Sitting of 5 December 1878

Preamble
The House met at half after One of the clock.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;—
The House went;—and having returned;—

NEW WRITS ISSUED DURING THE RECESS.
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER acquainted the House,—that he had issued Warrants for New Writs, for Truro City, v. Sir Frederick Martin Williams, baronet, deceased; for Peterborough Borough, v. George Hammond Whalley, esquire, deceased.
CLARE COUNTY WRIT.
Mr. SPEAKERalso acquainted the House, that he had received from one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State a Letter relating to the Humble Address presented to Her Majesty of the 8th of August last:—And the same was read.
NEW WRITS ISSUED.
For Maldon, v. George Montagu Warren Sandford, esquire, Manor of Northstead; for Bristol, v. Kirkman Daniel Hodgson, esquire, Chiltern Hundreds.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
Honble. William John Wentworth FitzWilliam, for Peterborough; Lord Colin Campbell, for the County of Argyll; Samuel Rathbone Edge, esquire, for Newcastle-under-Lyme; Arthur Tremayne, esquire, for Truro.
Ordered, That a Committee of Privileges be appointed.
OUTLAWRIES BILL.
Bill "for the more effectual preventing Clandestine Outlawries," read the first time; to be read a second time.
NOTICES OF MOTION.

  AFGHANISTAN (EXPENSES OF MILITARY OPERATIONS).
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I beg to give Notice that on Monday next I shall move the following Resolution:—
  "That Her Majesty, having directed a Military expedition of Her Forces charged upon Indian Revenues to be despatched against the Ameer of Afghanistan, this House consents that the Revenues of India shall he applied to defray the expenses of the Military operations which may be carried on beyond the external frontiers of Her Majesty's Indian possessions."
  MR. FAWCETT: I believe I am in Order in giving Notice of an Amendment. I beg to give Notice that I shall oppose the Resolution.

QUESTION.

  AFGHANISTAN (MILITARY OPERATIONS)—THE PEIWAR COLUMN—TELEGRAM.—QUESTION.
  MR. RITCHIEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether any information has been received at the India Office with reference to the report of the great victory of General Roberts?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Sir, I am happy to be able to inform my hon. Friend and the House that we have received full confirmation from the Viceroy of India. With the permission of the House I will read the telegram from the Viceroy. It is dated the 5th of December, and is as follows:—
  "Roberts attacked Peiwar 2nd; turning movement during night of 1st successful; surprised and turned enemy, but attack of Kotal from that side found impossible. Roberts, therefore, continued turning movement, placing himself in enemy's rear, with flanking column, while General Cobbe engaged attention in front. Enemy, reinforced by four regiments from Khushi, made determined resistance, but were driven from Kotal, which was occupied at 4 p.m., 2nd. Enemy completely defeated, leaving 15 guns and large amount of ammunition in our hands; other guns abandoned, and will he secured. Loss supposed to be very heavy. Our loss—Captain Kelso, R.A., Major Anderson, 23rd Pioneers, killed; General Cobbe and Lieutenant Munro, 72nd Highlanders, wounded; about 50 men killed and wounded. Troops had

  85
  to undergo great exertions and exposure at altitude of 8,000 feet, but behaved admirably, and are in excellent spirits. Roberts continues pursuit towards Shutar-Gardan to-day; wounded sent into Kuram."

  THE QUEEN'S SPEECH.
  MR. SPEAKER reported Her Majesty's Speech, made by Her Chancellor, and read it to the House.

  ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: Sir, I rise with the greatest diffidence to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, thanking Her Majesty for Her Most Gracious Speech. I have had the privilege of being a Member of this House but a short time, and I trust that in the few remarks I shall make I shall receive its indulgence, and that any shortcomings on my part may be attributed not to any want of confidence in the cause I advocate, but rather to the inexperience of one who is, for the first time, addressing it.
  At first sight it may appear to many hon. Members a matter of great inconvenience to have been summoned to attend a meeting of Parliament at this time; but on further consideration of the questions that are before the country, and the provisions of the law by which Indian Revenues cannot be expended without the sanction of Parliament, I think there is no hon. Member who will not agree with me that Her Majesty's Government had no course open to them but to summon Parliament in this sudden and extraordinary manner.
  Since we last met many things have taken place which have caused serious apprehensions that the Treaty of Berlin, which secured peace to Europe, was in danger of being disturbed. I cannot but think that one advantage gained by the meeting of Parliament to-day will be to dispel any such illusion, for there is not the slightest fear that any Power concerned in that Treaty has any intention of not observing its conditions. I trust, Sir, that the House will permit me to say that I think the country owes much to the Commissioners in Turkey, who have done so much to bring about a solution of those problems which at present are in a state of uncertainty there.
  86
  Very recently, Sir, another question, which at one time promised to be of a very troublesome character, has been brought, I am thankful to say, to a successful and satisfactory issue. The United States have paid over the sum of money which was adjudged to this country in the Fisheries dispute. I am sure no one doubted for a moment that that money would be paid; and I do hope that this amicable conclusion, of what might have been a serious difficulty, will tend to draw in still closer connection the tie of friendship which I hope, and I am sure will always, exist between the two countries.
  Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech refers chiefly to the condition of affairs on the borders of our Indian Empire. With the permission of the House I shall touch but generally on that question, as no doubt it will be amongst many others brought under its notice; but I am happy to think that I can commence at a period on which all parties are agreed. No one can deny that the statesmanlike ability of Lord Mayo, his personal qualities and his natural courtesy, created between himself and the Ameer of Afghanistan, I may say I think, a feeling of good-will—nay, even more, a feeling of friendship. When, at last, we suffered a great loss by Lord Mayo's death, he bequeathed to his successor the same state of good feeling. In the meantime, Sir, a new element had been introduced. The advances of Russia were beginning, and the Ameer applied to Lord North-brook for assurances of protection against that advancing Power. What those assurances were it is unnecessary for me to say. At all events, Lord Northbrook was unable to comply in such a manner as to give complete satisfaction to the Ameer. The Russian advances still continued, and the Ameer became more and more estranged to England, and more willing to enter into negotiations with the advancing Power. Lord Salisbury, at last, thought that the time had come when he should be justified in giving further assurance of protection to the Ameer against foreign invasion, upon condition that our officers were allowed to be present at certain places in his territory, in order that they might thoroughly watch the movements on the Frontier. To this the Ameer declined to agree. The discussion was prolonged

