Sitting of 16 April 1878

MINUTES.
NEW WRITS ISSUED—For North Staffordshire, v. The Right hon. Sir Charles Bowyer Adderley, K.C.M.G., now Baron Norton; for Tamworth, v. Robert William Hanbury, esquire, Chiltern Hundreds.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Education (Scotland) * [156]; Endowed Schools and Hospitals (Scotland) * [157]; Entail Amendment (Scotland) * [158].
Second Reading—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 1) * [148].
Considered as amended—Customs and Inland Revenue [146].
Third Reading— Public Works Loans* [138], and passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

PRIVATE BILLS.
Ordered, That Standing Order 129 be suspended, and that the time for depositing Petitions against Private Bills, or against any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order, or Provisional Certificate, be extended to Monday the 6th day of May next.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
QUESTIONS.

  THE ARMY RESERVES—THE METRO POLITAN POLICE.—QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Army Reserve men who are in the Metropolitan Police will be allowed to rejoin that force when their services with the Army may be no longer needed?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Oh, yes, Sir; certainly.

CRIME (IRELAND)—MURDER OF THE EARL OF LEITRIM AND OTHERS.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. LAMBERTasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If, after the recent triple murder in Donegal, he has considered what stringent and prompt measures should be taken by the Government to deal with crimes of that nature; and if he has considered the desirability of assimilating the Jury Laws of Ireland to those of Scotland, where the majority of a jury convict, so as to provide the same security for the well-disposed people of Ireland as of Scotland?
  MR. SULLIVAN: Before my right hon. and learned Friend answers that Question, I wish, Sir, by your permission, to ask another. I should like to know, Whether the Government will, during the Easter Recess, consider the propriety of holding a rigid investigation into all the circumstances surrounding and preceding this most lamentable occurrence?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON) (for Mr. J. LOWTHER): Sir, in answer to the first Question, I have to say, that immediately after these terrible murders were committed, the Government at once took measures for the discovery of the
  1366
  murderers. The investigations are still going on, with what, I may hope, will turn out to be satisfactory results. But the Government have not considered the advisability of assimilating the Jury Laws of Ireland to those of Scotland. With regard to the Question of the hon. and learned Member for Louth, I must say that the Government have had no Notice whatever of that Question; but I may state that I think it improbable that any such course as that suggested by the hon. and learned Member will be adopted.

THE EASTERN QUESTION—THE TREATY OF SAN STEFANO—THE SEAPORT OF BATOUM.

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN PIMasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been called to the statement in the "Standard" of the 15th instant, that
  "Dervish Pasha, having been instructed to evacuate Batoum, reports that the inhabitants regard the transfer to Russia with horror and despair, and refuse to comply with the order;"
  and whether Her Majesty's Government intend to take any steps to prevent interference with this important Armenian seaport?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I have seen the paragraph to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers, but Her Majesty's Government have received no official information on the subject of the seaport of Batoum, which would be one of the matters that would have to be considered by the Conference.

RAILWAYS—BRAKE POWER.

  QUESTION.
  MR. M. BROOKSasked the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been called to the fact that on Tuesday last, the 9th instant, a passenger train on the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway did, owing to inadequate brake power, run past the Dalkey Station, where it was appointed to stop, and continue its course without control, for nearly a mile, to Glenageary Station; whether the line between Dalkey and Glenageary is not single, and if, on the occasion referred to, within less than one minute, a passenger train from Glena-

  1367
  geary did not arrive at Dalkey by that line; and what steps are being taken to oblige the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway to provide adequate brake power?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, we have made inquiries from the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railways as to the statements in the hon. Member's Question, and have received a reply which we do not fully understand. We have, therefore, tetegraphed to Major General Hutchinson, who is at present in Ireland, to inquire into the matter and to report to us. If the hon. Gentleman will wait till after Easter, detailed information may be forthcoming. Meanwhile, the hon. Gentleman is at liberty privately to read the letter received from the Railway Company.

  SOUTH AFRICA—POSITION OF AFFAIRS.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether, before the House rises for the Easter Recess, he will be prepared to make a Statement relative to the condition of the Transvaal territory and South African affairs generally, especially with reference to the military operations being now carried on?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, the purport of the information which I am able to give to the House on this subject maybe comprised in a few words; and therefore, with the permission of the House, I will reply to the right hon. Member's Question now. As he surmises, the attention of the Cape and Transvaal Governments continues to be almost entirely occupied with the military operations for the suppression of the Kaffir outbreak and the threatening attitude of the Zulus and other Natives on the Transvaal frontier. The detailed accounts which we receive from time to time of the conduct of the Imperial military operations continue to be satisfactory, though I fear that a longer time may elapse before the final suppression of the outbreak than appeared probable a few weeks ago. General Thesiger has assumed the command, and the Imperial and Colonial Forces are working together in complete harmony under his direction. I am happy to add that we have no confirmation whatever of the alarming reports that were current last
  1368
  week of great losses sustained by the Imperial troops and the death of one or more distinguished officers. Such reports are often entirely without foundation, and, as an instance of this, I may refer to a telegram from Sir Bartle Frere, read last night by my noble Friend the Under Secretary, in "another place," from which it appears that an officer of Engineers, who had been reported killed in action the week before, had quite recovered from his accident. With regard to the Transvaal, our intelligence is less satisfactory. The negotiations in progress for the settlement of the boundary difficulty with the Zulus have partly relieved us from apprehension in that quarter, and may, I hope, lead to a settlement of the question without resort to force. But we have reports of a Native outbreak in another direction, which I understand has been suppressed; and there is much that is not satisfactory in the attitude of a portion of the Boer population. Sir Theophilus Shepstone has asked for reinforcements, and I understand from a telegram from Sir Bartle Frere that these reinforcements will be despatched as soon as possible. Yesterday I laid a further instalment of Papers on this subject before the House, and these will be in the hands of hon. Members during the Recess.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENasked, What was the date of the latest news which had been received, and whether Parliament, on re-assembling, would be put in possession of the latest information then in the hands of the Government?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: said, he would take care to put the House in possession of the latest information. The latest despatch from the Transvaal was dated February 21, and the latest telegram from Sir Bartle Frere March 26.

  PRISONS (SCOTLAND) ACT—PRISON BOARD CLERKS.—QUESTION.
  MR. M'LARENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that several of the Scotch County Prison Board Clerks, who are in receipt of salaries for other public offices, some of them solicitors in large practice,

  1369
  and others acting as bank agents, are demanding compensation under section 60 of the Scotch Prisons Act of 1877; and, whether it was the purpose of Her Majesty's Government, in assenting to this section of the Act, to include such cases, or only persons who are deprived by the said Act of all other ostensible means of livelihood, or by the abolition of prison offices to which their time was mainly or wholly given?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate will answer the Question.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: Sir, the Prisons Act of last year gives, in the first instance, to the old prison authority a discretionary power of awarding compensation to officers deprived of their offices, their decisions being liable, however, to review and correction by the Commissioners of Supply. We have not had an opportunity of knowing, except by the Question of the hon. Member, the fact that demands of this extravagant kind have been made upon the prison authorities. It was not the intention of the Government or of the Home Secretary to have anything to do with awarding these pensions. We thought it better to leave this matter entirely to the good sense and discretion of the local executive bodies, who ought to be best able to judge of the requirements of each applicant. I have only to say, further, that although, no doubt, applications have been made of the character indicated by the hon. Member, we see as yet no reason to suppose that the discretion intrusted to the local bodies will be abused by them.

  PRIVATEERING.—QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN PIMasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been called to statements in the Press that
  "the Cesarewitch has been appointed President of the Russian Committee formed to arm privateers in case of a war with England;"
  that "several American steamers have already been purchased;" that a large force of officers and men is held in readiness for immediate privateering service; that a consignment of torpedoes adapted for privateers has been received in Russia from an English firm; and that no less a sum than £10,000 has been
  1370
  offered to the Russian Government for one "letter of marque;" 100 vessels being available on the same terms at a month's notice for this purpose, not only without cost to Russia, but actually paying into their Exchequer no less a sum than £1,000,000 for the privilege; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will, before it is too late, demand the intentions of Russia with respect to their employment of privateers or "letters of marque" in the event of war?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I have seen statements to that effect, and also many other statements equally alarming. I can only say that we have received no official information on the subject. Considering that Russia was a party to the Declaration of Paris, under which privateering was abolished, it is not to be expected that any such measures would be adopted on her part.

  METROPOLIS—THE UNION OF BENE FICES ACT.—QUESTION.
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAMasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether the various Addresses to Her Majesty in Council with reference to Commissions recently issued under the Union of Benefices Act have yet been laid upon the Table of the House; and, whether, considering the Commissions involve the destruction of five City Churches, namely, St. Matthew Friday-street, St. George Botolph-lane, St. Mildred Bread-street, St. Ethelburga, and St. Margaret Pattens, exclusive of St. Dionis Backchurch, now in process of demolition, he would consent to give the House some notice before the Addresses to Her Majesty in Council are, in accordance with the Act, laid upon the Table of the House?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON, in reply, said, that the Question of the hon. Member referred to schemes which had been submitted to Her Majesty's Government for the consolidation of benefices and the demolition of churches. No such scheme had yet been laid on the Table of the House. Under the 15th section of the 23 & 24 Vict. c. 142, all such schemes must be laid on the Table of the House for two months before they were submitted to Her Majesty in Council, and thus his hon. Friend would have an ample opportunity

  1371
  of calling attention to such schemes before they were submitted to Her Majesty in Council.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACT— SUPERIOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether the following statement issued by the School Board of Bradford, Yorkshire, be the legitimate object of any School Board formed under the Elementary Education Acts, seeing that each school is supported by rates:—
  "The design of the Board is to provide in both these schools a superior elementary education; to realize this object the course will be more enlarged than that of the ordinary elementary schools, and the instruction will be carried further by special teaching than has been found practicable in such schools;"
  whether or not it be with the knowledge and sanction of the Educational Department of the Privy Council that ratepayers under the Elementary Education Acts should be called upon, compulsorily, to pay for pupils who, under the Board School system, are taught the subjects named under the "second" head of the following curriculum:—
  "First, the subjects included in the Six Standards of the New Code—viz., reading, recitation, writing, arithmetic, dictation, grammar, composition, geography, history, object lessons, drill, vocal music, and needlework (for girls). Second, drawing, English literature, social economy, and the specific subjects of the New Code—viz., Latin, French, mathematics—algebra and euclid, physical geography, mechanics, animal physiology, domestic economy (for girls). Chemistry, botany, and other sciences may be taken up without extra charge, in evening classes, under the Science and Art Department;"
  and, if not, whether steps will be taken by the Council to prevent the provisions of the Elementary Education Acts being so applied?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, some time back the Bradford School Board started, as an experiment, an advanced elementary school. This experiment met with much support, so much so that a requisition, largely signed by ratepayers, was sent to the Board asking them to establish another advanced ele-
  1372
  mentary school. The Board applied to the Education Department for leave to charge in these schools a uniform rate of 9d. under the Elementary Education Act, and the Department consented, having taken adequate steps to protect children in the district whose parents were unable to pay the higher fee. All the subjects proposed to be taught, with the exception of social economy, are recognized and paid for by the Education Department. I am not, therefore, prepared to admit that the proposal of the Bradford School Board is contrary to the provisions of the Elementary Education Acts.

