unless some explanation was given as to the object which was desired to be effected.
        MR. M'LAGANsaid, of course if the Amendment was objected to, he would not press it, though personally he had no objection to it.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.

        (PUBLIC OFFICES AND BUILDINGS (METROPOLIS).
        Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the annual expenditure on Public Offices and Buildings, and to see whether the adoption of a more comprehensive plan for the extension and improvement of the public buildings would not be more economical and advantageous than the present system."—(Mr. Baillie Cochrane.)
        And, on May 14, Committee nominated as follows:—Mr. GERARD NOEL, Mr. ADAM, Mr.

        1249
        GOLDSMID, Mr. BERESFORD HOPE, Sir WILLIAM MAXWELL, Sir WILLIAM FRASER, Mr. RALLI, Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, Mr. DODSON, Sir RICHARD WALLACE, Lord ELCHO, Mr. MITCHELL HENRY, Mr. REED—,Mr. BRISTOWE, Mr. MINTZ, Mr. O'REILLY, Mr. MULHOLLAND, and Mr. BAILLIE COCHRANE: — Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to ho the quorum.

        PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACTS AMENDMENT (NO. 2) BILL.
        On Motion of Mr. ANDERSON, Bill to amend the Public Libraries Acts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ANDERSON, Mr. MUNDELLA, and Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY.
        Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 136.]
        House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
— PUBLIC BILL — Committee—Report— Supreme Court of Judicature* (34).
Second Reading—Burials Acts Consolidation (27), postponed.

BURIAL ACTS CONSOLIDATION BILL.
(The Lord President.)
(NO. 27.) SECOND READING POSTPONED.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that when he named Friday next for the second reading of the Burials Bill, he was under the impression that no division would be taken at that stage, and that the Bill would be discussed on going into Committee. But as, in his opinion, the Resolution of which his noble Friend opposite (Earl Granville) gave Notice on Friday night last would, if carried, deal a deadly blow at the very root of the Bill, and as the Archbishop of York had informed him that owing to the sittings of Convocation it would be impossible for him and his right rev. Brethren of the Northern Province to be in their places on Friday next, he now begged to give Notice that he would postpone the Motion for the second reading till Thursday, the 26th instant.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he thought it desirable that the Archbishop of York and his right rev. Brethren should be in
1180
their places during the discussion of his Resolution; but he could not accept the interpretation of that Resolution adopted by his noble Friend.

THE EASTERN QUESTION — THE PROTOCOL.—OBSERVATIONS.
EARL GRANVILLE,in calling the attention of the House to the Papers laid upon the Table relating to the Protocol signed on the 31st of March 1877, said: My Lords, when I gave Notice that I would to-day call the attention of your Lordships to the Papers relating to the Protocol, I was not at the moment aware that a noble Lord (Lord Stratheden and Campbell) had put down his Notice on the same subject for this evening. On the contrary, seeing that the noble Lord has several times deferred it, and not seeing it in the Orders of Friday, I was under the impression that he had indefinitely postponed it. However, as the noble Lord is not in his place, it devolves upon me to at once proceed with the remarks which I intend to make; and I may at once assure your Lordships that I shall not detain you for any very long time. The first observation I desire to make will have reference to what, I think, will strike your Lordships as the very meagre information given to Parliament by Her Majesty's Government with regard to the important negotiations which had been going on for the last eight weeks. The Papers relating to that negotiation, consisting as they do of only nine pages—some of which are taken up with letters of which there are both the original and the translation—present a strange contrast to the voluminous Blue Book, of 1,200 pages, presented to Parliament shortly after the commencement of the Session. I must say that I think the information contained in those nine pages is very deficient, and does not help us very much in forming an accurate opinion as to the circumstances under which the Protocol was agreed to, and the Declaration of Her Majesty's Government which accompanies that document. The first information, such as it is, may be said to be contained in a letter addressed to Lord Augustus Loftus, and signed by the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and dated on the 13th of March. That letter appears to have enclosed the draft Protocol handed to the noble Earl

1181
by Count Schouvaloff; but in the Papers presented to this House that draft Protocol is not included. I am told that in "another place" it has been stated that an objection had been made by the other Powers of Europe, or some of them, to the production of that draft Protocol. In regard to the signed Protocol, that is undoubtedly an European document; but I do not understand that the draft Protocol was intended to be a European document. The draft Protocol handed to the noble Earl does not appear to be an identical communication to all the Powers of Europe, but a document drawn up by the Russian Government, and handed by the Russian Ambassador to the English Secretary for Foreign Affairs. Therefore, I do not see how the other Powers of Europe have any ground for objecting to its production. If when handing it to the noble Earl, or even at a later period, Count Schouvaloff intimated that it was to be regarded as of a confidential character, of course I cannot complain that the noble Earl should decline to produce it. But, in that case, I doubt very much the propriety of presenting to Parliament the two despatches of the 13th March, in which there is an allusion to that document. Going back over a period of 30 years, I think I can assert that the rule has been that if the Foreign Office presents to Parliament a document in which reference is made to another document, Parliament is entitled to have the document so referred to. And it appears to me inconsistent, moreover, to publish a reference to a particular document, whether confidential or non-confidential, on a particular subject, unless the subject-matter of the communication is also published. My Lords, this is not a question of Parliamentary etiquette—it is a matter of great importance that the country should be informed of the attitude in which Russia presented herself when asking for the adoption of the draft Protocol, as well as what was the attitude which Her Majesty's Government themselves assumed. I do not ask for the changes in the draft Protocol in consequence of confidential communications between the Powers, but it is important that we should know the character of the original proposal. I am far from wishing to have all the subsequent confidential communications regarding the Russian proposal; but I
1182
must think it not a little singular that there is no record whatever in the Parliamentary Papers, which shows the general attitude of the Powers of Europe as well as that of Her Majesty's Government. My Lords, having made those observations, I will at once go to the Protocol. Now, taking it as a whole, I do not think the Protocol is a very clear or business-like document—it contains no binding intimation or agreement, and it is obviously open to different interpretations by the various Powers. It is not to my mind what a diplomatic paper of the kind ought to be. Next, one cannot fail to notice that from it is omitted all mention of the guarantees which the noble Marquess who represented this country at the Conference (the Marquess of Salisbury) joined the other Powers in asking at the hands of Turkey. Looking at the Protocol, it appears to me that during this last negotiation, as well as on previous occasions, Her Majesty's Government seem to have had no definite line or standard in accordance with which they thought this country and the other Powers ought to proceed. The Powers of Europe, in going into the Conference, seemed to be prepared to insist internationally upon certain guarantees on behalf of the Christian subjects of the Porte; and although such guarantees appear to have been mentioned in the original Russian proposal, they have disappeared from the Protocol which we have signed. There has been, I think, on their part too much inclination to be always going up and down according to the thermometer of Russia. I do not deny that in negotiations between Powers there must be "give and take;" but what I maintain is that Her Majesty's Government ought to have had a clear view of what is their own policy—they ought to have known more certainly what they would and what they would not do for the Christian subjects of Turkey. Having said so much against the Protocol, the remainder of my remarks in reference to it will be in its favour. No one can object to the first paragraph of the Protocol—
"The Powers who have undertaken in common the pacification of the East, and have with that view taken part in the Conference of Constantinople, recognize that the surest means of attaining the object which they have proposed to themselves is before all to maintain the agreement so happily established between them, and jointly to affirm afresh the common interest