  87
  indefinitely; and, in the meantime, the Ameer showed a still more unfriendly feeling towards our country. Suddenly, in July of this year, we were startled by hearing that the Ameer had received a Russian Envoy at Cabul. Under these circumstances, the Indian Government felt that the time had come at which they should consider how they would act. They proposed a friendly Mission to Cabul on the part of this country. Of the circumstances which followed the House is well aware; and when, later on, they gave the Ameer—if I may so use the expression—another chance, the House is well acquainted with the manner in which that Ultimatum was treated. Under these circumstances, the Indian Government felt compelled to take those steps which are now to be brought under the consideration of Parliament. We are at the present moment engaged in a war which, I trust, will be short, successful, and decisive; and I can only express a hope, which I am sure you will all feel, that our European soldiers, as well as our Indian troops, will, as they have ever done, do their utmost to show that they are fully qualified to maintain the glory and the power of our Indian Empire.
  As regards domestic legislation, I may be excused for saying that it is impossible for me to form any opinion of the work of the coming Session; but I wish I could feel sanguine that anything can be done to alleviate the distress which unfortunately prevails through the greater part of this country. In view of the bad harvests and the depression of trade, I feel that the prospects of a return of prosperity are anything but good. At the same time, hon. Gentlemen will remember that these misfortunes are not confined to our country. They extend all over Europe and America; and as, therefore, there can be no question that they are not the consequence of political causes, I think we must not despair. On former occasions we have had a similar depression of trade; and as bad harvests have been previously met by the skill and energy for which Englishmen have always been renowned, so, I trust, England will again overcome those difficulties as in former days.
  I cannot conclude without expressing my most grateful thanks to the House for the kind indulgence which they have
  88
  shown to me, and I shall conclude by moving—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, to convey the thanks of this House for Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech:
  "Humbly to thank Her Majesty for the gracious expression of Her regret that She has found it necessary to call for our attendance at an unusual, and, as Her Majesty is pleased to say, probably at an inconvenient time:
  "To express our regret that the hostility manifested towards Her Majesty's Indian Government by the Ameer of Afghanistan, and the manner in which he has repulsed Her Majesty's friendly Mission, has left Her Majesty no alternative but to make a peremptory demand for redress:
  "Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that, in consequence of this demand having been disregarded, Her Majesty has directed an Expedition to be sent into his Territory, and has taken the earliest opportunity of calling us together, and making to us the communication required by Law:
  "To thank Her Majesty for directing that Papers on the subject shall be laid before us:
  "Humbly to express the gratification with which we learn that Her Majesty receives from all Foreign Powers assurances of their friendly feelings, and that Her Majesty has every reason to believe that the arrangements for the pacification of Europe, made by the Treaty of Berlin, will be successfully carried into effect:
  "To thank Her Majesty for having directed the Estimates for the ensuing year to be laid before us in due course:
  "Humbly to assure Her Majesty that, after full deliberation upon the matters which have led Her Majesty to anticipate our usual time of meeting, we shall be prepared, at such date as Her Majesty may determine, to give our careful consideration to such measures for the public benefit as Her Majesty may direct to be submitted to us:
  "Humbly to assure Her Majesty that our best care shall be devoted to the maintenance of the great interests of Her Empire; and that we unite with Her Majesty in praying that the blessing of the Almighty may attend our counsels."
  MR. HALL: In rising to second the Address, I shall not hesitate to allude to the great subject to which the remarks of my noble Friend the Member for Down (Viscount Castlereagh) have

  89
  been mainly directed. It must be quite clear that when Parliament is summoned at this unusual and, as Her Majesty is pleased to say, somewhat inconvenient season, there must be some great topic for discussion and settlement by the House, which rightly and necessarily puts the ordinary Business of an ordinary Session entirely in the shade. Sir, that great topic is the question of our North-Western Frontier of India, and the relations of Her Majesty towards the Ameer of Afghanistan, and as being germane to that question. The House will have learned with satisfaction the assurance contained in Her Majesty's gracious Speech that Her Majesty is in friendly relations with all other foreign Powers.
  It is a matter, I venture to think, not only for satisfaction, but also for profound thankfulness, that those great subjects which the Berlin Congress was called together to discuss seem to be in a fair way of being brought to a final adjustment, without any break whatever in the friendly relations between the signatory Powers; because it cannot be denied that whether we look to our North-West Frontier in India, or look at home for that revival of trade prosperity, for which so many eyes are anxiously scanning the horizon, much depends on the peaceable and loyal carrying out of the Berlin Treaty. And, Sir, I cannot use the word "trade" without venturing to express the sympathy, which I am sure the House feels, with our fellow-countrymen in Scotland, who have suffered from so severe a financial calamity, and who have borne their suffering so bravely.
  Sir, the regret which has been expressed in the Speech from the Throne, that Parliament should have been called together to discuss the war in Afghanistan, is a regret which, so far as the war is concerned, will be shared by every hon. Member of the House, no matter what may be his political opinions. These Frontier Wars, so many of which have been entailed on this country by the necessities of our Indian Empire, are at all times undertakings which this country would fain avoid if she could fairly and reasonably do so: and of Afghan Wars especially, it may be said that our reminiscences certainly are not of such a character as to induce responsible Indian statesmen to rush into them lightly
  90
  or without a grave sense of responsibility. Therefore it is that we have always found that the chief and most cardinal point in the policy of our Indian statesmen has been the independence and friendship of Afghanistan. But, as has been well pointed out in one of our great centres of commerce and intelligence by the Leader of this House on a recent occasion, that independence and friendship must be real; because what we desire is, that Afghanistan should be for us in Asia that which our forefathers always desired Turkey should be for us in Europe—a buffer between ourselves and the possible aggrandizing propensities of other Powers. That has been a position as favourable for the Ruler of Afghanistan as for this country. It was a position which was always cordially and frankly accepted by Dost Mahomed, and up to 1872 apparently by his less reliable son Shere Ali, with more or less sincerity. I use the word "apparently," because it is very doubtful whether Shore Ali ever forgave this country for the recognition it gave to his rival brothers in 1867. Be that as it may, and without stopping to inquire whether the result of the famous Umballa Conference in 1869 did or did not carry out Shere Ali's wishes, I think we may fairly say that up to the year 1872 the relations of Shere Ali to this country were fairly friendly. Since that date, however, there has been a great change. His friendship has given way to ill-concealed enmity, and his estimate of the comparative power of Russia and England has undergone a complete change—a change not in our favour. What the causes of the change may be, and the amount of responsibility that will have to be borne for it by previous Viceroys and the present Administration, must and will, of course, be discussed at a fitting moment. That moment is certainly not the present; but when that time comes, and strong opinions are expressed, on the one hand that a more resolute and less ambiguous policy in the past would have secured Shere Ali to our interests, and on the other hand opinions are as strongly expressed that a less resolute and a more ambiguous policy now, would have had a similar effect, I am inclined to believe that political circumstances farther North than Cabul, in the one case, had not so far matured