  ARMY—RETIRED VOLUNTEER OFFICERS.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL BERESFORDasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Officers of Volunteer Regiments, to whom, upon retirement Her Majesty has been pleased to grant permission to retain their rank and to wear the uniform of their corps are not entitled to be designated by that rank while employed in the various departments of the public service?
  COLONEL STANLEY: Yes, Sir, they are entitled to retain those designations, if they should think so fit.

  TURKEY—CRETE.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that, in spite of the Armistice effected at the instance of Her Majesty's Consul between the insurgents of Crete and the Turkish troops, the Turks have made renewed attacks upon the insurgents, and are sending fresh troops to the island; and, if so, whether the Government proposes to take any action in the matter?
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, from information which we have received lately, we have reason to believe that the truce has been broken between the Turkish forces and the insurgents of Crete. It is said, that this has taken place in consequence of the Turkish troops having marched into Christian villages. It is said also, on the one hand, that the Turkish troops did this at the invitation of the Christian inhabitants of those villages. On the other hand, it is said that if that invitation were given to the Turkish

  1373
  troops, it was given by inhabitants who did not represent the feeling of the Christian population. That is all the information I can give the hon. Gentleman upon that subject. A telegram received within the last day or two from Mr. Layard states that Reschid Pasha had proceeded to Crete to take command of the troops, and that he was also accompanied by Server Pasha. Mr. Layard adds that both these officers are very well spoken of, and have given the strongest assurances that they will do their best to repress and restrain the excesses of the troops, and to restore as speedily as possible peace and tranquillity to the island.
  MR. MONKasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When the Papers in reference to Crete will be laid upon the Table?
  MR. BOURKE, in reply, said, he hoped that some of them would be laid upon the Table this afternoon, and that he hoped they would all be in the hands of hon. Members before the end of the Holidays.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE WAR EXPENDI TURE—QUESTION.
  MR. WHITWELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, When the subject of the advances now being made out of home funds for the war now being carried on in the interior of the colony of the Cape of Good Hope will be brought before Parliament?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I am unable to say how soon this subject can be brought before Parliament. Communications on the matter have been going on between the War Office and the Colonial Office and between the Colonial Office and the State Government. There has been very recently a change of Government at the Cape, and the Cape Parliament is about to meet. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies has pressed upon the attention of the Governor at the Cape the necessity of causing this matter to be brought before the Cape Parliament as its first business, and it will, no doubt, be laid before them at the earliest opportunity. It is impossible, at the present moment, to say how soon information on the subject will be received.

  THE EASTERN QUESTION—MINIS TERIAL STATEMENT.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question of which I have given him private Notice. The House is in an unusual, and I may add an anxious, position. We are about to separate for a much longer Recess than usual, and at a time when there is grave anxiety whether peace will be maintained. This anxiety is increased by the statements and rumours in the daily papers, not only as regards the present position of our negotiations with Russia, but as regards the isolation of this country and the state of affairs at Constantinople. I would, therefore, ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he can give the House any information with regard to our foreign relations which may tend to restore confidence and to give the hope of a peaceful arrangement?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I am not in a position, without inconvenience, to enter into any details upon the present aspect of affairs; but I can say, generally, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman's Question, that nothing whatever has occurred which should give occasion for increased anxiety on this question, nor in any way diminish the hope we entertain of a satisfactory arrangement being arrived at of the difficulties in which we undoubtedly are placed. The matter has been under discussion in this House within the last week or two, and nobody can doubt that the situation is one of an anxious character, and the steps which have already been taken have not failed to show that such is the opinion of Her Majesty's Government. Nothing, however, has occurred since which in any way increases the gravity of the position, or which tends to diminish the hopes of an ultimate satisfactory arrangement. I may say, with reference to the particular point in which interest has been expressed, that, as regards the condition of Thessaly and the Piræus, great hopes are entertained that a satisfactory arrangement will be arrived at, through the good offices of Her Majesty's Government between the Porte and the Greek Government, which may put a stop to further fighting in those districts. I may also mention that the Circular which

  1375
  was published some time ago in the newspapers has been received from Russia and presented to Her Majesty's Government, and we have reason to believe that another Circular is about to be issued by the Porte.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I do not know whether it would be possible for the right hon. Gentleman or for the Government to secure that the despatch to which he has just alluded, or any other important despatches which may be received during the Recess, shall be sent to hon. Members or given to the public? I believe that sometimes information of the kind has been given to the newspapers.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, no doubt, if any information of an important character reaches us during the Recess, which can properly be made public, that course will be taken. I am reminded that I omitted to refer to one part of the right hon. Gentleman's Question that should not be allowed to pass without remark. The right hon. Gentleman refers to the isolation of this country; but there is nothing whatever to justify that expression.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has not answered that part of my Question with regard to the state of affairs at Constantinople.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, there is nothing whatever in regard to the state of affairs in Constantinople which in any way increases our anxiety.

MOTIONS.
  PARLIAMENT—THE EASTER RECESS.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That this House will, at the rising of the House this day, adjourn till Monday the 6th day of May next."—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he thought that this Motion should not pass without a word from somebody. It was the most extraordinary Motion that had been heard in this extraordinary Session. They were asked to break up, and not meet again for three weeks. ["No, no!"] Well, three weeks all but
    1376
    a day. Last year they only adjourned for a week at Easter, and it did seem to him most extraordinary that, at a crisis like the present, they should be called on to take so long a holiday. If anyone had more right than another to complain, he thought it was himself; because it was only eight days ago since he had ventured to propose in the House a Resolution to the effect that there was no great emergency in existence to warrant the calling out of the Reserves. And how was he met? Why, by the whole of the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, to the number of nearly half the House of Commons, voting that there was a great emergency. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had just now said, in answer to the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), that the gravity of the situation had not increased. He was very glad to hear it, but he had not said it had decreased; and, therefore, he was at a loss to know what circumstances there were to make them say there was no great emergency now, if there were a great emergency then. And what was this great emergency? As he understood it, it was this—that all their boasted diplomacy had failed, that all their diplomatists, who were supported at such great public expense, had not been able to arrange the terms on which the proposed Congress should be held. This was a most distressing state of things, and not the time when Parliament should be sent about its business for three weeks. What had the Government themselves done? They had called them together, in a most unprecedented manner, three weeks earlier than usual, for the purpose of consulting them from day to day. If the Government thought it safer and better to have them to consult with then, surely it was much more important now. The state of affairs was more critical than it was three months ago. Everyone knew, too, that they lived in a state of scare, and no one could tell what the newspapers would publish and send down to hon. Members in the country. The Government themselves had done not a little to contribute to the general feeling of alarm. First, they had their Vote of Credit, which, let them say as they liked, was a warlike measure—no one, at all events, could persuade him that a Vote for war stores was not a warlike vote. Then they had

    1377
    called out the Reserves, which was a still more decidedly warlike step. They got the money first, and then they got the men. He thought some consideration should be shown to the Opposition. The Government stood in a different position from what it did when Parliament met. At that time, Lord Carnarvon and Lord Derby were in the Government, and they commanded the confidence of the Opposition more than any of the other Members of the Government. He would not say they were the most able men, but they were more trusted by the Opposition than any of the others. Lord Derby, moreover, had himself said, since he left the Government, that he considered their policy a policy of rushing into war. Besides, there was something more which he would not avow, but which he thought still more clearly indicated an intention of going to war. All these facts ought to make them pause before they adjourned in this hasty manner. He did not see the Leader of the Opposition in his place. The noble Marquess did not like the Amendment which he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had brought forward lately, but he said that he might have supported it if that had been the last occasion they would have of discussing the policy of the Government. This was the last time they would have, at all events, for three weeks; and he did wish that some right hon. Gentleman would get up and say what the Opposition Leaders thought of this adjournment in the present critical state of affairs. What security had hon. Members, if they broke up to-day, that they might not some morning take up their papers and find a Declaration of War? The Berlin correspondent of one of the most influential papers, he observed, said that the question of peace or war was only a matter of a few hours. He hoped hon. Gentlemen would understand what he meant. He himself did not believe now, any more than when he moved his Amendment, that this great emergency existed. He believed, however, that it could be very easily created; and he, for one, was not prepared to trust the Government, after what he had seen them doing in the course of the last few months. How had the difficulties been caused with which they were now contending? Simply by the obstinate stupidity of resisting all means
    1378
    of accommodation in this matter. What could be more humiliating, more disgusting, than the telegrams they read every day in their clubs or other places of resort? They saw that Germany or Austria had made propositions which were likely to be generally accepted, and then they read at the end— "Sir Henry Elliot alone opposes on behalf of England." If the hon. Member for Meath would excuse him for saying so, England was nothing more than the Parnell of Europe. He did not want the Government to get up and say what they were proposing to fight for, because he knew that it was perfectly impossible for them to do so, and that if they tried they would only get sounding platitudes full of wind and fury, and signifying nothing. He did not want to put them to the trouble of giving them more of that stuff which they had listened to so often, and with so much disgust. One hon. Member—the Representative, he thought, of one of the Metropolitan counties—said the other night, that their object was to drive the Russians back to the Arctic circle. Well, that was, after all, about as rational a reason as he had heard for going to war. He did not ask the Government, as he had said, to tell them what their object was, but he begged them to let the House have a clear and distinct understanding that they would not take any decisive or irrevocable step which would lead the country into war. If he did not get that assurance, he would oppose the Motion for Adjournment, though only one man went into the Lobby with him.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he thought no one could view the present situation without being oppressed by feelings of anxiety and almost of alarm. He was glad to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there was no increased cause for anxiety; but the anxiety that already prevailed was of itself grave enough. What was the situation? They were told by Lord Derby that this country was not so much drifting into war as that it was rushing into war, that war was almost irrevocable, and that he had retired from the Government because of some unrevealed step even more dangerous than anything that had yet been determined upon by Her Majesty's Ministers. He (Mr. Courtney) thought that hon. Members must ask whether, under such circumstances, they could