1183
which they take in the improvement of the condition of the Christian populations of Turkey, and in the reforms to be introduced in Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Bulgaria which the Porte has accepted on condition of itself carrying them into execution."
There is here a point to which I will call your Lordships' attention. I know it has been stated that the effect of the Protocol is to destroy the Treaty of 1856. I do not concur in that objection. I have, I know, been charged with having said last year that the Treaty was destroyed already. But what I said last year, and what I have repeated this year, is that the Treaty of 1856 exists; that it was not broken up, and that it is not desirable to break it up. I concur in the language held by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) at Constantinople—that the Turks having failed to carry out the solemn promises made by them to the Powers of Europe, those Powers have a right to consult together with the view of putting an end to the complications to which the non-fulfilment of those promises has given rise. I am pleased also to observe that the last paragraph but one of the Protocol states that—
"The Powers propose to watch carefully, by means of their representatives at Constantinople and their local agents, the manner in which the promises of the Ottoman Government are carried into effect."
I rejoice at that declaration. This appears to me to be as strong diplomatic pressure on the Porte as can be imagined. It is pressure such as you could not dream of applying to any other Power in Europe. It appears to me to be the very strongest kind of diplomatic pressure, but one which we are fully justified in applying to the Ottoman Government, because it has utterly failed to carry out its promises. The last paragraph of the Protocol is in these terms—
"If their hopes should once more be disappointed, and if the condition of the Christian subjects of the Sultan should not be improved in a manner to prevent the return of the complications which periodically disturb the peace of the East, they think it right to declare that such a state of affairs would be imcompatible with their interests and those of Europe in general. In such case they reserve to themselves to consider in common as to the means' which they may deem best fitted to secure the wellbeing of the Christian populations and the interests of the general peace."
That, my Lords, is the language of the
1184
Protocol. I will ask your Lordships to compare that paragraph with this passage in another document — the Berlin Memorandum—
"If, however, the armistice were to expire without the efforts of the Powers being successful in attaining the end they have in view, the three Imperial Courts are of opinion that it would become necessary to supplement their diplomatic action by the sanction of an agreement with a view to such efficacious measures as might appear to be demanded, in the interest of general peace, to check the evil, and prevent its development."
I have read the words of the two documents, and they are so much alike that if I had said I read the last phrase I have quoted from the Protocol and not from the Berlin Memorandum, I believe none of your Lordships, with the exception of the noble Lord on the front Opposition bench, would have detected my error. I admit that there are differences in the two documents, but they appear to me to be exceedingly small. Before going into these differences, however, I wish to make an allusion to the Berlin Memorandum. During the Easter Recess two Cabinet Ministers, on the very same day, addressed their constituents on the subject of the Berlin Memorandum. In a speech delivered at Peterborough, on April 4, the First Lord of the Admiralty is reported to have said—
"The position of the country had fallen to such a deplorable pitch that only a few months ago the three great Northern Powers, having met to consider the Eastern Question, sent their propositions to London, and begged that England would approve or dissent by telegraph within 48 hours, and that a foreign Minister would wait in a foreign capital to receive the telegram. Oh, shade of Mr. Pitt! What would he have said of such an act? But the three Powers reckoned without their host, for not only would the British Government not reply to that unhappy message, but they refused to assent to the proposition at all, and the consequence was that the Memorandum that had been composed by these three Powers never assumed the shape of a Note to be presented at all, and these three Powers which had given the assent to the proposition found reasons to withdraw. The result had been that for the last few months England had been taking the lead.…. Courage, however, was one of the highest qualities a man could possibly show, and no one could help admiring the indomitable pluck of the Turks."
My Lords, the words I have just quoted are from a speech by the First Lord of the Admiralty; and though such sentiments ought to be admired, perhaps, when coming from a jolly tar, they do