  91
  as to render a more resolute policy absolutely necessary; and, in the other case, had done so, in so marked a manner and with such great rapidity, that a longer continuance in the rut of ambiguity would have been not only unwise but absolutely impossible; and I, therefore, venture to think that it would better become the Parliament of England frankly and fully to look this side of the question in the face with a view to our future advantage, rather than by useless endeavours to prove opponents wrong and lose our capacity for forming a sound judgment in a mist of political prejudice. At the end of the year 1872 the Seistan boundary arbitration was concluded, and that seems to have left a rankling sense of wrong in the mind of the Ameer, and it was but a few months after that the continued advance of Russia in Central Asia seemed to impress the Ameer with the possible difficulties of his position in regard to that country, and he therefore sent an Envoy to Simla to endeavour to induce Lord Northbrook to enter into an alliance specifically against Russia. I venture to think that the wisdom or unwisdom of the course then adopted depended upon the estimate reasonably to be formed—of the reality of the danger which Shere Ali apprehended. And we must not, in determining that, forget, that only six months before an agreement had been come to between Russia and this country as to the boundaries of Afghanistan, and that so frank, full, and unreserved were the assurances of Russia in this respect, that the English Government seemed to have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that Shere Ali's reading of the political barometer had been entirely incorrect. The House will remember that when these assurances were given Lord Granville had been told that Afghanistan did not come within the political purview of Russia, that the Emperor considered an extension of territory as a weakness; while as to Cabul, it was admitted that English officers might fairly be found there, and that Russian officers ought not to be found there. But it would seem that Shere Ali was a better judge of the immediate future than either the Russian or English Governments, for within six months of the agreement, Khiva had fallen, and Shere Ali had seen the Russian Frontier and his own drawing nearer and nearer day by day. He seemed
  92
  to be making up his mind to side with the strongest Power, whether that should be Russian or English; and I cannot help thinking that however favourable a Treaty might at that time have been concluded between his country and ourselves, the well-known character of the Ameer Chief would have rendered it not impossible that the Treaty would have been frankly and fully accepted by him so long as, and no longer than, it tallied with his own interests and squared with his own estimate of the relative power of Russia and England. With regard to this I may venture to quote the opinion given by Lord Lawrence in 1869—that if an invasion of India were imminent, every Afghan, from the Ameer on the Throne to the domestic slave in the household, would join it. In 1875 Lord Northbrook expressed his belief that whenever the day came for Russian influence to be supreme in the Turcoman territory, it would be necessary that more specific assurances should be given to the Ameer that we should have a British Resident at Herat; and at the close of that year Her Majesty's Government had come to the conclusion that the time had arrived. That opinion was not shared in by Lord Northbrook; but subsequent events went far to show that the real question was, not whether the time for more specific assurances had arrived, but whether, in truth, it had not for ever passed away? For what do we find? That when, in obedience to Lord Salisbury's instructions, the Mission of Sir Lewis Pelly was proposed to the Ameer, it was rejected by him, and when, after considerable pressure, the Envoy of the Ameer was sent to Peshawur, it was abundantly clear that the Treaty for which his master was said to have been looking so long no longer had any charms for him, and his whole ingenuity appeared to be directed to the frustration of the objects of the Conference. Old grievances were raked up; much time was wasted by interminable discussions as to the position of the proposed British Residents, although that point was well understood to have been previously agreed to; and, generally, it appeared that no definite conclusions were desired by the Ameer. With regard to those British Residents, I may mention that the question had been fully explained to the Ameer over and over again, and there is evidence

  93
  to show that he not only understood it, but fully acknowledged the justice of our demands. For it must be quite clear that in any Treaty entered into by us for securing the integrity of Shere Ali's dominions, it would be necessary to us to secure speedy and trustworthy information of what was going on upon the Frontiers, if only to enable us to carry into effect our engagement to prevent conduct on his part provocative of Russian aggression. If we had not done this we should have been placing our responsibility at the mercy of Shere Ali's caprice. The Peshawur Conference went on until the Envoy died, and then Lord Lytton, having information of continued hostility on the part of the Ameer—who was trying to raise a jehad, or religious war, against the English—wisely seized that opportunity to close the Conference. For 12 months nothing more was done, when all British India was, as my noble Friend has said, startled by the intelligence that a Russian Mission had been received at Cabul. Then the question arose as to whether the Government could remain a pacific spectator of that great event? and it was felt that to do so would be practically to hand over the interests of Afghanistan to Russia, in the same way that Bokhara had been handed over to her. I do not know whether, as a simple matter of International Law, it might have been justifiable for Shere Ali to receive a Russian Mission, and to reject an English one; but for our Government to have permitted such conduct would have been contrary to all the dictates of common sense, and would have been an utter disregard of that salus republicœ which we all know is suprema lex. It must be quite clear that even if the British Government could have forgotten the treachery—the base treachery—of Shere Ali, and the gifts which have been so freely lavished upon him by successive Viceroys during a period of eight years—gifts comprising ammunition without end, 12 cannon, 21,000 rifles, and £250,000—for which no sort of return has ever been made, or is ever likely to be made; if they could have forgotten all that, it was absolutely impossible for them, as guardians of British honour in India, to forget the insult offered by the stoppage of a peaceful Mission. I believe there are many
  94
  of our way of thinking who believe so fully in the ultimate power of our country in India, that they are apt to despise what generally goes by the name of prestige. That is a view with which I cannot sympathize. Prestige, Mr. Speaker, I once heard well described—I think the description emanated from an hon. Member of this House—prestige is credit, and credit, as we all know, is capital. Prestige, in the present case, is the estimate formed in the Native mind of the invincibility of the British power in India. It is that which in the olden times was won for you by the genius of Marquess Wellesley and the great Wellington, and, in more recent years, by Pollock, Nott, Sale, and Havelock. Let us remember how much this prestige has cost to win, and prize it as the talisman of the future. With regard to increase of territory, I ought, perhaps, to say that, in the ordinary acceptation of the word, I believe Great Britain desires no increase of territory either in India or anywhere else; but I may venture to express a hope, with regard, to the future, that in any rectification of Frontier which may take place by arrangement with the Border Tribes—who are independent of Shere Ali to a great extent, be it remembered—or otherwise, that care will be taken to have the mountains on our own side. In that case our responsibility will not only be not increased, but we shall be able, at less cost and at less trouble, to guard our own, which is all that Great Britain desires to do, and with less than which I hope she will never be content.
  I thank the House very much for having listened to me so patiently; and I will only venture, in conclusion, to express a hope that, when those feelings of partisan passion which on these subjects seem naturally to arise, and which although we have heard nothing of them in debate to-night may possibly be still in store for us—that when they are hushed, as one day they will be, and the calm gaze of the historian is directed to the Eastern policy of England in 1878, I trust it will be written that without European convulsion, and at the cost of only a short Frontier war, British India was secured from foreign foes, not only in the South-East, amid the fertile valleys of Asia Minor, but also on her North-Western Frontier, in that less hospitable region,

  95
  which borders on the snows of the Himalayas and the great Hindu-Kush.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, &c." [See p. 88.]
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, the first and most agreeable portion of my task to-night is to congratulate the House and my Friends the noble Lord the Member for Down (Viscount Castlereagh) and the hon. Member for the City of Oxford (Mr. Hall) for the manner in which they have moved and seconded the Address. It is unnecessary for me to say anything respecting the speech which has just been delivered. The hon. Member who has just spoken has on former occasions often taken part in our debates, and all will be prepared to admit the ability he has on those occasions manifested. With regard to the Mover of the Address, although the last Lord Castlereagh who sat in this House was a statesman with whose politics we on this side of the House could not generally agree, I am sure we shall all be disposed to welcome the appearance of the noble Lord who spoke first to-night, and I hope he will rival the distinction which has been acquired by various members of his family.
  Certainly the Members who moved and seconded the Address have had before them an easier task than that which has fallen to some of their Predecessors; for Her Majesty's Government have, I must admit, succeeded in compressing the Queen's Speech within shorter limits than those which have marked former documents. Therefore, I suppose, it was not thought necessary for either the Mover or the Seconder of the Address to enter into the consideration of the great variety of those disconnected topics which have frequently somewhat embarrassed Members who had a similar duty to perform. No doubt the haste with which it has boon found necessary to summon Parliament will account for some of the omissions which we may perceive in the Queen's Speech; but there are other omissions for which I do not think that hasty summons furnishes a sufficient excuse.
  In the first place, I have noticed with very great surprise that there is no allusion to the Colonies in the Speech. I believe the right hon. Gentleman the
  96
  Secretary of State for the Colonies has attended the recent deliberations of the Cabinet, and I believe he is at present in his place, and that he knows how that has come about. I believe and understand, and we are all aware, that events of the gravest character are occurring in one of the Colonies of South Africa; that a war is actually in progress in that Colony which is occasioning much excitement and some measure of alarm there; and that it has been found necessary to send out reinforcements from the mother country. Yet Her Majesty's Government seem to think it so utterly trifling and unimportant a matter that in Her Majesty's Speech it is not even mentioned. I cannot help thinking that such neglect as this is likely to be felt very deeply by the Colonies. It is possible that no measures dealing with the matter are in contemplation by Her Majesty's Government; but a few words of sympathy and encouragement for the difficulties under which the Colony is at present labouring would have been found acceptable, and would not have been thrown away.
  There are, Sir, a few lines devoted to the progress made in the re-organization of European Turkey under the provisions of the Treaty of Berlin. I do not complain that the reference is very short; but I think the House will probably expect to have from Her Majesty's Ministers some further information with regard to the matter. Since the Prorogation of Parliament we all know that one of the provisions of the Treaty has been carried, into effect; but not without very prolonged resistance on the part of the Turkish people or the Government, and a very considerable loss of life and injury to the resources of Austria. We hoard a few weeks ago—as has been mentioned by the hon. Member who has just sat down—that there wore considerable difficulties in the plan of organizing a new Province in Eastern Roumelia. We heard, and it was supposed at that time, that obstacles had been thrown in the way by Russia. I trust, however, from the language at the end of Her Majesty's Speech, that the Government will be able to inform us that this is not the case. At the same time, I believe that these obstacles to the desired organization of the Province are very great, and arise both from the difficulty of framing a Constitution for the Province,