    1379
    separate at all? It was true that they were weak, and could do no more than remonstrate with, or advise, the Government; but, at least, whilst they were there, they could raise their voices on behalf of the counsels of peace, and, few as they were, could represent the opinions of a large number of Her Majesty's subjects out-of-doors. No one could suppose that the division last week was at all an accurate representation of the feeling out-of-doors. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must admit that a considerable minority, at all events, viewed Her Majesty's Government with suspicion, and looked forward with something of alarm to what they were likely to do. Members of the Government were so engrossed from day to day with the details of Office, that he sometimes wondered how they could find time to meditate on the results of their action, or to estimate at their true value the circumstances of the position in which they were placed. They had but little time for that, and were tempted to exaggerate the events of the day, and forget what were their true relations to what had gone before and what was coming afterwards. When, sometimes, he thought of the present situation, he had been astonished by the littleness, the pettiness, the vanity of the particular dispute which threatened to involve Europe in war. We had arrived at such a point, that our only hope of peace lay in a Conference of the Great Powers of Europe on the situation in the East. If the Conference assembled, peace might be hoped for as the result of their labours; but, if the Conference failed, there was only one alternative—if not immediate war, some act of armed and hostile occupation which would be regarded as a menace or defiance, or, at least, a provocation to war. What, then, was the difficulty that was keeping England and Russia apart? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Government were most desirous to go to a Conference, provided it was free and unrestrained. Other Members of the Government said they were standing out against the Conference, because they were insisting on a stipulation which Russia would not grant. He fully admitted the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that they were entitled to have a free and full discussion of the Treaty of San Stefano, and of the settlement of the Eastern
    1380
    Question; but he denied that we had a right to say to Russia that she could not reserve to herself the right to decline to discuss certain questions. But let them realize what was meant by that proposition. Let them suppose that the Conference had assembled, and was discussing, Article by Article, the Treaty of San Stefano. When it came, for example, to the subject of the independence of Servia and the rectification of her frontier, some question might arise as to the propriety of that independence or of that rectification of frontier. That discussion might go on most freely; but would the Chancellor of the Exchequer not admit that it was the right of every Member of the Conference to say at the end, or at any stage of the discussion—"We cannot consent to this limitation being altered, or we must insist on that limitation being altered?" The freedom of discussion was not restricted by the statement of any Power, whether it was Russia, England, Austria, or Germany, that there was a point at which discussion ceased—a point at which the Powers separated themselves, or carried their protest to the length of ultimate withdrawal. That was a course within the liberty of our own Government, or of any other Power going into the Conference. It might be said that we could not discuss the question of the independence of Servia or the rectification of her borders, because the position of that country was recognized by the Treaty of Paris, and that the Treaty, until altered, was still binding. No doubt, the principles of that Treaty might be used argumentatively at the Conference; but Her Majesty's Government had, by their own acts, admitted that the obligations of that Treaty had ceased. Lord Derby's despatch of the 6th of May last, which had been called "the charter of our policy," stated, that as long as three points were respected, Russia might do what she liked with Turkey. By that declaration, all the other obligations of the Treaty were set aside. In claiming to rely on the stipulations of the Treaty of Paris, we were making a claim which no other Power had advanced. He entreated the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider whether the Government were justified in the action they had taken by the pleas they had put forward. The language of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer

    1381
    was perfectly unexceptionable, but it did not cover the position the Government had taken in the face of Russia. It was stated yesterday, on authority which he believed to be accurate, that Prince Bismarck despaired of a peaceful solution of this question if the attitude of England were not altered. That, he feared, was true; and the Members of the Opposition would abandon their duty, if they did not on the eve of the Recess, call on the Government not to make themselves any longer the obstacle to the peaceful re-settlement of the affairs of South-Eastern Europe.
    MR. MONKsaid, he could not but regard so long an adjournment of the House with mingled feelings of misgiving and of satisfaction—misgiving, because it was patent that the state of affairs was critical; and satisfaction, because he entertained a hope that the Government would not do what would be almost a crime—certainly, a crime in the eyes of the Opposition—namely, engage in a war with Russia when Parliament was not sitting. He thought the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was justified in asking the Government to give a pledge that they would not engage in war during the Recess. ["Oh, oh!"] He scarcely thought some hon. Members were aware of the feeling on this subject which existed outside the House. The country inspired by that instinct, which was often found wanting in a Governing Body, was daily and hourly raising its voice, and petitioning Parliament against war; while the people were sending Memorials to Her Majesty, praying that she would not allow England to be drawn into hostilities. Doubts and alarms were spreading through the country, while commercial interests were becoming entirely paralyzed. Why would not the right hon. Gentleman tell them, that in the present perilous juncture, the Government was doing all in its power to smooth the way for the Conference, and to induce Russia to join it? The late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said he cared little about our going into a Conference, but he hoped that was not the opinion of the Government. Why should Russia, after a long and bloody war, after her glorious victories over Turkey, and after enforcing to the best of her ability the decrees of the Conference of Constantinople, not be allowed
    1382
    a potent voice in settling the Eastern Question? Russia had never insisted on enforcing the Treaty of San Stefano, until every clause of it had been considered in Congress. She had never denied the right of any other European Power to consider every clause of the Treaty, and the difficulty about going into a Congress for that purpose had been raised by Her Majesty's Government. Russia did not dispute the right of Europe to discuss the Treaty. The statement to that effect, of Sir Henry Elliott, had been very energetically denied by Prince Gortchakoff. Russia did not dispute the right of Europe to set the Treaty aside. Russia had said from the first, that Europe assembled in Conference must settle the Eastern Question, and until the Great Powers met in peaceful Conference for discussion, there could be no solution of existing difficulties. Did hon. Members suppose that Russia would submit to the dictation of England? If she refused to do so—and she seemed inclined to refuse—what must be the result? If Her Majesty's Government persisted in refusing to enter the Congress and to discuss the Treaty there, there might be a long and a bloody war; and if England came out of it conqueror, as she probably would, the very same question as to a Conference would again arise.
    LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, that the argument of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was that, as this was a time of emergency, the House should not adjourn for any Holiday. He must remind the House that, at the beginning of the Session, the Government announced that an emergency existed. What was the result? Parliament had unanimously declared its intention to support them in meeting that emergency, and in providing against unforeseen dangers. Subsequently, on January 24, the emergency had increased, and the Government proposed a Vote of £6,000,QOO. That Vote was carried by an enormous majority. This fact showed how completely the House endorsed the policy of the Ministers, and proved that the nation was anxious to provide against all possible dangers. Still the emergency increased, and the Government majority increased. Then Parliament considered the question of calling out the Reserves, and that measure was sanctioned by an enormous majority,

    1383
    The hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle succeeded in leading into the Opposition Lobby only 65 Members. And what did the hon. Baronet now wish to do? What did he say? He first denied that an emergency existed, and then he said that Parliament should not separate for a few weeks because there was an emergency. Did he understand the hon. Baronet to mean that he desired again to test the feeling of the House of Commons, and to see the policy of the Government supported by a still larger majority? No; it was absurd to suppose that he sought to parade an increased majority for the Government, while he himself led a dwindled minority into the Lobby. Let the House, then, consider further what he was driving at. The hon. Baronet asked what security was there that we should not get up some morning and find in the papers a Declaration of War? But if we did not separate for the Holidays, what security was there that the same thing might not occur? The country had exactly the same security against war being declared during the Easter Recess as while Parliament was sitting. It was the Prerogative of the Sovereign to declare war and to make peace; and it was not the prerogative of the Representatives of the people to do so. It was true, that if Parliament should be in Session, it might be announced orally in the House that Her Majesty had declared war; but what was the difference between an announcement in that House and an announcement in the newspapers? Ah! He knew what the hon. Baronet meant. He meant that if the Government did advise Her Majesty to declare war, then if Parliament should be sitting, he and his small minority should be able to hamper the Government in such a grave emergency. That he could understand. And for this emergency what, according to the hon. Baronet, were we to have ready? A House of Commons that could spend its hours as it had done last Friday—a House of Commons that could sit up all night until half-past 6 in the morning discussing an Irish Sunday Closing Bill—that was the House of Commons that was to deal with this emergency. If the hon. Baronet desired a House of Commons to assist the Government, it must be a different House from any that had lately been seen. He preferred to see
    1384
    the Government unhampered by the present House of Commons, although they should be held strictly responsible for any step they might advise. He put a great deal of trust in the House of Commons in the time of Lord Palmerston. He put less trust in the House of Commons in succeeding times. He had lost most of his former faith in Parliament; and he asked hon. Members whether they could put that trust in the House of Commons now, which they did in former days? Did they respect it now as much as it used to be respected? Far be it from him to say a word against the House of Commons. All he said was, that if a House of Commons were to sit continuously, or èn permanence, to assist Her Majesty's Government, it must be a different House from that which we had at present; and, in a case of emergency, he would rather leave Her Majesty's Government to deal with it unhampered by such a House as this, holding them responsible afterwards to the country for their actions. The hon. Baronet called on the Government to give a pledge to the House that the Crown would not declare war before we re-assembled on the 6th of May. A more monstrous proposition was never put forward than that which was invented by the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, and repeated by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk)—the Government to give a pledge that, before the House re-assembled on the 6th of May, the Crown would not declare war! They knew what had happened this year by giving pledges. An ill-advised word by Her Majesty's Government was construed into a pledge that they would not ask for the Vote of Credit, and would do nothing unless Russia took certain steps; and they found themselves as much hampered in consequence, as the Russians felt themselves free in every other direction. And now they were asked to give another pledge! What, with Russia within 15 miles of the lines of Boulair, with Russia overstepping the neutral zone created by her own Treaty, with Russia surrounding Constantinople and in possession of all the heights that commanded that town and the Bosphorus; and ordering the Sultan, as if he were a slave and a vassal, to stop the construction of the fortifications necessary for the defence of his capital! And the Government were

    1385
    asked to give a pledge not to go to war! The Sultan had received these orders from his conqueror and master, after—yes, after the conclusion of peace! And why? Because the Russians evidently intended to make a sudden spring on Constantinople, and desired that nothing should stand in their way. Was the Government to give the Russians perfect freedom to fulfil their intentions, by a pledge that, whatever they might do, war should not be declared until after the 6th of May? Was Russia to get a carte blanche and perfect freedom to carry out her nefarious designs, by means of a pledge that, whatever Russia might do, war was not to be declared until the House of Commons met again. He trusted England would never have a Government so fatuous as to give a pledge such as that. Then, the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) had said that this was only "a petty dispute." That he could not admit for a moment. It was not, as he had said, "a dispute about words and forms." It was a dispute most momentous, on a matter most material. It was no less a question than this—Whether Russia should be allowed to succeed in an attempt to impose her mere will on the whole of Europe; thrusting aside Treaties, International Law, obligations, and the rights of Europe. The Treaty of San Stefano contained the will of the Czar, as imposed upon Turkey; and if Europe was not to be permitted to consider and modify it, then that will of the Czar was to be imposed also on the whole of Europe; and Treaties were, by the Czar's fiat, to be set aside, because they were concluded by the agreement of Europe, and not decreed by the will of the Czar! That was the point on which Her Majesty's Government had made their stand. The Prime Minister had stated that it was in defence of European liberty that the Government had taken up their present position. He said the truth. "Oh! but the Government," said the hon. Member for Liskeard, "had admitted that the obligations of the Treaty of Paris had ceased, by writing the despatch of May the 6th, 1877." He (Lord Robert Montagu) had always regretted that despatch; it was the relinquishment of firm ground, to take their stand on a bog. They should have adhered to their despatch, of May 1.
    1386
    Let the House remember, however, that it was Lord Derby who had contradicted the ancient policy of England, and the policy announced by the Prime Minister, when he penned that despatch of May 6. But Lord Derby could not bind the Sovereign, nor the people of England. Those, certainly, who had denounced it, could not be bound by it. The hon. Member might, however, perhaps remind him that Russia had sent the text of the Treaty to each Power, and had consented to discuss it with each Cabinet separately. Such conduct was very like the process of lobbying. Everyone knew what was meant by lobbying. Lobbying was often attempted in that House, and with success. One Member's vote was gained by putting a measure in one light; the support of another was acquired by hinting that his interest would be consulted. Concessions were promised and votes obtained, here and there. He had known an hon. and learned Member who was offered a silk gown to vote against a Reform Bill. [Mr. John BRIGHT: And he got it, too.] Yes; he got it; and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham reminds me that he got it after having spoken in favour of the Reform Bill. That hon. and learned Gentleman was no longer a Member of that House. In the same way, and by such a process of lobbying, by offers of concessions, by suggestions of impunity in evil-doing, by promises of advantages and strips of territory to one nation after another, Russia would manage all the Powers of Europe. As the mistress of Europe, she would gladly endeavour to allay suspicions and to conciliate enemies, provided only she might have her own way; provided she might escape being judged by Europe; and provided that her imperious will was not to be submitted to European opinion—was not to be thwarted; but only modified of her own proper motion—for she desired to be universal master. That was precisely the point at which the Government had taken their stand, as the Prime Minister had said, "in defence of the liberties of Europe." What had been the effect of this determination? A transformation scene had been performed in Turkey; and the various races, instead of looking to Russia, were turning to England. Since the fortunate retreat, or rather the esca-