1185
not appear to me to be prudent when coming from a Cabinet Minister at a time when the Government were pressing Turkey to agree to the demands of united Europe. Another Cabinet Minister, the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in a speech delivered at Gloucester, on the same day, is reported to have made these observations—
"England was no longer the nation to which a Berlin Memorandum was sent, concocted and signed previously by the great military Powers, to which the concurrence of this nation was demanded, without even the ceremony of previous consultation. In these matters England was the leader of the nations of Europe. On her decision the other day, it was said, hung the issue of peace or war."
I must say, my Lords, that there is very considerable identity in the speech of those two right hon. Gentlemen; so much so, indeed, that I think there must have been some previous communication on the subject; but I should think these utterances must have been settled at the Irish Office rather than the Foreign Office. It would appear from what was said by those two right hon. Gentlemen that great touchiness was shown by Her Majesty's Ministers in respect of proceedings at Berlin, and that conjecture is supported by the utterances of the two Cabinet Ministers to whom I have adverted. But if it be so, it is an extraordinary fact, and one which I find it difficult to account for. I remember that the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) within a week after he took office said it was a mistake to suppose that England was isolated or that respect was not paid to her by the Foreign Powers—on the contrary, he said he did not know of a time when more respect was paid to her opinions on all subjects by Foreign Powers. If that were so when the noble Earl made that statement, I am not aware of any acts of the present Government within the last two years which should have brought about such a wonderful change as that described by the two Cabinet Ministers. Again, is it a fact that the proposal of the Berlin Memorandum was left without a reply by the Government of this country? I think they did make a reply to it. I understood from a statement made by the noble Earl in this House that he had intimated to the Government of Russia that it was no question of form which had prevented the Government of this
1186
country from acceding to the Berlin Memorandum; and with all respect to the two right hon. Gentlemen, I should be more disposed to accept the declaration of the noble Earl on this point than the statements made by them in speeches to their constituents. I must say I regret the two speeches to which I have referred. I believe that diplomacy is never more effectual than when conducted quietly and unostentatiously. Even when it is a success it is a great mistake to trumpet it and to take all the credit of having led in it; but it is still more unwise to claim a monopoly of credit in the case of diplomacy when it has proved to be a complete failure. I should not have alluded to this matter only that I think on such grave matters Cabinet Ministers should be a little more prudent in their utterances when they address their constituents. Now, as to the Protocol and the Berlin Memorandum, I admit that there is a difference. For one thing, there is a difference of time. The armistice referred to in the Memorandum was one for a definite time—I do not now remember for how long; but the armistice referred to in the Protocol is much more indefinite. Again, in the case of the Memorandum, the future concert between the Powers was to have been with reference to "efficacious measures." By the Protocol the concert is to be as to "means." Well, "means" are "measures." True, the word "efficacious" is not used; but Europe would not meet to adopt inefficacious measures; and therefore I think the omission of the word efficacious amounts to nothing. You did not like the Berlin Memorandum. Well, there is this great difference between it and the Protocol; and though it is a difference which may not be obvious to the common eye, it is still very important. The difference I refer to arises from the difference in the state of things existing at the time that Memorandum was proposed compared with that which exists now. If, instead of rejecting the Memorandum and saying in effect that you had no policy of your own, you had said—"We will not take the Memorandum as it stands; it is one concocted in our absence, and we shall not adopt the words you propose, but we are willing to discuss modifications—we will ourselves propose modifications"—had you done that, might you not have succeeded

1187
in obtaining a Memorandum which would have been accepted for the whole of Europe? What a difference, I say, this would have made. Do you believe that before the time when the Turks were encouraged by the expectation of disagreement among the European Powers — before they had been encouraged by the disruption of the European Conference—before they had heard of certain statements made in this country during the Recess, that we had failed in our diplomatic efforts—before they heard it stated, whether rightly or wrongly, that there was no thorough accord between the European Powers—they would have refussed to comply with the united request of those Powers? Then, consider the advantage there would have been in presenting a united Memorandum or Protocol to Russia before she had gone to enormous expense in preparations for war—before she had mobilized a vast army, and before her Emperor had committed himself by a celebrated speech I do not know that I have any other observation to make on the Protocol; but certainly I wish to say a few words on the Declaration of Her Majesty's Government which accompanied it. I am unable to gather the history of this Declaration. I believe we were told that when we read these Papers we should know all about it. I have read them, but I remain still in ignorance on the point. I wish to know who made the first declaration—Count Schouvaloff or the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary? In the index the Declaration of Count Schouvaloff appears first; in the body of the Papers the Declaration of the noble Earl precedes that of the Ambassador. This, I suppose, is accounted for by the fact that in the one case the alphabetical, and in the other the chronological, order is observed. I will take it that the Declaration of Count Schouvaloff was the first made; but I presume that there must have been some intimation of an intention of the Russian Ambassador to append such a Declaration. As things have turned out that Declaration has been the immediate cause of the hopeless state in which matters are at this moment. I should like to know whether the Russian Declaration was provoked by any demand on the part of Her Majesty's Government? I should also like to know whether Her Majesty's Government
1188
objected or did not object to this Declaration of Count Schouvaloff? If they did not object to it there was, it appears to me, no necessity for further negotiations. If they did object, it would surely have been more natural to have said" Here we are all united in agreeing to sign a Protocol to gain that which we desire to secure — peace and good administration for the Christian subjects of the Porte. If you make a Declaration which creates new conditions and new difficulties, we must hesitate and pause before we sign it." The strength of that argument would be obvious. I should also like to know whether the Declaration made by Lord Derby was communicated — as I suppose it must have been—to all the Powers of Europe consequent upon the Declaration of Count Schouvaloff; and I should like to know, moreover, whether all the European Powers approved or disapproved of that Declaration? If they disapproved of it, it is clearly open to the objection that Her Majesty's Government were taking a step which exposed you to the imputation that you were breaking up that concert of Europe which the whole of the negotiations and the Protocol itself were intended to secure. If, on the other hand, those other Powers did approve of the English Declaration, why did they not join in it? If Europe was united, why did England put herself in the position of being alone? Italy has made her own Declaration; but if France, Germany, and Austria approved of the Declaration made on the part of England, why did these three Powers not sign it? Why, if there was to be such a Declaration as yours, were yours the paws to be put in the fire? If you had any reason to believe that immediately after the signing of the Protocol Russia would go forward in disregard of that diplomatic act, you should have thought of some measures to prevent yourselves from appearing as her dupe. What a great pity it is you did not adopt the words of the Italian Declaration, which is clear and simple and meets all the difficulties of the case. The Italian Government do not use the word "solely," as we have done, and thereby allow it to be inferred that they signed the Treaty in the interests of European peace alone, and without regard to the condition of the inhabitants of the Chris-