  97
  and also from the disinclination of its inhabitants to remain under Turkish rule. I trust, Sir, that in these matters we shall have some information from Her Majesty's ^Government; and that they will be able to inform us that it will not be necessary to employ force upon the inhabitants of Eastern Roumelia in order to impose upon them a Government to which they are irrevocably opposed.
  I think the hon. Member for Oxford felt the force of the omissions from Her Majesty's Speech when he referred to the existing depression of trade, and that he thought the matter one worthy of mention in Her Majesty's Speech. It is possible—nay, it is probable—that that depression is beyond the power of control of Her Majesty's Government; but are we to gather from the Speech that they have no legislative intentions with the view of endeavouring to improve the existing state of things? I believe it is unexampled in the history of Queen's Speeches that Parliament should be opened without a single indication from the Throne of the subject of domestic legislation during the Session. We are not without precedent in this case. A Conservative Government was in power when Parliament was hastily summoned at an earlier period of the year than the present for the consideration of a very similar subject. Parliament was summoned, in 1867, on account of the war in Abyssinia, in the middle of the month of November; but on that occasion the form of Her Majesty's gracious Speech was the usual form. The subjects of legislation were set forth at length, and the Business intended to be laid before Parliament during the Session was mentioned in the usual manner. I hope, Sir, that Her Majesty's Government will be able to inform us that the remarkable omission to which I have referred arises from the fact that the Government have not yet made up their minds as to the legislation they are about to introduce; or whether, on the other hand, they know what Bills they will bring in, but that they are of such infinitesimal importance that they could not properly require or find a place in Her Majesty's gracious Speech.
  I now come, Sir, to the subject which occupies the greater portion of Her Majesty's Speech, and which was the cause of Parliament being summoned at an earlier period than usual. And
  98
  here I may point out the extraordinary position in which Parliament is placed. It is now but a few months since we were rejoicing at the conclusion of a Treaty—the Treaty of Berlin—and of an arrangement which we were told had given us "peace with honour." Within those few months we find ourselves involved in a war, a war which may be—I trust it will not be, but which may be—an anxious and a prolonged war. Although it is not a formidable war, having regard to the antagonist with whom we are immediately engaged in it, yet we cannot conceal from ourselves that it is a war which may probably bring us further difficulties and complications with a more powerful Empire. Well, Sir, and what are the circumstances under which we are called together? Some time since we were told by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department that a cloud had arisen on the horizon in the East. Well, Sir, that cloud we now find has been in the sight of Her Majesty's Government for the last two years, and yet this House has been in perfect ignorance of its existence; and so far as any official communication to it was concerned, so far as they had information other than that derived from the ordinary sources open to every hon. Member, might have assembled to day and heard in Her Majesty's gracious Speech for the first time that anything had disturbed the tranquillity of our relations in India. It is true that Papers have been laid before us; but with regard to those Papers I think the House has just cause to complain. Three months ago Her Majesty's Government must have been perfectly aware, from the repulse of the Mission, that, whether the matter was amicably settled or not, it should become the subject of discussion in Parliament, and that information should be laid before Parliament. A large portion of those Papers might have been published in the early part of this year; but, though it was known three months since that the Papers must necessarily be presented to Parliament, they were only placed in the hands of hon. Members on Saturday last, and a portion of them only within the last few hours; while other important Papers which bear closely upon the subject, relating to affairs in Central Asia, and which were promised in answer to a

  99
  Question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) at the conclusion of last Session, were only presented last Monday. That, in my opinion, is a very serious matter. It is one not merely affecting the convenience of hon. Members, but which may affect the character and the honour of this House. The case of the Government, I presume, is contained in the Papers which He on the Table, and the statement of facts as they have occurred has been given in the Queen's Speech. It may reasonably be contended that it would be the proper course and absolutely necessary for any hon. Member who desired to question the policy, the expediency, or the justice of this war to make himself acquainted at the earliest possible period with the contents of those Papers, and to raise those questions upon the earliest possible opportunity—namely, upon voting the Address to the Crown; but, in my opinion, the conduct of Her Majesty's Government, to which I have referred, has rendered such a course impossible. The Papers are so voluminous, the subject to many of us is so new, it requires such careful consideration, that no hon. Member would be justified in calling the attention of the House to this great question and asking it to pronounce a final opinion on the conduct pursued by Her Majesty's Government until the House had more time than it could possibly get to examine the case of the Government as set forth in those Papers. Sir, as I have suggested, it may probably become necessary, and be the duty of some hon. Member, to call in question the policy and expediency of this war. But before I go further let me say for myself, and, I believe, for those who sit near me, that we have not the slightest intention to oppose in any way any proposition the Government may make for obtaining the necessary Supplies and means for carrying on the war. In my opinion, this war has been entered upon by Her Majesty's Government, a Government—unfortunately as I think—entrusted by Parliament with full powers to enter upon such a course—a Government—unfortunately again, as I think—which has received many proofs of the confidence of the present Parliament, and therefore, as I have stated, fully entitled and empowered to advise the Crown to exercise its Prerogative of declaring war. Under
  100
  those circumstances, it appears to me that it is due to the safety and honour of our gallant Army—it is due also, I will admit, to the safety and honour of our Empire in India—that a war once entered upon, whether rightly or otherwise, should be conducted with vigour and conducted to a successful end. I may even go further, and say that I think it is now the truest mercy to the Ameer himself and to his people that the war which has been begun should not be allowed to linger, but that it should be brought to a speedy conclusion. For these reasons, Sir, I have no intention whatever to oppose any measure which Her Majesty's Government may think it necessary to bring before the House for the purpose of obtaining means to prosecute the war; and for these reasons I have also the very greatest pleasure in congratulating the House and Her Majesty's Government upon the news which has been received to-day. As this war has been entered upon, it is no doubt satisfactory that it should be prosecuted, as I have said, with vigour; and it is satisfactory, too, to know that so far as the operations have hitherto been conducted, they have been well conceived and admirably executed.
  Well, Sir, having said that, I revert to what I said before, and I must acknowledge that the discussions which took place previous to the assembling of Parliament, and the perusal, as fully as I have been able to read them, of the Papers, have raised doubts, and more than doubts—they have given rise to a very strong conviction in my mind—that the conduct and policy of Her Majesty's Government which have led to the outbreak of this war are not capable of justification. I trust, Sir, that we shall not be told that, now that the war has broken out, it is mere waste of time to go back to the origin of the war; that a patriotic Parliament has but one duty to perform—namely, to ignore the past, and simply to support the Government who have undertaken the war. If it were necessary to refer to precedents, I could point to the conduct pursued by the Opposition at the close of the last and the beginning of the present century in the course of the War of Independence with the American Colonies and the Revolutionary War with Prance. With respect to the first case, at all events, I think there is no doubt that the Opposi-