    1387
    pade and happy despatch of Lord Derby, the Press of the whole of Europe, including the organ of M. Gambetta and the Radicals, had entirely changed its tone, and were singing in unison the prasies of the English Government. Why? Because England had set herself up against the Power which desired to be the arbiter of Europe. Now, the nations and Governments of Europe had become our supporters, because we were again upholding Treaties, asserting the supremacy of law, and defending the rights and liberties of Europe. [Mr. JOHN BRIGHT: Why do not they come forward and fight?] He was glad to hear the Apostle of Peace say—"Why do they not come forward and fight for it?" and he said to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham——
    MR. SPEAKER: The noble Lord should address himself to the Chair.
    LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he did so; but he had heard the right hon. Gentleman use the remark he had repeated, and he said to him, in reply, those Governments would come to our support as soon as we saw it right to begin. So the question was—"Why do we not come forward and fight for it?" It had, this evening, been said that we were isolated. We were not isolated, and why? Because it was known that we were upholders of law, protectors of right, and defenders of Treaties, and that we stood up for the liberties of Europe. Aye; it was not the European Powers only that were with us; but, as they might see by the leading journal of that day, the various races of not only European, but Asiatic Turkey, who not long ago maligned us, were now looking to us for protection. A short time ago the Osmanlis cursed us, the Greeks hated us, the Armenians mistrusted us, the Bulgarians placed their hopes in Russia. They were all now clinging to our skirts for protection. The hon. Member for Liskeard said that the obligations of the Treaty of Paris had ceased; but he altogether denied that proposition, and insisted that the obligations of that Treaty were still binding, and that the Government were entitled to take their stand upon it as part of the Public Law of Europe. He should not have occupied the attention and time of the House on that occasion, had he not been filled with indig-
    1388
    nation, too strong for repression, against the speeches and proposals of the hon. Members who had preceded him.
    MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, he was as much a lover of peace as any hon. Member in the House; but he could not think that Her Majesty's Government would consent to bind themselves over to keep the peace during the Holidays. No doubt, an adjournment for three weeks was longer than usual; but, on the other hand, the House met three weeks before the usual time, and had now been sitting for three months; and, considering the Business they had done, he should say, judging by his own feelings, that if, instead of adjourning to that day three weeks, they were to adjourn for three, or even for six months, he did not think the country would be a loser. He supported the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the interests of peace, because he could not think that such debates as those which they had of late had were conducive to a peaceful solution of the existing difficulty. For his part, he could not believe that any Government would take upon themselves the tremendous responsibility of rushing into war at a time when Parliament was not sitting; and with out taking counsel on a subject of such enormous importance with the great Council of the nation.
    MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGthought the great majority of the House had reason to complain of the time which had been wasted upon a Motion of adjournment when they had but a few hours to discuss important business. Particularly had they reason to complain of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, who raised the debate; and of the hon. Member for Liskeard, who had so very recently spent so much time in discussing the questions they had again brought forward. He hoped the discussion would not be continued, and that the Government would not attempt to enter into those questions. He trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would exercise the discretion which he usually did in replying to the hon. Gentlemen who had questioned him.
    MR. FAWCETTsaid, in the few words he intended to address to the House, he should confine himself to the question whether the present was a time when, consistently with its duty, the House of Commons could adjourn for

    1389
    the long period of three weeks. He should be the last to do the Chancellor of the Exchequer—or, indeed, the Members of any Government—the injustice of attributing to them such an ignoble motive as had been suggested by the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath (Lord Robert Montagu). The noble Lord seemed to suppose that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government he represented were anxious to have a long Easter Recess, because if they wished to go to war, they would be unhampered by the House of Commons——
    LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: I never said or suggested anything of the kind.
    MR. FAWCETTsaid, he was glad to hear the disclaimer of the noble Lord; but there was not an hon. Member who sat near him (Mr. Fawcett) who did not put that interpretation on his argument. They all knew that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not want to be free from the counsel and advice of the Parliament he led; but they had a right to ask from him a specific answer on a certain point. On the 17th of January, Parliament was called together; and the emergency then was certainly not greater than it was now, because, when they were called together, the Government had nothing to propose. They were called together because, in the critical state of foreign affairs, Her Majesty wished to have the advice and assistance of her Parliament. Surely, it was not appropriate now that she should be deprived of the advice of her Parliament, when foreign affairs were even in a more critical state. They were all equally anxious to enjoy a holiday; but, in grave circumstances, their personal convenience and enjoyment was a matter of secondary importance. He wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, why it was appropriate that, at this critical juncture of European affairs, the Government and Her Majesty should be without the advice, and countenance, and guidance of Parliament for an unusually long period? He did not see what answer there could be to that question, unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared to rise in his place, and say that, on consideration, the state of affairs at the present moment was less anxious and critical than when Parliament was called together. No one would accept that announcement with greater gratitude
    1390
    than he. He was not going to say a word in the spirit of exaggeration; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself had admitted that it was a time of great anxiety. He said the chances of peace were not now less than they were a week ago. They accepted that declaration with satisfaction; but, a week ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the position was one of emergency, and the time one of great anxiety. If that were the case, what was the justification for Parliament adjourning now for three weeks. An adjournment for so long a period as three weeks would cause considerable surprise; and, as he did not wish to be responsible for anything that might occur when Parliament was nut sitting, he should move, as an Amendment, that the House, at its rising, do adjourn until April 29.
    MR. E. JENKINSseconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "6th day of May next," in order to add the words "29th day of this instant April,"—(Mr. Fawcett,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, ''That the words '6th of May next' stand part of the Question."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I should be very sorry to interpose between any Member who may wish to address the House on this occasion; but I really hope I may be allowed to say a few words, because I think what has passed tends rather to promote misunderstanding, and may have a tendency to promote the very danger which hon. Gentlemen are most anxious to avert. What are the facts of the case? This year, as everybody knows, Parliament met at least a fortnight before its usual time. It met on the 17th of January, and most commonly it does not meet till the 5th or a later day of February. We have a peculiarly late Easter, and therefore we have sat for an unusually long period without any Recess. Under these circumstances, it is not unnatural, in an ordinary Session, that we should ask for the addition of a few days to the Easter Recess; and several weeks ago, Questions were put to me upon this very question of the Easter Recess, in reply to which I stated, on the part of the Government, the arrange-

    1391
    ment which we intended to propose, and which I proposed to-day. That arrangement was accepted with general approval, was thoroughly well-known in the country, and everyone knew the arrangement was that Parliament should rise to-day and adjourn, so far as the House of Commons was concerned, for somewhat more than a fortnight. If, under those circumstances, and with that understanding, we were to alter the arrangement that has been so long announced, and to alter it on the grounds that the state of foreign affairs is such that it was not safe and right that Parliament should be adjourned for so long a time, what would be the inference? The inference would be one which, in the first place, I venture to say, would be entirely false—namely, an inference that we believed there was something in the state of foreign affairs which rendered it inexpedient and dangerous that Parliament should rise for these few days longer; and, in the second place, it would be also dangerous, because it would naturally give rise to discussions and observations which are just of a character, and would have a tendency, to render difficult delicate negotiations and proceedings. The hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) asks—"How is it you can justify the unusually early meeting of Parliament under the circumstances under which Parliament had met, if you can now justify the comparatively long holiday which you propose we should take?" And he says the Government allege that their reason for advising Her Majesty to call Parliament together early was that Her Majesty might have the advantage of the advice of her Parliament, and that that advice is as much needed now as it was then. Her Majesty's Government have, undoubtedly, taken several opportuuities during the time that has passed of advising Her Majesty to recur to the advice of her Parliament, and to explain in the clearest manner to Parliament Her Majesty's policy, and obtain from Parliament, in the most distinct form, repeated over and over again, their approval and assent to the general lines of that policy. At this moment there is nothing. in our policy at all different from that which we have repeatedly declared to this House. There is no change in the views which we expressed in the debate which occurred only a week ago; and
    1392
    we are as anxious now as we were then to bring about a settlement of the affairs of Europe in the way which we believe to be the desire of the whole country. We desire to see a satisfactory settlement of the affairs of Europe, which have been disturbed by recent events, on a basis that will give us security for a real and a lasting peace. We see no reason for despairing of the settlement. Nothing in the situation has altered for the worse since the time we last had to communicate with Parliament on the subject, and we say with the most perfect confidence that we see no reason whatever to apprehend any inconvenience from the rising of Parliament for the time we have mentioned. Under these circumstances, I would put it to hon. Members whether they will not, by the course they propose, be occasioning the very danger they desire to avert—of propagating an alarmist opinion that there is some special reason to apprehend consequences of a somewhat grave character during the Recess. I can assure the House we make this proposal with no concealed designs, or any intentions of a mischievous character; but we do that which we have declared, weeks and weeks ago, we proposed to do, which is in itself reasonable, and which we have no reason to believe we ought to depart from.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I hope the House will soon be able to come to a conclusion on the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but, before doing so, I wish to say a few words. I am not surprised at the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), or at the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett). They are not unnatural remarks, nor is the Motion one at which we should feel surprised in the present state of affairs. But it is quite true, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer states, that this adjournment for a considerably longer period than usual has been a settled matter on both sides of the House for some time past; and it would, I think, excite great surprise in Europe, and would probably give rise to very considerable misconception, if the House were suddenly to come to a conclusion that it did not think it right to adjourn to the time originally proposed. I should, however, be quite prepared to run the risk of such miscon-

    1393
    ception, if I thought the interests of peace would be advanced by a shorter adjournment. I see no reason to expect any such result. I think the few remarks we have heard to-day do not tend to remove that impression. I cannot sit down without saying that, if it be possible for the Government to have incurred greater responsibility than they have already incurred, they have done it by this Motion. I cannot imagine that, in the present position of affairs, they do not feel that responsibility most deeply and anxiously; but, undoubtedly, in asking the House of Commons now to adjourn for three weeks, they are taking the whole responsibility upon themselves. I do not know that in the interests of peace we can do better, or do other, than leave upon them that responsibility. I must be allowed to say a word on the war-cry, or war-shriek, of my noble Friend behind me (Lord Robert Montagu). It did not meet with much response, I must admit, from the other side of the House; but if we supposed the Government were really advocating a war policy, our action would be very different from what it is, and we would not consent to an adjournment. The hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle has asked the Government for a distinct pledge that no step leading to war would be taken during the Recess. I do not know that such a pledge could be formally asked or formally responded to by the Ministry. It is true that peace and war are the Prerogatives of the Sovereign, and we could not ask the Government to pledge themselves as to the actual course they will take; but I cannot suppose, considering the proposal to adjourn for three weeks, and also the satisfactory statement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made in the early part of to-day's sitting, that the Government can for a moment contemplate anything like a war policy during the Recess. This is not the time to debate the grounds of such a policy. I do not think I shall be contradicted on either side of the House when I say that the country would be exceedingly surprised to find itself committed to a war policy. As yet there is no ground, no pretence, for war; and, for myself, I cannot for a moment suppose that the Government would think either of rushing into war or of allowing the country to drift into war, no matter whether
    1394
    Parliament be sitting or not. I believe that the feeling with which any such extraordinary announcement would be received would be not only one of regret and of indignation, but of surprise. I trust, therefore, that the hon. Member for Hackney will not press his Motion to a division. Should he do so, I believe—and it seems to be the settled opinion of both sides of the House—that the course will excite a great deal of misconstruction; and, for the reasons I have mentioned, I should feel myself compelled to vote with the Government.
    MR. J. G. HUBBARDremarked, that if the House was in favour of peace, he could not help thinking that its proceedings during the last hour and a-half had been eminently unwise and ungenerous to Her Majesty's Government. The Government had reason to complain, after the frank declarations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that hon. Members should press for still further assurances. That Her Majesty's Government did not desire to act without the concurrence and the confidence of the country had been shown in a remarkable way—namely, by their having anticipated by several weeks the usual period of assembling Parliament, and there was no doubt that they would exercise the same consideration for the feelings of the House, if, unhappily, the occasion should arise to require from them a different policy from that which they had announced. Wars were not made merely by State papers, by despatches such as those of Prince Gortchakoff and the Marquess of Salisbury, but by popular feeling, excited by questions and speeches such as we had had over and over again in that House. These speeches were reported and translated; they became the study of the Russian as well as of the English people; and it was by popular feeling excited on both sides that war was ultimately brought about. He trusted that the House would express its cordial confidence in the Government by assenting to the proposition which they had made.
    MR. E. JENKINSwished to explain the reasons which had governed himself and those who acted with him—[Laughter] —in going to a division on this question. He did not know what he had said to call forth the laughter of hon. Members. He ought to have said "with