1189
tian Provinces of Turkey. I know it is said that the word "solely" was not used for the purpose of excluding the latter object; but the great advantage of the Italian Declaration is this—that it is a clear statement on the part of the Italian Government in this sense—"We sign a certain document with five other Powers; if one, two, or three of those other Powers depart from it, we shall not be bound by the Powers who do not to adhere to the agreement by that document come to." That appears to me a safe and reasonable proposition; but what have Her Majesty's Government done? They do not put the onus upon the only co-signatory Power whom they suspect may act adversely—they make their observance of, and agreement to, the Protocol subject to the condition that Turkey, who is not a co-signatory, should disarm. Is that not to undo and weaken the effect of Her Majesty's Government's own representations? I hold, and have held, that even if Her Majesty's Government were justified in pledging themselves against all measures of coercion—which I do not admit —it was madness, at a time when the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) was using all his eloquence at Constantinople to enforce the views of the Conference, to have chosen that particular moment to inform the Turks that they had nothing to fear from non-compliance with the demands made upon them; and I think it very unwise at the time when you were signing the Protocol to declare that it lay with Turkey or with Russia alone to break up the whole of the understanding that had been come to in this matter between the European Powers. I have not, my Lords, spoken at any great length, though there are some other criticisms which I might have made in respect of this Protocol. The observations I have made have chiefly for their object to obtain from Her Majesty's Government information which these Papers utterly fail to afford. I cannot hope, after the refusal which has been given in "another place," that the missing Papers will be supplied; but I do trust that the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) will, in that clear and business-like manner of which he is a master, fill up some of the gaps, give us some intelligible account of what has passed, and throw some light on the present attitude of this country and of other Powers.
1190
My chief object has been, as I have said, to obtain information; but, my Lords, in saying this I beg emphatically to repudiate the doctrine said to have been laid down by the highest authority in "another place"—that it is the duty of an Opposition on such a subject as this either to confine themselves to asking for information, or to propose a Vote of Censure, laying down its own policy, and challenging the judgment of Parliament on the question. Against that doctrine I enter my protest. There is no graver responsibility than rests upon an Opposition in dealing with Foreign Affairs. There are moments when they ought to give their warmest support even to a Government whose general principles they oppose. There are times so critical when, although they do not approve the exact course which the Government are taking, it might be a greater evil to attack them. There are, again, times when it becomes the imperative duty of an Opposition, in the teeth of the greatest majorities of the most powerful Ministries, to fight by every means in their power for the opinions which they hold. On the other hand, there are occasions—more especially when a Ministry appears to waver between a course which the Opposition approve and one which they condemn—when it may be wise to impress upon a Government and the country the views in favour of the former, and when it would be most unwise to pin the Government and commit Parliament by divisions to the latter and objectionable course. Attacks have been made on the conduct of the Opposition both during the Recess and since the opening of Parliament. Party motives were attributed to some of us who united with persons of all conditions and politics in complaining in the Autumn of the want of support which Her Majesty's Government gave to the Christian subjects of the Porte—persons who were equally strong in support of the Government when, by the noble Earl's demands for reparation, by the proposal of the Conference, and by the mission of the noble Marquess, it was hoped that the Government were changing their course. That those demands failed, that that Conference was without results, cannot by any possibility be laid to the account of Opposition; and I trust that some of those who were so much alarmed lest appeals to the sentiment of the people

1191
might obscure their judgment as to their material interests will, in the critical times which are coming, remember that appeals to pride, anger, and prejudice may lead the judgment as far from a knowledge of their real interests as appeals to sympathy for suffering and horror of injustice and wrong. Since the opening of Parliament we have, I hope, temperately and with moderation, laid down the general lines of the policy which we advocate. It is not to alienate, but to conciliate, the Christian subjects of the Porte; it is not step by step to facilitate the position which Russia takes up of being the only Power in earnest in the matter, and to pave the way for the step which, in my opinion, she so unfortunately is prepared to take. The policy we wished to see adopted was that this country should be the promoter, and not the obstacle, to that union of Europe which should show it, self in earnest in insisting upon those reforms which Europe has declared to be necessary to the peace of Europe. We are told that our policy means the bombarding of Constantinople and bloody battles, resulting in a general partition of the spoils by the whole of Europe. I say that our policy is no such thing. You might as well say that I am encouraging street disturbances because I wish half-a-dozen policemen to stop a "rough" from throwing stones to the danger of the passers-by. If the boy was utterly reckless, he might kick a policeman's shins, and possibly get a little roughly handled himself, but the chance of real opposition would be nil. Is it possible to infer from the obstinacy of the Turks at the present moment, which the noble Earl so properly condemned, but which another Minister calls "indomitable pluck," after you have succeeded in convincing them, rightly or wrongly, that they have Russia alone to fear, that they would have opposed a similar resistance to United Europe seriously and earnestly intent upon the pacification of Europe? As for the division of spoils, why is that necessarily to happen which has not happened before in somewhat similar circumstances? The case of the Crimean War was, I admit, peculiar; but there engagements were made and observed that the Western Powers should derive no material advantages from the result. Which of the Powers of Europe obtained mate-
1192
rial advantages after the independence of Athens? Did Franco or England profit materially by the occupation and successful settlement of the Lebanon? We have certainly not thought it our duty to lay down a cut-and-dried detailed scheme for the settlement of a complicated problem. But I might quote not only Sir Robert Peel, not only Lord Palmerston, but the First Lord of the Treasury in confirmation of the fact that such is not the duty of an Opposition. What we do claim—and I am certain that the noble Earl is not one who will propose to debar the Opposition or restrict it to the two alternatives laid down—I am sure the noble Earl will admit that it is our right to exercise the power which has been possessed and has been exercised by all preceding Oppositions —the power of discussing, of criticising, and, if necessary, of protesting, with or without Motions of Censure, as at the time may seem best and most conducive to the object which we have in view. If, by abstaining from Votes of Censure, Her Majesty's Government think we are doing them any wrong, they have the remedy of Votes of Confidence. If, on the other hand, the moment arrives when we think it is necessary to bring this question to the test of a division, it will be for the country to decide whether in so doing we are actuated by Party or personal motives, or whether we are acting, according to the best of our judgment, for the public good.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, it is always the right, and it may often be the duty, of one who holds the position which is filled by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville)—that of the official Representative in the House of a powerful and important Party in the State—to challenge the conduct of those who are charged with the affairs of the country, and to do so in whatever form—whether by Questions simply intended to ask for information, or by Votes of Censure directed against the general policy pursued, or by debates such as the noble Earl has now raised—it is, I say, his right and duty to call upon us to vindicate the course which we have pursued, and to state, on his part, what is the course that he would have taken had he been in our position. So far, then, there will not be the smallest difference of opinion between the noble Earl and myself. I was,