  101
  tion took a wise and patriotic course in opposing, and continuing to oppose, the Government during that war. With regard to the other there may be more difference of opinion. But I may remind the House that in 1857, in the other House of Parliament, the late Lord Derby, and in this House Mr. Cobden, supported by the present Prime Minister, by the whole Conservative Party, by many hon. Members on both sides of the House, did not think it unpatriotic to pass a Vote of Censure upon Lord Palmerston on account of the war which was in progress at the time. But it is unnecessary to refer to precedent on the subject, for reason points to the same conclusion. Therefore, if the Papers had been placed in the hands of hon. Members at an earlier period, it would have been competent to them not only to discuss and criticise, but, if necessary, to condemn the policy and conduct of Her Majesty's Government. If this policy has culminated in a war without the knowledge of Parliament, it would be strange if that fact should absolve the House from the duty of criticizing the conduct of the Government. I think, indeed, that the very fact of war having broken out would only make the conduct of the Government more worthy of criticism. I have very little doubt that the Government themselves would not feel a complete confidence in the goodness of their case in justification of this war. The unofficial explanations repeatedly put forward by Gentlemen holding official positions—explanations put forward in anticipation of the meeting of Parliament—appear to me to be open to objection and to point to that conclusion. The publication of Lord Cranbrook's despatch of the 19th of November, in anticipation of the publication of the Papers, appears to me to point to the same conclusion, and I must confess that the publication of that despatch appears to me to be open to grave misapprehension and objection. The publication of such a document, reviewing the whole of the long series of events referred to in the long series of Papers, I think could only be justified by giving to it the strictest character of an historical narrative. "Without imputing any intentional partiality to Her Majesty's Government in this matter, I think that it is very difficult for a state-
  102
  ment of this kind, made by one of a party implicated in these transactions, and who has taken part in them, to be made a strictly historical narrative. Such a statement made in these circumstances is very apt to become, not an impartial historical narrative, but a mere statement of the case upon one side, and accordingly that is what I find to be the character of this despatch; and I contend that, therefore, that document is not calculated to enable Parliament and the country to form a calm and deliberate judgment upon what has occurred. That despatch has been allowed for some weeks to sink into the mind of the country before the statement on the other side could be put forward. No sooner, however, was that despatch put forward than we find its impartiality challenged. I am unwilling to refer to a matter that has already been dealt with at considerable length by those who possess a much fuller knowledge of the subject than I can pretend to have; but I wish not to pass it over altogether unnoticed, because I desire to give the right hon. Gentleman opposite an opportunity of giving the House some explanation with regard to it. I refer to what has taken place with respect to the 9th and 10th paragraphs of Lord Cranbrook's despatch. In those paragraphs extraordinary importance is attached to certain negotiations which took place between Lord Northbrook, the then Governor General of India, and the Envoy of the Ameer. I am not saying that any actual statement is made; but the general impression conveyed by those paragraphs has been challenged by those who were concerned in the transactions referred to. The impression conveyed is that Lord Northbrook, finding that the Ameer of Afghanistan was seriously alarmed at the Russian progress in Central Asia, desired to give to the Ameer certain more extended assurances of support and protection than had hitherto been offered to him by the British Government; and that on his telegraphing to the Home Government for permission to do so, he was told that the then Government did not share the Ameer's apprehensions, and that the result of the telegram in reply was to tie Lord Northbrook's hands and to prevent him from giving the assurances which the Ameer desired to receive, and to put the matter off until a

  103
  more convenient season. That is the impression which would be conveyed to the mind of any ordinary man on reading the paragraphs of the despatch to which I have referred. What are the facts, however, as they appear in the Papers and in the narrative of Lord Northbrook? The Ameer had not sought the interview with Lord Northbrook in vain. On the contrary, Lord Northbrook had himself desired to communicate with the Ameer, in order to explain what had taken place with regard to the boundaries of Seistan and also the character of the negotiations which had taken place between the British and Russian Governments in reference to the Northern boundaries of Afghanistan. Lord Northbrook found, in the course of his conversation with the Envoy of the Ameer, that there was considerable alarm in the mind of the latter, and he gave him certain assurances which had been given by previous Governors General, and telegraphed to the Home Government for authority to give the Ameer further and more precise assurances on the point. The Government replied to him in a telegram which authorized him to give the further assurance that the British Government would pursue a certain policy with regard to Afghanistan. The result was that Lord Northbrook gave those re-assurances which he, with the advice of his Council, was prepared to give, and refused simply those conditions which were asked for by the Envoy, and which neither he nor his Council had the slightest intention of giving, or thought it was possible that any Government would give. That is a short statement of the difference on this part of the despatch. I do not impute to Lord Cranbrook any intention to convey a false impression; I merely wish to show the difficulty of making a statement of this sort thoroughly impartial. The questions which are involved in the accuracy of the remaining portions of Lord Cranbrook's despatch are of a very much graver and more important character; and on the accuracy, or the want of accuracy, of those statements it contains depends the question whether this war and the policy of Her Majesty's Government are justified or not. The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hall) has stated substantially, and with great ability, the version of the story
  104
  conveyed by this despatch. I need hardly go over it again; but perhaps the House will permit me to recapitulate the main points of the case put forward by Her Majesty's Government, as I understand them. When Lord Lytton went out to India as Governor General, he found that the Ameer of Afghanistan was unfriendly to us. He found that proofs of his ill-will and unfriendliness had been accumulating for some time; that he had become more and more estranged from us; and that he had been negotiating with the Government of Russia; and, in fact, he found that all the efforts which had been made, and all the sacrifices which had been incurred, by the British Government had been thrown away; and that instead of having on our North-Western Frontier, as we had hoped, the Ameer as an Ally and as an advanced guard of our Indian Empire against invasion, he was, on the contrary, no Ally at all, but a mere instrument in the hands of possible enemies of this country. That I gather is the correct statement of the representation of the Government as to matters existing between this country and Afghanistan. But the story goes on that Lord Lytton went out with instructions from Her Majesty's Government to correct this state of things. He went out to offer the Ameer an alliance under far more favourable terms than had hitherto been offered by any previous Government. But the sole condition required as preliminary to I the alliance was one of eventual safety to the Ameer himself, as well as for our own protection. It was that our Agents should be permitted to reside in certain parts of Afghanistan. It is further reported that the Ameer was approached in a most conciliatory manner, and that overtures were made in a manner most calculated to insure a favourable reception. Notwithstanding this the negotiation fell through, and the Ameer declined to accede to the condition. After long consultations with Sir Lewis Pelly nothing further remained for the Government than to adopt an absolute vigilant reserve, not, as I understand it, being on bad terms with the Ameer, but simply on terms of vigilance and watchfulness, in the hope that time would enable him to see the advantage of the proposals which we made to him, and the danger he was incurring by rejecting our