    1395
    whom he acted." He wished simply to explain the reasons why he and others felt it was necessary that, at all events, a formal protest should be entered against the proposition of the Government. It was not because the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not been satisfactory even to those who took rather an extreme view in regard to the policy of Her Majesty's Government. For his own part, he felt bound to say that he had listened with some pleasure and some hope to the declarations that had fallen from the Ministerial bench. The assurances of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he trusted that things were in no worse position than they were a week ago, and that he thought there were prospects that Her Majesty's Government would be able to avoid getting into difficulties with Russia, would be received with satisfaction in the country; and it would be felt that if they had succeeded in drawing these emphatic declarations from the Ministerial bench, the object of this debate had not been lost. But, with regard to the immediate action which was proposed to be taken, he would only point out this—that, while they might have the utmost confidence that Her Majesty's Government were desirous of pursuing a policy of peace, and that they were doing all they could to bring about a pacific settlement of difficulties, they still felt that in such a crisis as the present, Her Majesty's Government might at least have reduced the time during which Parliament would not be sitting. Notwithstanding what had fallen from the front bench, it was a period of the deepest and gravest anxiety, and whatever might be the abstract Constitutional method of procedure, it must be felt that it was a most dangerous thing, in the present condition of affairs, that any Government should seek to free itself from the responsibility of coming down to the House from day to day to inform the country of the course of proceedings. He noticed that the hon. and gallant Member for Stirlingshire (Sir William Edmonstone) appeared to be ill. He saw that he was fanning himself. ["Order!"] He had a right to protest against conduct on the part of an hon. Member which appeared to him to be derogatory to the dignity of that House. In conclusion, he begged to enter his protest against this long Vacation, and
    1396
    that was the sole issue raised by the Amendment.
    MR. FORSYTHsaid, he had a suggestion to make, with a view to preventing a division, and conciliating hon. Members opposite. In France, when the Chambers were about to separate, a Committee was appointed to take care of the public interests, and he would propose that a Committee, consisting of the hon. Members for Carlisle, Hackney, Liskeard, Dundee, and Gloucester, should be appointed to watch over the affairs of the Empire during the Easter Recess. The House might then enjoy its Holiday in tranquillity, the country would feel satisfied that the Eastern Question was in safe hands, and Her Majesty's Government would be relieved of much anxiety.
    MR. M'LARENsaid, he wanted just to say a single word. His hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), in the course of his observations, said that he did not claim that a majority of the people were opposed to the warlike feeling which was prevalent. He had no doubt that his hon. Friend had referred to England, because he (Mr. M'Laren) begged to say, from all the information which he had been able to obtain, that an enormous majority of the people of Scotland were opposed to war. He would just mention one fact in corroboration of that opinion. He had the honour a few days ago of presenting a Petition from the Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce, which was a body having a fair proportion of men of all parties in it. The subject was discussed at very considerable length, and it was proposed that there should be a strong expression of opinion to the House of Commons against everything leading to war. Thereupon the shabby expedient of the Previous Question was moved; but only four voted for the latter, while 44 voted in favour of a strong protest being made against war. He gave that as the opinion of a representative class of men, and he was satisfied that similar opinions almost generally prevailed in Scotland. He would mention just one other fact. On the occasion of the presentation of the freedom of the city the other day to a distinguished statesman, whom they all admired, he alluded to the possibility of war in language which nobody could misunderstand, and the approbation with

    1397
    which the sentiments he expressed were received was louder than that which greeted anything else that had been said by the noble Lord.
    MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, he should not vote with the Government if he did not think that their proposal was really in favour of peace. It appeared to him that the Government would not have adhered to their decision to advise the House to adjourn for three weeks if they did not think there was a reasonable probability of an amicable settlement of the difficulty. If after that they had proposed to adjourn—say, for only 10 days—hon. Members would immediately have said—"You are intending to go to war, and so are obliged to keep Parliament together." Nor were the circumstances the same as when Parliament had first assembled, for assuredly the hon. Member for Dundee and the hon. Member for Carlisle had given plenty of advice to the Government, and to spare. Under the circumstances, the best promise that we should have peace was the fact that the Government had proposed that the House should adjourn for three weeks; and, for that reason, he would vote with the Government.
    LORD ROBERT MONTAGUwished to make an explanation. The right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had sought to saddle him with what he called "a cry, or rather shriek, for war." Nothing had been further from his mind. It was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) who raised that cry and uttered that shriek. What he (Lord Robert Montagu) had said was that the policy of Her Majesty's Government, which, in the first instance, was said to have alienated from us all the Powers of Europe, had now drawn them together in our support on the ground that we were defending the rights and freedom of Europe. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham then interjected the Question—"Why do not they fight, then?" And he (Lord Robert Montagu) replied, that he was surprised to hear that desire expressed by the great Apostle of Peace, and assured him that those Governments were only waiting for us to begin, and would then be glad to fight by our side.
    MR. HOPWOODwished to give expression to a feeling which he was sure
    1398
    was largely shared in out-of-doors—that there was an apprehension weighing on the breast of every moderate man who desired the permanent welfare of this country, and that trade was paralyzed as long as the horrible spectre of war was seen—at least, by their imaginations—and felt, owing to the comments of public speakers and responsible advisers, to be a near possibility. He thought that the Government would dwell upon that part of the picture, when they came to consider the propriety of letting the great issue of war or peace turn upon the mere wordy complications submitted by two contending parties in a dialectic struggle. He thought that the view that what Russia had demanded was in the interest of Europe had not been sufficiently borne in mind by many of those who talked of the extravagance of her claims. It would be the fault of the Government, if they did not come to a determination whereby those demands could be shaped for the permanent benefit of the populations on whose behalf Russia had spent so much treasure and shed so much blood.
    MR. FAWCETTwished, with the indulgence of the House, to state the course which he desired to take. After giving the matter careful consideration, and after listening to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which he was bound to say he regarded as most satisfactory—indeed, nothing could be more satisfactory than the right hon. Gentleman's strong declaration that it was the intention of the Government to do all in their power to preserve peace—he felt that he would best serve the interests which they all had at heart— the interests of peace—if he did not press his Amendment. He, therefore, begged leave to withdraw it.
    Question put.
    The House divided; Ayes 168; Noes 10: Majority 158.—(Div. List, No. 108.)
    Main Question put.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he wished to call attention, before the Motion was agreed to, to the very great neglect of Irish Business which had occurred in that House. He had come over from Ireland, at the commencement of the Session, hoping that the Government would have given him something to do in considering the measures they in-

    1399
    tended to bring forward for that country; but, in that respect, he had been disappointed. He begged to suggest that, considering the great neglect of Irish Business, that the Government should lend the House of Commons to Irish Members during the three weeks of the Easter Recess, so that the Irish Members might have the opportunity, among themselves, in an Irish House of Commons sitting in London, of passing some beneficial measures of legislation for Ireland.
    MR. DILLWYNwas afraid the hon. Member had not consulted the Speaker before making that suggestion.
    Resolved, That this House will, at the rising of the House this day, adjourn till Monday the 6th day of May next.

PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE—MR. O'DONNELL AND THE "GLOBE."

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. O'DONNELL: Sir, I rise on a question of breach of Privilege. I wish to call the attention of the House to an article which appeared in the London Globe of the 15th instant, entitled Agra-rianism in Ireland. In that article, it is alleged against an hon. Member of this House—meaning myself—that I had made certain statements in this House in which I myself had not a grain of belief, and that I had suggested certain reasons, certain motives, which might have operated towards the palliation of the commission of the frightful murder of the late Lord Leitrim; whereas, to quote the words of the article, the only crimes of the murdered Earl were "that he was a landlord and a Protestant." I would be the very last, Sir, to object to fair newspaper criticism. I have been the object of innumerable reflections on the part of the newspaper Press; but there are, I submit, some limits to criticism—and, when a Member of this House is blamed for not stating that Lord Leitrim was murdered because, he was a landlord, and when it was I stated that he had not a grain of belief in what he said, these are representations regarding the character of Members of this House, and the duties they owe to it, which, I think, the House ought to notice. I will read certain portions of this article to which. I refer. It says—
  "The late Lord Leitrim was weighted with two disabilities, from which it seems a man is
  1400
  never exonerated by a portion of public opinion n Ireland. He was a landlord, and he was a Protestant. Had he been a less brave and determined man, he might have avoided his terrible end by moving tamely in that line in which alone Ribbonism permits the rights—if they can be called rights—of property to be enjoyed. Had he not been a 'heretic," in spite of his landlordism, he would have been allowed to have been laid decently in his grave, unaccompanied by the cruel jeers and brutal jests of a ruffianly crew, who have often shown before that a Protestant's last resting-place had no sanctity for them. These were simply his two faults or crimes—landlordism and Protestantism. The facts are too clear to be contradicted with any chance of success, and we do not do Mr. O'Donnell's intelligence the injustice to suppose that he followed with one grain of belief the loathsome parable he obtruded on the House."
  It is unnecessary for me to say further on the point, than that there are many beloved landlords in Ireland, and that Protestantism has never stood in the way of the character of any Irishman being appreciated. The said paper was then delivered in, and the article complained of, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said article of 'The Globe' is a breach of the Privileges of this House."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EHCHEQUER: I confess, Sir, that though I listened as well and attentively as I could to the article just read by the Clerk at the Table, I was not able to follow the whole of it; but it appears to me, that it was an article upon the question of Ribbonism and upon the agrarian system in Ireland, and that it had special reference to the recent tragedy, the murder of Lord Leitrim, and that the object and tenour of the article was to attribute the murder to the system to which the writer refers. Undoubtedly, there appeared to be a sentence in the course of the article in which reference was made to the speech of the hon. Member for Dungarvan the other night, and the apparent intention of the writer was to set aside the explanation suggested by the hon. Member as being one which it would hardly be, in the opinion of the writer, consistent with the intelligence of the hon. Member to suppose; he had believed to be the true explanation. I do not understand that the tenour of the article is one that can be I described as a breach of the Privileges of this House, and I believe the proper