1193
however, a little surprised at the vindication of the rights of an Opposition which the noble Earl thought it necessary to address to your Lordships. My Lords, I was not aware that anybody here had questioned the right of any of your Lordships to bring these matters under the consideration of Parliament, at whatever time or in whatever manner, he might think fit. I do not believe that anyone either here or in "another place" has ever said that it is the duty of an Opposition to move a Vote of Censure against any action which they disapprove, under penalty of being taken to have acquiesced without objection or protest in that course of action. What I daresay has been said, and what I think the noble Earl means to refer to, is this—that when some distinct and definite issue has been placed before Parliament—such as that of using, or abstaining from using, coercion in regard to Turkey, and when the Government at the beginning of the Session had indicated the course which they intended to take upon that point—that course being that which they have adhered to throughout—and when the Leaders of the Opposition in one or both Houses profess a different view, and hold that the action of the Cabinet in regard to that subject affords ground of complaint, while, at the same time, they refrain from bringing the issue to the fair test of a vote—then I think it is a fair matter for comment if that distinct issue and contrast of opinion is not brought in one or other House of Parliament to the test of a division. No doubt it will be said that such a course in the actual relations of political Parties may be impolitic; but when a large issue is before the country, and when those who have formed a decided opinion upon it shrink from bringing that issue to the test of a division, it is, I think, a fair criticism upon their course of action, that either they are not thoroughly satisfied as to the soundness of their views, or that they doubt whether those views will find support either in Parliament or in the country. Well, my Lords, I will not dwell upon that point; nor do I think it necessary to discuss the question which the noble Earl rather touched upon than seriously raised, as to the justification which may exist for the agitation that was got up last Autumn. That matter is past; but, undoubtedly, if my opinion were asked, I
1194
am bound to say that I think, however humane may have been the feeling which in many cases led men to hold the language which they did, that agitation, in my opinion, did considerable mischief abroad, because it created a false impression as to the real feelings and ideas of the English people. That matter, however, the noble Earl only touched upon in passing, and therefore I shall not dwell further upon it. Now, the noble Earl said that he rose for the purpose of asking for information upon various points connected with the Protocol which has just been signed. In the first place, he complained of the very meagre information given to Parliament as to the important negotiations which have taken place, and he compared the scanty Papers just laid on the Table with the voluminous character of the Blue Books which were presented some six weeks ago. My Lords, all I have to say in answer to that is, that when we are dealing with a matter of this kind we are under the necessity of consulting not merely our own feelings and convenience, but—the matter being of an international character — of consulting the feelings and convenience of other Powers. The noble Earl says it would have been convenient to have seen the draft Protocol as it was first proposed. For my own part, I have not the slightest objection to that draft Protocol being laid upon the Table. I had proposed to lay it; but I do not think I commit any breach of confidence in saying that I communicated with the Russian Ambassador—and your Lordships must remember that that draft Protocol is his proposition and not mine—and he expressed a strong opinion that it would be contrary to the wish of his Government that the draft Protocol should be laid before Parliament. Another reason against its production was this—that it would have served no useful purpose to have laid merely the first draft of the Protocol before you, because, in consequence of the communications which passed between the various Governments, that Protocol was altered again and again; and if I had presented the first draft I should have been equally bound to have presented the second, the third, the fourth, and the fifth—I really do not know how many there were, but I think their multiplicity would have been rather a source of confusion than of

1195
information. I, however, would prefer to rest the non-production of the draft Protocol on the first of the reasons which I have addressed to your Lordships. But, my Lords, as far as the general substance and purport of the document is concerned, it is—subject to certain modifications—that which I first received. Then the noble Earl goes on to say that he does not think the Protocol a businesslike document. That is a matter of opinion; and, as my feelings as the author are not concerned, I shall not quarrel with the noble Earl on that point. But the noble Earl made a more definite objection. He said—" Why did you not put in the Protocol the guarantees for the execution of the promises of Turkish reforms which had been proposed in the Conference?" Well, my Lords, that admits of a very easy and simple answer. We knew all along that we should have considerable difficulties to meet not on the one side only, but also on the other. The result has been that, even modified as the Protocol has been—even with the omission of those guarantees which the noble Earl is so anxious to have had inserted—we did not succeed in making it acceptable to the Turkish Government;—I leave your Lordships to consider whether we should have increased or improved the prospects of getting the Protocol accepted if we had put into it that one particular proposition to which, as we have every reason to know, the strongest objection was entertained at the time of the Conference. Well, then, the noble Earl goes at once into a more general criticism of our course; and he says in these negotiations we have too much followed the lead of Russia, and that we have not sufficiently laid down a policy of our own. I must remind your Lordships—though I think it anything but necessary—what were the conditions under which we entered upon this negotiation, and what was the primary object which we had in view. No doubt the reform of Turkish institutions was an extremely desirable and an extremely important object; but, for the moment, the one thing urgent—the one thing pressing—the one thing without which we could not hope to do any good with regard to other matters, was this—to induce these two Powers, Russia and Turkey, who had mutually armed one against the other, to abandon their attitude of mutual hostility, and to dis-
1196
band those immense forces which they had gathered. That was the primary object which we had in view. The question in our minds was this—"What is the least with which Russia will be contented, and what is the most we can get Turkey to give?" If you say, looking at the matter from that point of view, that we ought not to have negotiated upon that ground, that is equivalent to saying we ought to have abandoned, or ought never to have undertaken, the work of negotiating between Russia and Turkey, which we had been engaged in for some months past. Then the noble Earl proceeded to discuss the bearing of the Protocol upon the Treaty of 1856. I do not know that there is such a difference between the views which he has expressed upon that point and those which I entertain, as to make it necessary for me to comment upon what he said. The noble Earl said that he agreed to that part of the Protocol which proposed supervision—although "supervision" is absolutely a stronger term than is used in the document itself —by the Representatives of the Powers, to see whether the Porte fulfilled the promises into which it had entered, and he says that he does not object to that. Then the noble Earl says that although there might be some small difference between the two documents, still substantially the Protocol and the Berlin Memorandum are nearly the same. Now, unfortunately, I have not the Berlin Memorandum with me; and if I had I should not try the patience of the House by reading out the paragraphs one after the other in order that you might compare them—but there is no doubt in my mind that there is the widest possible difference between the one document and the other. I pass by what is sufficiently notorious, that the Berlin Memorandum was the result of an agreement between three Powers only, placed before us with the alternative of either accepting or rejecting it at very short notice, as if the proposition was one in the formation of which and in the propositions of which we were in no way concerned. I do not wish to dwell upon that; and certainly I should disclaim the idea thrown out by the noble Earl that our diplomatic action in regard to that Berlin Memorandum had been governed by any consideration of pique, or of offence taken at the rather