  105
  alliance and holding himself aloof from us. At this point the Russian Mission was despatched to Cabul, where it met with a very ostentatious reception, and Her Majesty's Government thought it necessary that a Mission from India should also be received by the Ameer; but, notwithstanding the fact, as stated, that representations to this effect were made in the most friendly spirit by the Government of India, permission to send a Mission was most positively refused by the Ameer, and when the Mission attempted to approach it was stopped in a most ostentatious manner by a hostile force. That I understand to be the history of these despatches. I admit at once the perfect accuracy of the position, that if the attitude of the Ameer has been correctly described in these Papers, it went a long way towards establishing the painful necessity for the war which has been undertaken. I say "the painful necessity," because, even if it were established, it is difficult to see what useful object we can hope to gain by having undertaken it.
  I must say, however, that, on the other hand, there is a very different case set up, and it is contended that that case is supported by a greater weight of authority and of evidence than is contained within the pages of the Blue Book which has been issued by Her Majesty's Government. I, however, have no intention on this occasion to attempt to prove any allegation. I have already said that, in my opinion, the time has not come when the House can with advantage be asked seriously to discuss the bearing of these Papers. I do not wish to argue anything; but having stated what I take to be the opinion of the Government, I wish to show briefly what I understand as the nature of the case which may be set up on the other side in support of the view that Her Majesty's Government were not justified in undertaking the war in which we are now engaged with the Ameer of Cabul. Now, Sir, what is that case? It is this—The view to which [allude is based on the fact that before the departure of Lord Northbrook from India the relations of Her Majesty's Indian Government with the Ameer, though not cordial or altogether satisfactory, presented no element of danger; that the Ameer was thoroughly convinced that he had no danger to apprehend from aggressions upon our part, but that he
  106
  was very seriously alarmed at possible aggressions on the part of Russia; that he had shown no symptom of rejecting our advice, but had conformed to it in his Frontier relations and in the matter of the Seistan boundary; and that, in fact, the main object of the policy of successive Viceroys from the time of Dost Mahomed had been secured, and there was no occasion to alter it. In fact, he showed that the bad terms were the result of the policy which had been adopted by Lord Canning and his successors—Lord Lawrence and Lord Mayo. Lord Lytton when he arrived was determined to remedy this state of things and was prepared to offer an alliance. The requirement of a preliminary Conference was a proceeding which all the best authorities in India condemned as unwise and dangerous. It prepared the way for the proposed Treaty by a pretext as transparently unwise as it was un-English. Lord Lytton put forward a pretext, in which the Ameer saw only the fulfilment of those schemes for the partition of his country which, although made and discussed here, he was perfectly well acquainted with, and which he at once prepared to resist. He was addressed, before any interview had taken place, in letters which contained threats which were calculated to alarm him, and which did alarm him. These threats were repeated in an interview which was had between the Ameer and our Native Envoy, who conducted the negotiations with considerable skill and ability, and in the course of which the Ameer protested against the conditions sought to be imposed upon him, and appealed to the Treaties which had been concluded with him, and the assurances he had received from various Envoys, as to the position which he was to hold, in relation to political matters affecting his country. At the end of this negotiation a violent letter was written by Lord Lytton for transmission to the Ameer, in which his conduct was denounced, and in which Lord Lytton repudiated the obligation contracted by the British Government towards that of Afghanistan; and, in short, cast off the alliance which had been entered into. The Conference was put an end to by the death of the Envoy; but Lord Lytton concluded the business, and did so on the basis of renouncing our obligations to the Ameer, although

  107
  he was informed that another Envoy was on the road, and instructed to accept our terms.
  I will now point out a singular circumstance in connection with all these events. All the accounts given of the Conferences at Peshawur are reported in one single despatch from the Government in India to the Government at home. These transactions are not, as is usually the case, related in despatches sent at short intervals, while the events were in progress. During the whole, or at least a great part, of that time—a period of 15 months—there appears to have been but this single despatch. Why was that? Is it a fact, as has been surmised, that if the despatches which passed were published they would not point to an unanimous, or nearly unanimous, opinion between the Viceroy and the Home Government; or is it a fact that the high-handed measures of Lord Lytton did not receive the cordial support and concurrence even of his own Government? I certainly think that explanations on this point ought to be received, and that is my sole reason for mentioning it at the present juncture. Then, a year after these events, it was found that a Russian Envoy had arrived at Cabul. Could the Government be surprised at that? Lord Lytton, having repudiated the relations between his Government and that of the Ameer, was it to be wondered at that the Ameer should seek the support of, or throw himself into the arms of, his next most powerful neighbour? I do not deny that Her Majesty's Government were, probably, justified in requiring that the Ameer should receive an Embassy; but it does not seem clear, on the face of the Papers, that the refusal to grant a reception was a positive one, or one couched in such terms as to justify Her Majesty's Government in proceeding by force of arms against the Ameer. It is stated in the despatches that the Ameer strongly complained of the tone of the letters addressed to himself and to his Ministers; but in spite of all these things, there appears to be good reason for believing that the Ameer was perfectly willing to receive the Mission if only it was understood that it came by his permission and was not forced upon him. Notwithstanding that, no delay was granted, and the consequence was the stoppage of the Mission.
  108
  I have now briefly stated the arguments which may be put forward on the opposite side, and I think it puts the matter in a very different light. It is, therefore, for the House to decide as to the view and the statement of facts which is most entitled to support and credence. What opinion can the House pronounce, except that the Governor General and the Government never had any serious intention in these negotiations with Shere Ali; because we heard nothing then about a "scientific Frontier" or "irresponsible frivolity"—the words of truth and justice were much more heard. Was it not, then, reasonable to infer that the account which I have just given, and which shows that the Government was in search of a scientific Frontier, indicates that the Government did not object to find a pretext for a quarrel with the Ameer? If that is not the explanation, I should like to hear what explanation can be given. If their object was to cultivate friendly relations with the Ameer, and to secure in him a friendly Ally instead of a sullen enemy, I must say they have mismanaged the negotiations as negotiations never before were mismanaged.
  I know what is said on another view of this question, and I know that it is said this is not a matter which merely concerns Great Britain and a small Frontier State; that we cannot leave out the great question of the advance of Russia in Asia. I can assure the House that I am by no means indifferent to the gravity of the considerations involved in that question. No Government—no Party—in this country has been indifferent to these considerations. There is no despatch which is more remarkable than one of the earliest written by the Government of Sir John Lawrence—the greatest advocate of what is called "masterly inactivity"—in which the attention of the Government of 1867 is directed to the advance of Russia in Central Asia. In that despatch the Government of Sir John Lawrence pointed out what was the character and what the inevitable course of that advance, and they prophesied with remarkable accuracy the extent to which Russian progress would extend. There is one despatch in this Book which is still more remarkable. It is the answer given by the Government of the day—by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who was Se-