  1401
  course to adopt, attention having been called to this matter by the hon. Member, and the House having heard the article read, would now be—if the House takes the same view as I do—namely, that it was in the nature for the most part of an argument upon the general subject of Ribbonism, and that the sentence so introduced, and which is specially complained of, was one of a casual character—that the House had better adopt the Amendment which I am about to propose, which is—''That the House do now proceed to the Orders of the Day."
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words ''this House do now proceed to the Orders of the day."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. NEWDEGATEthought the House was bound to act with very great consideration towards the members of the Press with reference to what occurred upon the occasion in question; because it was the pleasure of the House, after the hon. Member for Dungarvan had made serious reflections upon the character of Lord Leitrim—whom he (Mr. Newdegate) knew and respected in that House—to order strangers to withdraw. If any explanation or proof in support of those allegations were adduced by any hon. Member, the representatives of the Press were prevented from hearing it. The House, therefore, by its own action, had prevented the newspapers receiving any explanation or proof of the painful allegations. If, therefore, any newspaper had committed an error, the House ought to condone the offence. He could not, however, see that any offence had been committed.
  SIR HENEY JAMESsaid, he had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have been quite right in one sense in taking the conciliatory course which he had indicated; but if the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman simply to proceed with the Orders of the Day were accepted, it would be thought that he agreed to some extent with the Motion that the article complained of was a breach of
  1402
  Privilege, and that he wished to avoid coming to a determination upon it. It appeared to him (Sir Henry James) that the article was no breach of Privilege at all, and he desired to point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the course which he had followed—however advisable from a conciliatory point of view—might be taken as conveying a quasi-admission that the House regarded the article as a breach of Privilege. He (Sir Henry James) had always understood that a breach of Privilege of that description consisted in a writer having libelled a Member of that House in his capacity as a Member of Parliament, and that the House did not regard criticism, unless it was libellous in relation to the House generally. This article was no libel whatever. The article contained only one reference to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dungarvan, and there was no other portion of that article which the hon. Member for Dungarvan could regard as other than a fair expression of the political views of the writer. The writer says—
  "The facts are too clear to be contradicted with any chance of success, and we do not do Mr. O'Donnell's intelligence the injustice to suppose that he followed with one grain of belief the loathsome parable he obtruded upon the House.''
  He supposed the hon. Member for Dungarvan complained that the writer of the article said he had obtruded a loathsome parable on the House? [Mr. O'DONNELL: No.] Well, he was glad that the hon. Gentleman did not complain of that expression in the article, because it certainly was a loathsome parable which he had brought forward; and he could not complain of that being written in a newspaper, when he remembered that, in the absence of reporters, a severe criticism was applied in his own presence to what he had said and to the course he had adopted. As the hon. Gentleman did not complain of that portion of the article as a breach of Privilege, what was it that he complained of? Was the House seriously asked to vote upon the question whether it was libellous to say that a man did not believe in a parable? How could that be a libel? Parables were not put forward as a statement of fact, but to convey an idea of something which might or might not be believed. And, yet this was what was complained of by the hon. Member, who was not very sensitive about the memory of

  1403
  those who had passed away in regard to the language he used, but who now raised the question whether the portion of the article referred to was or was not libellous. Why, if the question came to a place where it would be rigorously regarded what was a libel, it would be found that there was not a Judge in the land who would say that in this article there was the slightest approach to a libel. He thought if any person had cause of complaint, it would be his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, who was charged with having introduced a manœuvre into legislation, and his right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich, who was somewhat severely attacked. Of course, they would take no notice of the attack, and, without wishing to suggest an extreme course, he trusted the vote would be taken upon the main proposal.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, no one could read the article without seeing that the sting in it was directed against his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan, who was represented as not believing in the allegation he made the other day by way of a parable against the late Earl of Leitrim. Now, there had been no event in his (Mr. O'Shaugh-nessy's) lifetime, that had happened in Ireland so grave as the murder of that noble Earl. In it was involved issues on which the entire state of Ireland depended, and on which the future of Ireland would turn. The causes which led to that crime deserved to be considered with deliberation, calmness, and gravity, and they ought to investigate without passion the remedies which should be applied—for they would have to be applied—to the evils signalized by that crime, in order to prevent the growth of the passions which had led to it. ["Question.!"] He maintained that was the question, and it was entirely mixed up with the question before the House. If the question raised by the Motion, that this was a breach of Privilege, was discussed, then it would raise those grave and terrible issues, and they could not on such a Motion discuss them with the requisite calmness. Therefore, he would suggest to his hon. Friend that he should give the House an opportunity of discussing the recent lamentable event to which he had referred quietly. This would be better than to raise the issue on a Motion of
  1404
  that kind. He could only say—and all his Irish Colleagues would say with him—that he did not believe for a moment that any assertion the hon. Member for Dungarvan had made on Friday evening was not believed in by him. He would, therefore, appeal to his hon. Friend, having regard to the grave questions involved, and forgetting his own wounded dignity, to withdraw the Motion, and allow the House to proceed with the Orders of the Day.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGthought the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) had treated the matter rather lightly. Everyone who had read the article must deeply regret that some portion of it was ever written. It stated that it only required a man to be a landlord and a Protestant to hold him up to ill-favour and dislike among the Irish people. ["Hear, hear!"] He was surprised to hear that cheer.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS LORD JOHN MANNERS rose to Order. He desired to know whether it was competent to discuss the whole of the article, or only that portion of it which was alleged by the hon. Member for Dungarvan to have been a breach of Privilege?
  MR. SPEAKER: The House is engaged upon a discussion of a portion of an article in the newspaper, and it is that particular portion which is alleged to be a breach of Privilege by the hon. Member for Dungarvan. Undoubtedly the discussion ought to be confined to that question.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, he should be sorry to infringe the Rules of the House; but the whole of the article having been read, he thought he was entitled to refer to it. There were in Ireland Protestant landlords who were as much respected and beloved as if they were Roman Catholics.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he should like to know precisely what the Order was with regard to the article, and the mode in which they should deal with it or a portion of it.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the only question before the House was the complaint of the hon. Member for Dungarvan, and any debate on the conduct of Irish landlords would be clearly out of Order.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he complained that he was accused of making certain statements in the House without having a ground for believing in them

  1405
  That was the breach of Privilege, and it was aggravated when it was suggested that he ought to have given as the true reason for the murder of the Earl of Leitrim that he was a landlord and a Protestant.
  MR. PARNELL MR. PARNELL rose to support the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan. The hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) said the imputation that a Member did not believe in the statements he made was not a libel. In that opinion, he (Mr. Parnell) did not agree.
  SIR HENRY JAMES SIR HENRY JAMES rose to Order. He expressly guarded himself against saying any such thing. What he said was, that it was not a breach of Privilege to say that the hon. Member did not believe in the parable he narrated— a very different thing.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that was a legal quibble, worthy of the hon. and learned Member from whom it proceeded. ["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I must inform the hon. Member that an expression of that kind is unwarrantable, and should be withdrawn.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, if the expression was out of Order, he would withdraw it, and suggest for it another, which he hoped would be in Order. The opinion just given by the hon. and learned Gentleman was more worthy of the ingenuity of a petty sessions' attorney than of a lawyer of the ability of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) put forward certain statements; but, because he put them in the form of a parable, they were to be treated as untrue—as if some of the most important truths of religion had not been taught in the form of parables. The article in question was not only a misrepresentation of his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan, but it was a libel upon, and a misrepresentation of, the Irish nation—and that was an aggravation of the offence committed against an individual Member of Parliament; and the plea put forward, that the Press was excluded from the House on the occasion of the recent debate, instead of being an extenuation, was an aggravation of the libel. He did not desire to criticize the conduct of the hon. and learned Member, or his 40 or 50 Followers, who voted for the suppression
  1406
  of the publication of the truth on Friday night; but, in reply to what had been said by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, he (Mr. Parnell) pointed out that the Press published accounts of the proceedings that night. After the House had decided that strangers should withdraw, every paper in the country, with the exception of one, and that one The Times, published an account of the secret sitting. The argument of the hon. Member (Mr. Newdegate) was, therefore, illogical. Although he (Mr. Parnell) voted against the exclusion of the Press, he thought the decision of the House to sit in secret was not respected by the publication of partial accounts of the proceedings. He was one of those Members who was not ashamed to have his words sent abroad to the country.
  MR. SPEAKER: I have to point out to the hon. Member that he is wandering from the subject before the House.
  MR. PARNELL: I was merely going to point out, Sir, in reply to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), that the construction which that hon. Member placed upon the action of the Press was not logical.
  MR. PELL: I rise, Sir, to Order. I think it is hardly treating you or the House with respect, when you have called the hon. Member to Order, for him immediately to rise again and distinctly repeat the remark which you had ruled out of Order. The hon. Member proceeded to make some further observations, when——
  MR. SULLIVAN MR. SULLIVAN rose to Order, remarking that the hon. Member who had last risen to Order was making a speech.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for South Leicestershire is in possession of the House, and is entitled to proceed without interruption.
  MR. PELL, resuming, urged that the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had committed an aggravated breach of Order by referring, in what seemed to him (Mr. Pell) to be an adroit way, to the observation which he had made, and was about to make, and thereby repeating the very observation on which the Speaker had called him to Order.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERwished, on the point of Order, to protest against the repeated interruptions to which the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell)

  1407
  was subjected. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Pell) was particularly unfortunate in his point of Order. His hon. Friend was only making an apology to the Chair for the breach of Order into which he had been led by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate).
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that was what he was endeavouring to do, and the only reason why he was out of Order was that he was answering the remarks of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire based on the exclusion of the Press. He merely desired to say that, so far from the hon. Member's argument having established his position, it had quite the contrary effect. The hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) gave his advice with a great deal of that self-confidence which he often exhibited in assuming the Leadership of the front Opposition bench. He had told the House that the only breach of Privilege which could be committed by the Press, was for it to libel a Member in his capacity as such; but he would refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to Sir Erskine May's work, wherein it was laid down that it was a breach of Privilege to wilfully misrepresent the proceedings of Members of the House. There were also many other ways in which a breach of Privilege could be committed, and he would recommend the hon. and learned Gentleman to study the question before he ventured again, with so much self-confidence, to give an opinion upon it. They all knew what a lawyer's opinion was worth when it was not paid for. He protested against English newspapers attacking Irish Members in a way they would never think of attacking English or Scotch Members. Perhaps, the Irish Members might not expect much consideration from The Times, Daily News, or Telegraph; still, when Privilege had been so grossly violated as in the present case, they had a right to have it settled whether the House would or would not protect Irish Members in the discharge of their duties. For himself, he did not care whether the House protected Irish Members or not; but he thought the question ought to be put from the Chair, to let the country know whether Irish Members were to, look to the House for protection. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had moved what was tantas-
  1408
  mount to the Previous Question, and the right hon. Gentleman did not like to meet the Motion of the hon. Member for Dungarvan with a direct negative; because he saw that that would be in effect an assertion by the House of Commons that English newspapers might libel Irish Members without fear of any consequences. ["Oh, oh!"] The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not like to put the House in the position of saying that this was not a libel, for, perhaps, the English newspapers might at some future time attack the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He knew what the feelings of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this subject were. He had repeatedly shown his bias with regard to his dealings with Irish Members, and he had put the machinery of that House in force against Irish Members. [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Meath is out of Order. I must again ask him to confine himself strictly to the question before the House.
  MR. PARNELL: I think, that in speaking to the Amendment of the Motion of my hon. Friend, if I am not at liberty to do that, I do not know what I am at liberty to do. If I am not to criticize the conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what am I to do? I am really afraid to do or say anything. My hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan has moved that the article in The Globe is a breach of Privilege. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has met that by moving that the House proceed to the transaction of its Business, in order to get rid of the matter. I have been told that it is an English and straightforward course to meet a Motion of this kind with a direct negative, and I now invite the Chancellor of the Exchequer to allow the Motion to go to the House, to say whether the thing is a libel, or, if it is a libel, whether the House will protect Irish Members in this House.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUERsaid, he had no right to speak again; but, as there appeared to be some misunderstanding, by way of explanation, he might say that he had moved the Amendment with this view—he did not think it was at all necessary for the House, under the circumstances brought forward by the hon. Member for Dungarvan, to go into any discussion as to whether these words were to be considered