1197
summary manner in which it was laid before us. The noble Earl does not allege that there is anything to that effect in the Correspondence which has been laid before Parliament, or in any language held by Members of the Cabinet in Parliament; but he seemed to think there was an indication that such was the case in a speech delivered by a right hon. and much respected Colleague of mine to his constituents. Well, my Lords, surely there is a very wide difference between the language which you hold in diplomatic correspondence, and the language which is held at such meetings as that. It is a fair matter of argument for anyone addressing an English audience to hint that we consider we have been treated unceremoniously in the matter of the Berlin Memorandum: while it would have been utterly out of place on our part, and would have shown an utter want of dignity and self-respect, if we had evinced the slightest trace of annoyance or offence in our diplomatic correspondence on the subject. To return to the more important point with regard to the resemblance or the difference between these two documents. I would just point out that the Berlin Memorandum set out that if certain results were not obtained within a very short date "efficacious measures" — those are the words—should be employed to obtain them. Now, read by the light of subsequent events, nobody can doubt what the "efficacious measures" of the Berlin Memorandum really meant. They meant military occupation, and we, from first to last, have utterly declined to give even an apparent sanction to such a step. Now, my Lords, what is it that we have promised in the last paragraph of the Protocol—as to which some persons have laboured, but I think with signal ill-success, to show that it at least implies, if it does not express, the idea of coercion? What it amounts to is really this—that if certain things are not done by the Turkish Government—we being the judges whether they have been done or not—then at some time which is not fixed—we being the judges whether that time has arrived — we will proceed, in common with the other Powers, to see what we will do. If you choose to criticize that undertaking as binding us to remarkably little in any sense, I am inclined to agree with you; but I submit there is a
1198
very wide difference between an undertaking of the kind I have described and those "efficacious measures" of the Berlin Memorandum, which, everyone knew, referred to the ultimate employment of military force. The noble Earl said it was a matter for regret that we did not come to some understanding with the other Powers about that Berlin Memorandum; because, if all the Powers of Europe had been united, there was no question that Turkey would have given way. Well, my Lords, the assumption that all the Powers would have been united is a very large one; and I must say that I think it extremely doubtful, judging by the light of subsequent events, whether, even if there had been that union of all the Powers in making demands on Turkey which some of them would not have been prepared to enforce, a union of that sort would have induced the Porte to abandon the line of action which it had taken up. That is not a question of theory only. All the Powers of Europe did unite at the Conference; and I do not hesitate to say, looking at the matter as we are able to do now, that nothing would have ensured the requirements of the Berlin Memorandum being acted upon except the employment of force. Well, then, the noble Earl went on to a matter to which I do not ascribe quite so much importance as he does. He is very anxious to know which of the two Declarations which appear as annexes to the Protocol was made first —the English or the Russian. The noble Earl is more experienced in diplomacy than I am, and he may see an importance in this matter which escapes my observation. As a matter of fact, the Russian Declaration preceded mine in point of time; but I do not know that either on the part of the Russian Ambassador or mine any importance was attached to that fact at the moment. The two Declarations were put in at the same meeting at which the Protocol was signed; and, appended to it, they form a single document. Then the noble Earl asks was this Russian Declaration elicited by any demand made on the part of the English Government? It was only so elicited in this sense—We had asked whether the Russian Government would be prepared to disarm in the event of this Protocol being signed? We said that we saw no particular advantage in

1199
entering into an engagement of this kind —it was not our plan; it was not devised by us. The Russian Government asked us to sign a document of this nature, giving as their reason that they were anxious to disarm; but that it was impossible for them to disband their army, and so appear to retreat in the face of Turkey, unless they had something to show that in the propositions which they had put forward they had the sympathy and support of Europe. I do not pledge myself to the precise form of words; but there is no question that the object with which the Russian Government asked us to sign this Protocol was to give them, as they said, an excuse for demobilization. I think it was a very natural and proper answer to that remark to say—" If we go out of our way to sign a Protocol which we do not consider of any particular advantage to us, what guarantee will you give us that it will accomplish the object for which you profess to ask for it? If the Protocol is signed, will you demobilize or not? "The Russian Government said they could not give a promise of that kind; and they put forward reasons of which I am not inclined to dispute the validity. They said, in the first place" Peace has not been concluded with Montenegro, and if Montenegro is again invaded we cannot promise to disarm and leave Montenegro to its fate." Again they said—"It is possible, that fresh massacres may take place; and if that is the case, it will be impossible for us to withdraw our troops from the frontier." Well, we admitted that there was a certain validity in that reply; and then we devised the very simple expedient of this Declaration, which comes to this—" You say you ask us to sign a certain document for a certain purpose. We will sign it for that purpose, but we will add to it a condition which, if that purpose is not accomplished, will prevent its being used for any other purpose." My Lords, that is the whole history of the Declaration on which the noble Earl has commented. Then the noble Earl asks—"Did you consult the other Powers as to your intention to make this Declaration?" I do not, speaking off-hand, remember in what form it was communicated to the other Powers, but we made no secret of our intention in that respect. I am certain that it was known to the Representatives of the European Powers
1200
here, and from the language which they held on the matter, and from such means of information as I possess, I do not believe that any objection or disapproval of that Declaration was either expressed or felt in any quarter. The noble Earl says he very much prefers the form of the Italian Declaration, and asks why we did not follow it? For the best of all possible reasons —that I did not hear of the Italian Declaration until after I had signed my own. Then the noble Earl says that there is one grave objection to the course of proceeding which we took—which was this—that it was in the power of Turkey, without reference to any other Power, to render the Protocol altogether ineffectual. This, my Lords, is quite true. But recollect what was the object of the Protocol. We were endeavouring to mediate between Russia and Turkey. In a mediation of that kind, if one party refuses to accept mediation—no matter what form the negotiation may take, no matter what course you may follow, that one party can, by refusal, entirely prevent the success of your mediation. No doubt it was in the power of Turkey to render the Protocol inoperative; but my contention is that precisely the same objection would apply to any other method of mediation which might have been adopted. It may be asked why we took this course—why we consented to sign a document of this kind? My answer is this—we were bound to assume, when the Russian Government came and told us that they were wanting an excuse for disarmament, that in that expression of opinion they were really sincere. If that were so, it was obviously our duty to help them by removing every obstacle in the way of peace. If, on the other hand—I do not say that the fact is so, I only put it forward as an hypothesis—but if you were to suppose that from the beginning there had been no real intention on the part of Russia of making peace, but that her only object was to secure a convenient cases belli, then I say on that hypothesis our best course was to do what we did; because, in the event of our refusing to take that course, it is perfectly certain that the whole responsibility and whole blame would be laid upon our shoulders. My Lords, I think I have answered the questions which the noble Earl has put; and probably, under the present circumstances, your Lordships will be of opinion that I act wisely in