  109
  cretary of State for India—and the expressions are so remarkable that I shall ask the House to allow me to read them. They are the only extracts I intend to read. The extract to which I refer states that—
  "Upon this point [the question of the progress of Russia in Central Asia], Her Majesty's Government see no reason for any uneasiness or for any jealousy. The conquests which Russia has made, and apparently is still making in Central Asia, appear to them to be the natural result of the circumstances in which she finds herself placed, and to afford no ground whatever for representations indicative of suspicion or alarm on the part of this country. Friendly communications have at various times passed between the two Governments on the subject, and should an opportunity offer Her Majesty's Government will avail themselves of it for the purpose of obviating any possible danger of misunderstanding either with respect to the proceedings of Russia, or to those of England. This is all that it appears necessary or desirable to do."—[Afghanistan, No. 1, pp. 25–6.]
  [An hon. MEMBER: What is the date?] I said 1867. I have pointed out that the Government was informed of the inevitable progress which would be forced upon Russia, and the extent to which Russia would be forced in a few years to extend her dominions. I am not imputing any blame to the Government of the day; but I say there is no excuse for imputing to the late Government, or to any other Government, that they were indifferent to the movements of Russia. I am perfectly willing to admit the possible danger and the certain inconvenience to our external and internal relations with India, with the power of Russia bordering on the Frontiers of India. I am perfectly willing to admit this; but it does not follow that that danger is disposed of by rushing into hasty or ill-considered measures in the way of extending our Frontiers. Certainly, the effect of an advance on our part will not be to retard, but rather to accelerate the danger which will ensue when our Frontiers are coterminous with those of another European Power. It is not an infallible remedy against an apprehended danger; and we may hasten the danger, if we take the initiative and advance to meet Russia. The policy of all former Governments has been to deal with Russia direct in this question—to hold Russia responsible for what she was doing in Asia—and not the intermediary States which are coming within
  110
  her influence. That has been the policy of former Governments. It has also always been our policy to provide that, when Russia approached towards India, she should find other States well affected to us, anxious to maintain their own independence—States jealous of the danger of Russian advance. That, however, has not been the policy of the present Government; for we find that it holds, not Russia responsible for what it is doing in Asia, but it holds the unfortunate State of Afghanistan responsible for it—a country which will not be rendered jealous by the Russian advance, which will not be actuated by feelings of amity towards us, but which will be forced to fall into the arms of Russia. Before I sit down I have only to refer again to the condition of complete ignorance in which Parliament has been kept; and I think we have something more to complain of than the neglect that information has not been communicated to us. It has been withheld from us. In the Session of 1877 the attention of the Government was called by the Duke of Argyll to this subject of the North-West Frontier of India, and in reply to the Question Lord Salisbury replied as follows:—
  "Now, we have not tried to force an Envoy upon the Ameer at Cabul—we have not suggested Sir Lewis pelly as an Envoy to Cabul. …. Our relations with the Ameer of Cabul have undergone no material change since last year. I do not believe that he is worse disposed towards us than hitherto, or that his feelings are in any way more embittered towards the British Government. … If it is necessary to re-open the Conference it will be done under better auspices. … There is no ground for any of the apprehensions to which the noble Duke has referred, or for suspicions which are too absurd to be seriously entertained. … But there is no reason for any apprehension of any change of policy, or of disturbance in our Indian Empire."—[3 Hansard, ccxxxiv. 1835–6.]
  I am not going to controvert any of those statements. I have no doubt that proof may be brought forward for the verbal accuracy of every word that has been stated; but what I want to bring before the House is the general impressions and inferences of that statement, and what it seems to sanction, judged by what has taken place at Peshawur. Who will imagine for a moment, after hearing that speech, that an interview had taken place between the Envoy of the Ameer of Afghanistan and the Representative of the British Government?

  111
  There was a similar attempt to obtain information from the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton). In the debate on the 9th of August, 1877, the noble Lord said—
  "He hoped that the frank exchange of opinion which had undoubtedly passed between Sir Lewis Pelly and the Ameer's Envoy had removed previous misconception, and would lead to a restoration of those friendly terms which had formerly existed."—[3 Hansard, ccxxxvi. 707.]
  I need not refer to the further declarations of Lord Salisbury, nor to a speech made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, giving a warm adherence to what is called the old policy, and saying he would be no party to any change in it. Again, Sir, precautions should be taken by the Government to relieve this House up to the present moment of a serious responsibility. The responsibility is not shared in the slightest degree by Parliament at present. It will be shared in a few days no doubt; but, in my opinion, that does not relieve the House in the slightest degree. On the contrary, it is still more incumbent on this House to examine the policy which has led to this. I do not intend to take up the attention of the House any further. It will, no doubt, be anxious to hear from the Ministers what information the Government has to give, and to hear such explanations which may have some influence on the judgment of the House as to the objects of the war; and I do not think any explanation on that point can avert, or ought to relieve, the responsibility of asserting a judgment which, the House ought to form on the previous conduct and policy of the Government which led to the outbreak of the present war.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I purposely rise, notwithstanding the Chancellor of the Exchequer has risen, for a reason which will be obvious. I do not propose to enter at all, on the present occasion, into what I conceive to be controversial matter. My noble Friend has made the observations that he thinks necessary, and I have no wish to make any addition to those observations. He has given us a distinct intimation that, on a future occasion, a Motion will be made which will open up fully the whole question of the merits of the policy which has led to the present war, and the merits of the war itself. That being be, I feel under no obligation to touch
  112
  the matter at present; but, that being so, I take it likewise to be quite clear that nothing shall be said or done in the Address which shall have the effect of committing us to any opinions expressed. I am going to point out what I think an unfortunate error, an error which I do not think anybody in the least degree to blame for, but it is an error which has probably arisen from the haste of preparation; and I know that sentences sometimes assume a form and colour, in fact, which is far from the intention of those who phrased them. It is almost habitual with us not to pay a very close attention to these Addresses when they are read, and I am very far from blaming the noble Lord and the hon. Gentlemen who have so well discharged their duties to-night; yet, at the same time, it is a matter of grave consideration for those whose minds do not happen to be in the same attitude, that we should not be called upon to express an opinion on the hostility of the Ameer's policy, and the manner in which he has repulsed Her Majesty's Mission, leaving Her Majesty no alternative but war. [Cheers.] I do not question that sentiment on the present occasion; but is it the meaning of the hon. Gentleman who so gallantly cheers me that I am to be called upon to vote that? That is the obvious meaning of his cheer, if it has any meaning; but, in truth, I do not believe it has any meaning. I do not think it will be necessary to postpone discussion on the Address for this reason, as doubtless Her Majesty's Government will see fit to make some verbal Amendment, which will have the desired effect. I reserve myself entirely for a future occasion, when we shall be enabled to open up the merits of the question. I am anxious to make one observation merely in the manner of question. It would be of great advantage to the House if Her Majesty's Government could on one or two points enlarge the information given us on this subject. My noble Friend has referred to points apparently omitted—one a reference to the distress in the country, and the other a reference to the war at the Cape. The point I want information upon is this—It is stated in Her Gracious Majesty's Speech from the Throne that Her Majesty contemplates with confidence the execution of the requisitions of the Treaty of