  1409
  a breach of Privilege, or whether the case was one on which it would be well to pronounce any opinion. Considering the general character of the article, he did not think it was one on which the House should be called upon to decide such a question as that raised as against the editor or publisher of the paper, or the writer of the article. He thought the proper course was—whether the words used had or had not a certain meaning—the House should not entertain the question, but pass to the Order of the Day.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERagreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the best course for the House to take was to pass to the next Business. He must, however, protest against the remarks of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), that, in passing such an Amendment, the House would be refusing to protect Irish Members. Nothing was further from the feeling of the House or the Government than that the Irish Members should not be protected in the expression of their opinions; but the question was, whether they would be able to carry on their deliberations with anything like self-respect or dignity if every article in a newspaper, which might be unpleasant to a particular Member, was to be taken notice of and discussed as if it were a breach of Privilege. They certainly wasted a great deal of time, sometimes; but he did not think, even with that circumstance in view, it was necessary to have a debate on the meaning, propriety, or justice of remarks in The Globe, or any other newspaper. In the course of their public duty they were all liable to such observations. He had frequently seen observations, quite as strong as those which had been read, upon himself and other hon. Members; but they had never thought it necessary to bring them before the House. He had very little doubt that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) was right in his definition of a libel, and that the article in question was not a libel; but he felt it was not necessary further to discuss the question. It seemed to him, that it would be setting a better precedent for the future, if the House were to meet the Motion before it with a Resolution to take no notice of the matter to which it referred. He, therefore, hoped the
  1410
  Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be adopted by the House.
  MR. SULLIVANsaid, he could have wished that this Motion had not been made, and he asked his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) to withdraw it—and for this, among other reasons, that he should be sorry to see the House of Commons brought into unnecessary collision with the public Press. He thought that the widest possible scope should be given to the free discussion of their conduct; and, for his own part, he had been the object of animadversions much more severe than those passed upon the hon. Member for Dungarvan. It was a perilous thing for public men to rise in an Assembly like that and invoke a penalty so severe as the machinery of Privilege against a newspaper. The Motion covered the whole article, and the portion of it which was most distasteful to him (Mr. Sullivan), and, but for which his hon. Friend, he was certain, would not have noticed it, was not that which was personal to his hon. Friend, but that which was a foul and truculent libel on the Irish people. With reference to the conduct and character of Irish landlords——
  MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. and learned Member that the conduct of Irish landlords is not the question before the House.
  MR. SULLIVANsaid, he had not said a word about the conduct or character of Irish landlords; but that Motion would not have been made, if it had not been linked with a charge which was most revolting to Irish Members. He was very sorry to see such an article in a paper which was usually characterized by moderation and fair play. The hon. Member for Dungarvan, like himself, had something to do with journalism, and he had no doubt that, in criticizing Members of Parliament, they had said something quite as severe as the language used in the article in question. He appealed, therefore, to the hon. Member, that, while it was very useful to preserve the dignity of Parliament and the liberty of debate, there was also something to be said in favour of preserving the liberty of the Press. For these reasons, he hoped that his hon. Friend would withdraw his Motion, for he (Mr. Sullivan) could not support it.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERpointed out, that the effect of the adoption of the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be to prevent the House from recording its opinion with respect to the words complained of by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell). That would leave the Chancellor of the Exchequer at any future time at liberty to invoke the terror of a breach of Privilege, and prevent the House stigmatizing the words quoted in The Globe newspaper as they ought to be stigmatized. That, he thought, was a course which it was scarcely respectful to the House to ask it to pursue. He, however, concurred with the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), in thinking that the hon. Member for Dungarvan would have acted more wisely if he had treated the article in The Globe with silent contempt. Nobody who was acquainted with the new-born journalism of the Metropolis, recently called into corrupt existence, could fail to perceive that there was evinced in it a perfect disease of personality. His attention had been called to the comments of those newspapers in reference to his own public action, and he had been invited to notice them, but he had always refrained from doing so. He, in reply, had simply said, that if a Member of Parliament could not defend himself on the floor of that House, there was no hope of his being able to perform his public duty. He felt, moreover, that he was an Irishman, and that he could not condescend to wipe his brogues on them. The common sense of the community would suppress these libels. As to the writer of the article in The Globe, he did not hesitate, though not directly, to indicate that the hon. Member for Dungarvan had made charges in that House which he did not believe, and that was only done to cater to the passions of those who considered that the Motion of the hon. Member for Dungarvan was untimely. He was not at all satisfied with the way in which the question had been met by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as Leader of the House of Commons. It was unfortunate, for it prevented the House of Commons from recording its strong censure of the language used.
  MR. O'DONNELLwished, in answer to the insinuation conveyed in the re-
  1412
  marks which had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James), to observe that the hon. and learned Gentleman, and the right hon. Gentleman with whom he acted, had shown again and again in that House, in the discussions on the Eastern Question, that when duty called upon them they did not shrink from performing the most disagreeable offices and making the most loathsome statements. As to the Motion which he had deemed it to be his duty to make, he could only say that he had been actuated in making it by no sense of deep or keen personal resentment; neither had he brought it forward in defence of the character of the Irish nation. He felt that it was a technical point, and that other occasions might arise of dealing with some of the calumnies which had been uttered. He wished to raise the technical point, whether it was not a breach of Privilege to say that when a Member made statements, and asked the belief of the House to those statements, he did not himself believe a word of the statement he was making. He maintained, that when such a statement was made in the public Press, it amounted to a breach of Privilege. That question he desired entirely to dissociate from any personal considerations. It applied to himself at present—it might apply to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on another occasion. He could not congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his success as the Leader of the House, and as the natural protector of its Privileges, by avoiding the main issue. He asked whether it was permissible, especially under recent circumstances, where there had been no opportunity of anything like a fair report appearing, for a public journal to charge a Member of that House with making statements which he knew to be unfounded? It was a purely technical question, on which he felt bound to ask the judgment of the House.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put.
  Resolved, That this House do now proceed to the Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL— [BILL 146.]
  (Mr. Raikes, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)

  CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration."—(Mr. Raikes.)
  MR. PARNELLin, rising to move—
  "That it is unjust and inexpedient to adopt a method of Imperial Taxation of the United Kingdom which presses more severely on Ireland than on Great Britain,"
  reviewed the position of Ireland as compared with England at the time of the Union, and showed that the problem presented to the English statesmen after the Union was how best that Union could be continued without loss to the Imperial Exchequer; and, indeed, they went beyond that, and endeavoured to make a pecuniary profit out of the transaction. The result, of course, was, that Ireland was compelled from that day to this, to pay a large proportion to the Revenue, and this taxation was raised chiefly from the very poorest classes. The objection now was, and for years had been, that Ireland contributed to the Revenue for Imperial purposes about £8,000,000 out of £78,000,000 or £80,000,000; while she received back in advances for general purposes a very small proportion. It was seen that the ordinary sources of Revenue were in Ireland but scanty, by reason of the absence of that large middle and upper class upon which in England the Revenue could rely. In Ireland were to be found an impoverished people, who, by indirect taxation, could not be expected to return any Revenue worth speaking of. So the various Chancellors of the Exchequer had to consider how this state of affairs could be met, and Ireland remain without being a loss to the Exchequer. Owing to the habits and tastes of the Irish people, it was considered that the only way to raise Revenue was to increase the tax upon spirits, and the
  1414
  result had verified the experiment; and, while in England, taxation was distributed so as to affect all classes with something like equality, in Ireland, the effect was that taxation struck most heavily upon the poorer classes. On looking over the Returns of the amount of duty paid on different articles consumed in the Kingdom, he found that the Revenue paid by Ireland upon spirits was somewhere about £3,500,000, and the Revenue on tobacco was over £1,000,000. In preparing his recent Budget, it appeared that the Chancellor of the Exchequer one time contemplated increasing the spirit duty; but, finding that that was already so high that an increase would probably result in a loss to the Revenue instead of a gain, he came to the conclusion to increase the tobacco duty instead. But it happened that that also pressed most heavily upon the poorer classes, more especially from the way in which it was levied. A large increase in the burden would be placed on the shoulders of those who had no representation in the House; and, therefore, it was the more incumbent upon the House to weigh well the method of imposing the taxation, and to consider if it was just and reasonable. From a speech made in 1875 by the hon. Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna), it appeared that the incomes in Ireland subject to the income tax amounted to £26,572,707, and that the incomes of Great Britain subject to the tax were £455,765,610. Taking these figures was a fair way to estimate the taxpaying abilities of the two countries, and, judged by that test, it was shown that the taxpaying power of Ireland was one-seventeenth of that of Great Britain; but, when he came to the contributions to the Imperial Revenue, he found that Ireland contributed one-eighth of that of Great Britain, or twice as much as she ought to pay. Under a fair and just system of taxation, Ireland's contribution would be £4,000,000. Further statistics went to show that, from 1841 to 1871, the taxation per head of the population throughout England had been reduced from £2 9s. 2d. to £2 4s. 1d.; although England during that period had increased in riches by the developing of her mines, manufactures, and commerce, to an extraordinary extent. On the other hand, in Ireland, taxation had increased from

  1415
  9s. 6d. per head to £1 6s. 2d. per head in the same time. In 1841, Ireland had not gone through the Famine; but that Famine came, and showed the deplorable state in which the country was. One and a-half millions of people were swept away, besides the numbers of people who emigrated. No doubt, Ireland had made some progress since then; but it was progress from a state of absolute poverty, and not a progress towards prosperity—in spite of the statistics, drawn up by order of the Castle at Dublin, held up to the admiration of the country, and the extravagant eulogies of the Lords Lieutenant at civic banquets. Thus, the taxation in England during the years he had mentioned, had been reduced 10 per cent, and in Ireland it had been increased nearly 300 per cent.; and this had been done chiefly by raising the spirit duties from 2s. to 10s. In England, however, financial movers had been careful not to raise the taxation among the poorer classes. Spanish and Portuguese wines paid 6s. and French wines 4s. for every gallon of proof spirit contained; but these were not consumed by the poorer class, who, upon beer, paid 2s. per gallon of spirit. He did not advocate a reduction of the spirit duty, but rather that ale and porter, and also all foreign wines, should pay duty at the same rate according to their alcoholic strength. This was not a proposition in which a tendency to promote drunkenness could be found; but, on the contrary, it would assist the cause of temperance, while it equalized the incidence of taxation, which experience had shown to be unfair to Ireland and Scotland. When the time arrived, as he hoped it would arrive, when the duties on alcoholic liquors were equalized, then, if a Chancellor of the Exchequer found he had an excess of Revenue, he might proceed to lower the duties all round. It might be said that that would increase drunkenness, and, undoubtedly, in Ireland, that was a great evil; but it was found by statistics that temperance had not decreased since 1841, or that the consumption per head among the population had diminished with the increase of taxation. Indeed, so far from temperance being promoted, the people had suffered from the deterioration in the quality of spirits supplied to them. A trade, alarming both to the health of
  1416
  the people and the Revenue, had sprung up in "silent spirit," manufactured in Scotland and in Germany from refuse of all kinds. This spirit was used for blending, and it was of an intensely poisonous character, though tasteless. Nine or 10 gallons of this, at about 1s. 6d. or 2s. a-gallon, added to a gallon of pure Irish whiskey, was about the proportion used, and, when sold, it was impossible to detect the adulteration except by the result upon the unfortunate consumers. By this means, the Revenue was to some extent defrauded, and the reputation of Irish whiskey materially suffered.
  It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till this day.
  The House suspended its Sitting at five minutes to Seven of the clock.
  The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