1201
abstaining from any speculations as to the future.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, he thought some of their Lordships must have been struck by the disclaimer of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) when, in the course of his remarks, he said that even if this Protocol, and the Declaration attached to it, was, as had been suggested by the noble Earl who preceded him, an unbusiness-like document, he did not consider himself to be responsible for its unbusiness-like character, on the ground that he was not the author of the Paper. Now, among the signatures appended to the Protocol was that of the noble Earl himself, and he presumed that the noble Earl would not have signed it if he had not been responsible for its contents. Persons who happened to be in embarrassed circumstances sometimes obtained loans of money by affixing their, signatures to bills; but he should be much surprised if a person doing so were to argue that he was not responsible for the bill because he had not drawn up the terms of it. Whatever opinions might be entertained as to the points debated to-night, there could, he thought, be little difference of opinion on the point that Her Majesty's Government had been singularly unfortunate in attaining those ends which they had from time to time put forward publicly as the objects of their policy. The Prime Minister, at an early stage in these negotiations, made a statement to the effect that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to uphold the Treaties of 1856. He (the Marquess of Lansdowne) could not conceive, however, how a more serious blow could have been struck against those Treaties than had been inflicted by the Protocol which laid on the Table of their Lordships' House. At another time we heard that it was the integrity and independence of the Ottoman Empire which must be the special object of the solicitude of Her Majesty's Ministers. But the integrity and independence of the Ottoman Empire were never more seriously threatened than at the present moment. Again, the head of the Government had told them that the great object they had in view was the amelioration of the condition of the Christian subjects of the Porte. We had had no statement from Her Majesty's Govern-
1202
ment to the effect that the condition of the Christians was in any way improved. Finally, we had heard that the object of these negotiations was the maintenance of the peace of Europe. Ho feared, however, that the peace of Europe was not worth many days'—perhaps not many hours' purchase. In the face of all these failures, surely it was our duty to watch narrowly every fresh step taken by Her Majesty's Government, and no step could be much more important than that involved in the Protocol. In order to appreciate fully the importance of the change which the Protocol involved, it was necessary that we should carry our minds back from this—the beginning of a new chapter in the history of these events—to the state of affairs when the last chapter was closed by the failure of the Conference at Constantinople. Let him remind the House what was the position this country then occupied in the European concert. In the first place, the language of the Powers was at that time the language of absolute unanimity. Secondly, they were agreed in demanding certain very specific reforms, and they solemnly placed on record their belief that those reforms could not be obtained without certain guarantees for their execution; and lastly, we had made it known to both parties in this dispute that we had no intention of allowing ourselves to be drawn into it except in so far as diplomatic pressure and intervention were concerned. How complete a change had since occurred! The language of the Powers was no longer unanimous. The Declarations affixed to the Protocol disclosed a state of things far removed from unanimity. It was a symphony, but it was a symphony of discord. Again, what had become of the reforms, and the guarantees for their execution, on which we had insisted at Constantinople? There was not a word about these guarantees in the Protocol, and as for the part which this country would have to play in these transactions, if he had merely read the document and not listened to the explanations of the noble Earl opposite, he should have said that Her Majesty's Government had assumed, by the signature of the Protocol, a liability very different from any liability they had incurred before—because they had placed on record for the first time

1203
that they, with the other Powers, had undertaken the pacification of the East. The noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) had explained to-night that the words did not bear this construction; but he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) maintained that any person reading the Protocol for the first time would consider, on the contrary, that Her Majesty's Government had bound themselves by diplomatic or other means to see that the present state of affairs in the East was not allowed to continue. It was, therefore, right for noble Lords on that side of the House to ask what Her Majesty's Government had to say in justification of this change. The explanation of the noble Earl opposite was almost cynical in its candour. The noble Earl told their Lordships that the Protocol was accepted because it was the only means which Her Majesty's Government saw by which peace could be maintained. Peace was, to use the noble Earl's expression, the one thing urgent at the time. Now, he ventured to say that, although the Protocol might give Her Majesty's Government the prospect of a short breathing time, they should have hesitated to sign a paper which so completely condemned—he might almost say stultified — their previous action during these negotiations. The Protocol expressed, or ought to express, the solemn convictions of Her Majesty's Government. They said they had grounds for hoping the Porte would profit by the present lull to apply energetically such measures as would produce a real improvement in the condition of the Christian population, which was considered indispensable to the tranquillity of Europe. What were these "grounds for hoping" that the position of the Christians would be improved? The only grounds mentioned in the Protocol were the promises volunteered by the Porte itself. But over and over again those promises had been declared by the noble Earl and his Colleagues to be positively worthless. At the very outset the noble Earl opposite, when giving instructions to the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), who represented this country at Constantinople, told him on no account to believe any of the Turkish promises. Again, the noble Earl, writing to the noble Marquess on the 20th of November last, had warned him that—"The mere announcement of re-
1204
forms by the Porte cannot be accepted as sufficient." The Protocol referred to the Circular of the 13th of February, 1876; but that Circular was a document which had come in for a large share of the condemnation of Her Majesty's Government. The noble Marquess, writing to the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on January 13, 1877, said—
"These reforms have already been promised in the Note of the 13th of February, 1875.…. and the two first had previously been promised in the Hatti-Humayoun of 1856. A renewal of these promises, if it is accompanied by adequate guarantees of performance, would be a valuable concession, but without any such guarantees little practical advantage is likely to be obtained by reiterating the proclamation of these reforms."—[Turkey, No. 2 (1877) p. 304.]
If Her Majesty's Government placed confidence in the good intentions of the Porte now, why was it necessary to expose this country to the humiliation of a diplomatic defeat at Constantinople? Why was it necessary to supersede Sir Henry Elliot, and to send out, in the person of the noble Marquess opposite, a highly-skilled advocate, whose conduct at Constantinople we all applauded, but whose language increased the humiliation this country must have felt when the Conference ended without any good results at all? But not only wore Turkish professions and promises not more valuable or entitled to respect now than they were at the time when Her Majesty's Government had expressed its disbelief in them: they were less valuable and less entitled to respect than at the time of the Conference, for we had had in the interim considerable experience. He would ask their Lordships whether any of the engagements made by the Turks within the last few months had been fulfilled? Why, they had not even, in spite of promises and the denunciations of the noble Earl, carried out the sentences passed on those who had been sentenced for the most heinous crimes by their own Courts of Law. But that was not all. We had to bear in mind that what the noble Marquess opposite called the one motive power at the back of the Conference would be removed by this Protocol. How could we, after Russia had consented to a disarmament, expect Turkey to be more desirous than she was before to carry into effect the wishes of the European Governments? The