  INTERMENTS IN CHURCHYARDS BILL.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERappealed to the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie), who had charge of the Bill, not to proceed that evening with the second reading, although it stood first in the list of Orders of the Day. It would be a convenience to the Government to proceed with the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, which should be disposed of with as little delay as possible.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, it was rather a hard thing to ask a private Member to postpone a Bill at that period of the Session when it was in such a good position upon the Paper, although it might have gained it by an accident. He would, however, yield to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, on condition that the other Bills standing on the Paper in the names of private Members were also postponed.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday 7th May.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.
  (Mr. Raikes, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)

  [BILL 146.] CONSIDERATION.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [16th April], "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had very carefully considered, since the discussion on the previous evening, the rates of the tobacco duty, and he proposed to make an Amendment in Clause 3, line 34, page 2. Although he did not feel that his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) had made out the case which he desired to impress upon the House, and though he was not prepared to accede to his views by altering the rates of the duties, yet he did propose to make an alteration in reference to the drawback, which he thought would be of material advantage to the trade. At present, as was stated in the discussion last night, a great deal of snuff manufactured from the stalks was presented for drawback, and the drawback was allowed upon it, and much of the article on which the drawback was allowed was abandoned as really valueless. He had been in consultation with his advisers at the Customs on the subject, and it was thought that it would be fair and reasonable to allow exporters of this snuff, when delivered at the Customs, to obtain the drawback, and thus prevent them from the necessity of sending that snuff across the Channel to the Channel Islands, or to France, and there finding it unsaleable. Therefore, he begged to move a Proviso, to the effect that any licensed manufacturer should be entitled, under the Act of 1863 and this Act, to this drawback, provided he deposited the stalks at the Queen's Warehouse, and abandoned the same to be destroyed.
  MR. RITCHIEhardly knew what effect this concession would have upon the persons whose complaint he had presented to the House; but he wished to
  1418
  inform the right hon. Gentleman that the price of these stalks was less now than in 1863, in consequence of the consumption of this sort of snuff having greatly decreased. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he had not made out a case for an increase of duty on cigars. Last night the right hon. Gentleman agreed, however, that possibly the British manufacturers would suffer to some small extent by the imposition of the new duty; but he proceeded to observe that, as the price of tobacco stalks had increased from 2s. 4d. in 1863 to 2s. 8d. in the present year, the additional 4d. would more than compensate the British manufacturers for any loss they might sustain from the increase of the duty. He had made inquiries that day of a large firm of tobacco brokers in the City, and he ascertained from their circulars that in 1863 the price of tobacco stalks varied from 2s. 10 d. to 3s. 2d.; whereas in April, 1868, the price of the same qualities was put down at 2s. 10 d.to 3s. Therefore, instead of the stalks being worth 4d. per 1b. more now than they were in 1863, they were actually worth 2d. per 1b. less. It might, perhaps, be asked why, if the price were 2s. 10 d. in 1863, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, when fixing the differential duties, took the price at 2s. 4d.? The answer was, that the circulars gave the price for the stalks when they were in a perfectly dry state; but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich took the price of the stalks with the 20 per cent of moisture in them. This was the cause of the error into which the Chancellor of the Exchequer fell when he stated that the price was 4d. per 1b. more now than it was then.
  MR. SPEAKERpointed out, that the hon. Member's remarks had nothing to do with the Amendment proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. RITCHIEthought he had sufficiently explained what he had to say, and he need not trouble the House any further on the point. He did not see that the concession which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to make was likely to be acceptable to the trade.
  Amendment agreed to; words inserted.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that, in order to carry into

  1419
  effect the views of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell), he would, in Clause 12, move additional words to the effect that, where any machinery or plant was let upon such terms that the burden of maintaining and restoring the same fell on the lessor, he should be entitled, upon claim made to the Commissioners, to have repaid to him such portion of the sum which ho might have been charged in respect of the diminution of value caused by the wear and tear of such machinery or plant.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 6, line 1, to leave out from "reasonable" to "used," in line 3, and insert "as representing the diminished value, by reason of wear and tear, of any machinery and plant used during the year."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. CHADWICKsaid, that manufacturers were much indebted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for concessions which would fairly meet their views.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that, as the House was about to separate for the Holidays, and it was a great convenience to the trade of the country to be free from suspense in these matters, he would venture to suggest, and he hoped the House would allow the Standing Orders to be suspended, in order that the Bill might be road a third time.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he was obliged to point out, that although with respect to Bills, other than Money Bills, two stages of a Bill were occasionally taken at one Sitting on grounds of urgency, there was no instance of this course being taken with regard to Money Bills.
  Bill to be read the third time upon Monday 6th May.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Ten o'clock till Monday 6th. May.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Report—Railway Returns (Continuous Brakes) (75).
Royal Assent—Mutiny [41 Vict. c. 10]; Marine Mutiny [41 Vict. c. 11]; Threshing Machines [41 Vict. c. 12]; Bills of Exchange (Acceptance) [41 Vict. c. 13]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Bristol, &c.) [41 Vict. c. viii].

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
Moved, That the Lord Steward be appointed to take the Chair in the Committees of the Whole House in the absence of the Lord Redesdale: Agreed to.
RAILWAY RETURNS (CONTINUOUS BRAKES) BILL— [Lords.]—(No. 75.)
(The Lord Hartismere.)

COMMITTEE.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, as an Amendment, in Schedule, page 3, column 2, to add "and on lines in connection with them."
LORD HENNIKERsaid, he could not consent to the Motion of his noble Friend, and he thought he would hardly wish to press it, when he (Lord Henniker) had stated his reasons for objecting. In the first place, he thought the information required could be obtained without difficulty by the Returns already provided for by the Bill; and, secondly, it would not beat all convenient, or right, to require one Railway Company to make a Return relating to another Railway Company. On these grounds, he could not consent to his noble Friend's Motion.
Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
Bill reported, without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Monday, the 13 th of May next.

EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY FOR INJURIES TO SERVANTS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR rose to call atteention to the Report from the Select Committee on Employers' Liability for Injuries to their Servants—communicated from the Commons to the Lords; but said he would now confine himself to asking, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose any amendment of the law as recommended in that Report?
  EARL BEAUCHAMP, in reply, said, that the Attorney General announced last week to the House of Commons that it was his intention to introduce in the present Session a Bill on the subject. How far that Bill would be on all fours with the recommendations of the Select Committee, he was not prepared to say. Besides, such a statement would be premature before the introduction of the Bill. The more convenient course would be to wait for the Bill.

THE EASTERN QUESTION—THE AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN MONARCHY— SPEECH OF THE EARL OF DERBY.

  EXPLANATION.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, before the House separates for the Recess I have to make a short statement, which I should much rather not have to make, but which I cannot properly abstain from laying before your Lordships. Shortly before I came down to the House this afternoon I saw the Austrian Ambassador, who represented to me that words used by my noble Friend Lord Derby, a week ago, have caused so much pain to persons of high authority in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, and especially to the officers of the Army of that Monarchy, that he thought some words uttered by me in this House, before the House separated, would be pleasing to those to whom the observations that were used apply, and would, on general grounds, also be desirable. My Lords, if I had had an opportunity, I should have been glad to have spoken to my noble Friend Lord Derby before making such reference, but the time that remained would not allow it. My noble Friend is reported to have said, that a portion of the Austrian Army, distinguished by its Slav nationality, could not be trusted to fight against the Russians. I have no recollection that my noble Friend said that; but it is imputed to him in some reports, and the reports differ on the subject. But, whether he said it or not—if he said it at all—whatever observations he made with respect to the Austro-Hungarian Army, or the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, were made on his own responsibility alone. As far as I can make out, there is nothing in the Foreign Office on which such observations could have been founded. They were his own

  1363
  expressions as an individual Member of Parliament, and in no way bore any reflection from his recent official position. And they are sentiments—and I may apply the same observations to what was said of the French Government—which are in no way shared by Her Majesty's Government.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: My Lords, I listened to Lord Derby's speech the other night very attentively, and I certainly did not understand him to say that the Austro-Hungarian Army would never fight.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Only a part of it.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: Or only a part of it. What I understood him to argue was, that there were circumstances which made it improbable that Austria would take an armed part against Russia.
  LORD DENMANrecollected that the late Foreign Secretary, in his speech, expressed an opinion that any reliance on Austra would be very little trustworthy, and he (Lord Denman) referred to the intercourse of Sir Robert Murray Keith, as Ambassador at Vienna; he also referred to the year 1762, when, in a case which reminded him of the present state of Constantinople, that distinguished man—in an interview with Count Shouwaloff, Chancellor of the Russian Empire—who had believed it possible for the Czarina to conquer and retain Prussia—said that their keeping that Province would be a perpetual object of jealousy to other Powers, and a source of troubles in Europe, as there was not a single Power in it but had an essential interest in preventing it; or if, by some great fatality, it could not at present be hindered, to join with the rest in laying hold of the first opportunity of wresting it out of their hands. Monsieur Shouwaloff could not see that the possession of so small a Province should give jealousy to the rest of Europe, ending with this—that it might, at least, be left in their hands, as a deposit, till other means of indemnification could be found. Sir Robert Murray Keith replied, that neither keeping it in possession or deposit was even to be thought of; and, that if either of them were ever seriously proposed, it would give cause of much jealousy to all the world, as it would indicate clearly a design in Russia to make herself mistress of the naviga-
  1364
  tion of the Baltic, and, consequently, to engross to herself the whole commerce of the North. He (Lord Denman) reminded their Lordships that Russia wished to be Depositary of the Principalities in 1853. He had alluded, on almost the last day of last Session, to a despatch issued on that morning, in which an Ambassador or Minister had agreed with the Earl of Derby that the occupation of Constantinople could not be viewed with indifference. He (Lord Denman) also said, on that occasion, that he might apply to fanatical wars the words of Cowper—
  "Let active laws supply the needful curb,
  To guard the peace which riot would disturb."
  In these days, when collisions of steamers sent two vessels at once to the bottom, and when conflicts were like a duel across a pocket-handkerchief—only on a large scale—he hoped that war might be avoided; but Treaties must be well considered, and, either with or without modification, be observed.

  THE EASTER RECESS—ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
  Then, on the Motion of the Earl of BEACONSFIELD—
  House adjourned at half past Four o'clock, to Monday the 13th of May next, a quarter before Five o'clock.