1205
chances of these reforms being voluntarily carried out by the Porte were, therefore, smaller than ever, and the Protocol gave us no information with regard to the means which Her Majesty's Government would adopt in order to secure their execution in the event of the too probable failure of the Porte. Our engagement was a contingent engagement only, and he ventured to say that of all the objectionable forms of bargain to which a great country could bind itself, a contingent bargain of that kind was the worst. The danger of such a bargain was very much increased when it was found to be embarrassed by such reservations as were appended to the document of which he was speaking. The Protocol, it was said, was to be null and void in a certain event; but he wished the noble Earl had informed the House how much of it was to be null and void. We could not, in the first place, well recede from the position which we had accepted of being responsible, in some degree at least, for the pacifiation of the East; nor could we retreat from the programme which had been urged by the noble Marquess opposite at the Conference at Constantinople. Again, he presumed we did not wish to withdraw our affirmation of the interest we took in the improvement of the condition of the Christian population of Turkey. It came, therefore, to this —that he supposed what we did intend to withdraw from was the concluding paragraph, the only portion of the document which had the appearance of pledging this country to action; but which, after the speech of the noble Earl, meant nothing at all. Besides, let the House consider for a moment the number of contingencies on which the operation of the Protocol was made to depend. It was to come into effect if peace were made between Turkey and Montenegro, if the Porte carried out certain reforms which, so far as this country was aware, it was not likely to carry out, if Russia was satisfied with those reforms, and if disarmament followed. All those conditions were to be fulfilled before the Protocol could have any effect at all. Now, for his own part, he did not think that the policy of a great country ought to be made to depend on such eventualities. We had placed ourselves in a position of incurring very great liability. He wanted to
1206
know in what coin the noble Earl meant to meet those obligations?—because at present the House was without any information on the subject. These reservations were the outcome of the caution of the noble Earl; but he feared, he might add, that, despite all those precautions, the peace of Europe would before long be disturbed. The noble Earl had said, with justice, that it was difficult for him to give their Lordships any further information with respect to the prospects of peace or war; but he must express a hope that if any opening were still left for intervention, Her Majesty's Government would spare no effort in order to avert the evil by which Europe was now threatened. Should war, unfortunately, break out, he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) was afraid many like himself would think some share of responsibility attached to the Government who had from the outset hesitated between two lines of policy. They might have adopted a policy of strict non-intervention, or the policy indicated by the noble Marquess opposite at Constantinople, who used language which was intelligible only upon the assumption that if it was disregarded Her Majesty's Government were prepared to act in accordance with it. There was much to be said in favour of either of these policies—there was nothing to be said in favour of that hesitation between the two which had marked the action of Her Majesty's Government. We had to choose between complete abstention and active interference. We had sought to obtain the immunities of the one and the credit of the other, and our failure had been humiliating to ourselves, calamitous to those whom we sought to protect, and disastrous to the peace of Europe.
THE EARL OF DUDLEYwas understood to say that in the remarks which he on a former occasion made in reference to Sir Henry Elliot, lie did not for a moment mean to imply that he had not worked hard and conscientiously in the discharge of his duties, or that he did not adequately represent the policy of the Government; but that his views were so strongly in favour of Turkey, and were expressed with so little disguise, as to render him not peculiarly well fitted to be the Representative of this country at Constantinople. Coming, however, to the Protocol, lie could come

1207
to no other conclusion than that it was of no use whatever. If there was to be peace it was not wanted, while if war broke out it fell to the ground. In the one case it was null and in the other void. He did not think it necessary, therefore, to comment upon its several clauses. But there was something beyond it which was of the greatest possible consequence, and that was what would result from it? The most startling thing he had heard that evening was that the Protocol had been signed at the request of Russia as an excuse for mobilization. If, he might add, the Protocol had in itself no meaning, it was rendered still more invalid by the Declarations which were appended to it, and which were made to turn on certain eventualities, which, in all likelihood, would never occur. They had not, at all events, happened so far as things had gone at present. A great deal was said, too, about an European war;—but he could see no reason why any war which occurred between Russia and Turkey should extend to the rest of Europe. He could not conceive for a single moment that any other Power could have any object, or aim, or motive, in making the war of greater magnitude than it would be between Russia and Turkey, should they unfortunately come to blows. At any rate, Turkey had had ample warning that this country would not come to her assistance. Turkey seemed to suppose that she could resist all moral suasion and set her face against Europe, and Russia had taken upon herself the task of showing Turkey that she was wrong. As to the action taken by the Government in isolating itself from Russia, he could only say that while he did not desire to cast any blame upon them, it was not such as, in his opinion, was likely to promote peace—the declared object which they had in view.
House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.