  113
  Berlin. There is one point among those requisitions with regard to which it does not appear that any progress has been made, so far as the public are informed. I mean the question relating to the Greek Frontier. I have heard various rumours of efforts made by other Powers, and of efforts made by Her Majesty's Government, in this direction. I am quite sure it is a matter on which the country feels a lively interest; and if Her Majesty's Government are in possession of, and can give the House any information on the subject, I think it will be received with thankfulness. There is another omission which I think is rather remarkable, considering that in the Speech at the close of the last Session there was a very full paragraph on what is called the Anglo-Turkish Convention, and the purposes are very distinctly described. It is singular that this matter does not re-appear in any form in the Speech which has now been delivered. I will not say that sufficient time has elapsed for the execution of reforms in Asiatic Turkey; but five months have elapsed since that Instrument was executed between the Sultan and Her Majesty: and I do think that, after all that has been said upon this subject and considering the obligations under which the Turks have been to England, some progress ought to have been made by the Porte in, at all events, initiating reform. If Her Majesty's Government can give the House any information with regard to reforms in Turkey, I am sure it will be received with great thankfulness. There is only one other subject to which I will refer. Notice has been given on the part of Her Majesty's Government that a Resolution will be moved on Monday next that the charges of this war shall be borne out of Indian funds. For my own part, I concur in what has been stated by my noble Friend. I do not think the House, in the position in which it is placed, is in a condition to refuse the Supplies necessary for carrying on the war; but the very fact of its not being in a position to exercise a judgment on that subject must be a very important element in the general discussion as to the mode in which the House came to be placed in that position. But with regard to the particular question relating to the charges of the war, we are, I submit, free to exercise
  114
  a discretion upon it. In that discretion is involved a vital principle altogether apart from any desire to withhold the means necessary for defraying the engagements into which the Crown has entered. I hope, then, that accurate information as to the probable charges of this undertaking will be given, and that the explanations regarding them will be full and explicit. It will be remembered that on the occasion of the Abyssinian War, 11 years ago, we felt under very serious difficulty. What was stated by the Government in relation to that war was supposed to be the outside cost of that war, and no more at that time was said upon the subject. When, however, Parliament was dissolved and the new Parliament had met, the amount of the charge on being examined into was found to be about double that which had been stated to the House by the Government. I am sure that Her Majesty's Government will be anxious to avoid any error of this kind with respect to the present war charges. I trust that when the explanations in respect to them will be made that they will be given with as much accuracy as possible; and that it will be perfectly understood that upon all questions relating to the proposals of the Government the House shall retain an unlimited discretion.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I will endeavour, in the observations with which it will be my duty to trouble the House at the present time, to follow the example which has been so well set by the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington), and not import into our discussion to-night anything that can be advanced of a controversial character before this matter is finally parted with by Parliament. I feel that the noble Lord and my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich, in abstaining on the present occasion from importing the premature discussion of questions which will by-and-by have to be fully considered and discussed with the debate on the Address, have exercised a wise and convenient discretion. I wish, I may add, at the outset to dispose of one or two points which may be considered of a formal character, and with respect to which we can all agree. In the first place, with reference to what has been said by both of those who have spoken from the opposite Bench as to

  115
  the manner in which the Address has been moved and seconded. I am sure what has fallen from them will be in consonance with the feelings of the whole House. My noble Friend (Viscount Castlereagh), in his first essay in public speaking in this House, has, I think, broken the ice in a manner which leads us to hope that we shall often meet him in the field of debate, and that he will sustain the honoured name he bears. As to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hall), he has well maintained to-night the reputation which he had previously already established. I am, at all events, quite sure, that whoever is to blame—if, indeed, there be anybody to blame—for the incorrectness of expression which has been noticed in the Address, it cannot be either the Mover or the Seconder. The Address has been prepared in the usual manner, and there is no doubt that the thoroughly well-understood habit of this House is that it should be so drawn as not to raise any question of controversy in the moving of the Address. It is obviously for our convenience that the Address should be as positively neutral as it can be, and that we should simply confine ourselves to thanking Her Majesty for the information which She has been good enough to communicate to us. The intention with which the present Address was framed was certainly to do that and no more; but it may, no doubt, be a question among very acute critics whether the particular phraseology employed may not fairly be held to go a little further. Nobody will for a moment suppose that there was any desire to do so, and I would venture, Sir, to leave the matter in your hands. If you should be of opinion that the expressions to which exception has been taken could be improved by a slight verbal Amendment, there would, I believe, be no difficulty in getting the correction made. I suppose the Motion might be withdrawn, and renewed in a more proper form.
  Now, there is another point on which I wish to say a few words. The noble Lord opposite (the Marquess of Hartington) has remarked that the Speech is one of unprecedented brevity, which is perfectly true; and he has, I think, gone so far as to say that there is no precedent for any Royal Speech at the commencement of a Session, however suddenly that Session might have begun, in which
  116
  some reference was not made to measures of domestic legislation. I do not think, however, that the noble Lord is quite accurate in that observation. It is quite true that in the case to which he referred—the meeting of Parliament in 1867—domestic measures were alluded to in the Royal Speech; but there is an earlier instance when Parliament was called together, in 1854, with reference to the question of the Crimean War, in which no allusion to domestic measures was made, more specifically than on the present occasion. Her Majesty's Government, after fully considering the advice they should give Her Majesty on the subject, thought it would be more convenient that on this occasion the attention of Parliament should be directed exclusively to; the subject which had caused our early and unusual meeting, and that we should reserve for our more regular meeting at the usual time of the year a statement of the Business with which we proposed that Parliament should occupy itself; and, though such a course may not be in accordance with all the precedents which have been referred to, I think it would be more convenient to the House, that when the attention of Parliament is to be directed to questions of domestic legislation, that should be done after full and careful consideration, and that all reference to measures of the kind may be well omitted on such an occasion as the present. For the same reason we have avoided referring to other subjects to which it is usual to refer in the Speech from the Throne. The question we had to consider was, shall we have the Queen's Speech directed exclusively to the subject which brought us together, or shall it be made to deal with matters of a more general character? and we decided to advise Her Majesty to direct the Speech exclusively to one point, there seeming to be no reason why we should go into other questions.
  In reference to the various points on which particular questions have been raised, undoubtedly, in the first place, the position of affairs in South Africa is not free from some anxiety. At the end of last Session Parliament was informed that the war in Cape Colony was over, but that there was still cause for anxiety in other parts of South Africa. Since that time, I am sorry to say, the cause of anxiety has increased rather than

  117
  diminished; and, in compliance with the request of Sir Bartle Frere and Lord Chelmsford, it has been thought advisable to reinforce our troops in the Zulu territory. But the last advice, dated October 19, says—"There is no war, and we still hope that war may be avoided." Our object has been to send out troops to impress the Zulus with the strength of this country; we hope that there may be no actual collision, and that the relations between us may be improved. "We are asked as to the position of the question of Greece. Well, with regard to that, I may say that at the present moment a rectification of the Frontier, as recommended in the Treaty of Berlin by the Six Powers, has certainly not as yet been made. But negotiations are in progress, and we hope a satisfactory settlement may be arrived at. I am not now, however, in a position to go into detail upon that question.
  With respect to reforms in that interesting part of the Turkish dominions—the Island of Crete—I believe that the reforms there have been practically arranged, and that a Firman, giving satisfaction to all parties in the Island, is at this moment on the point of being issued.
  As to reforms in Asia Minor, these have formed the subject of serious communications between Her Majesty's Government and the Porte, and at the present moment we may say the progress is satisfactory, though the negotiations are still going on; and I am not at this moment in a position to lay the Papers on the subject on the Table of the House. They will, however, be produced as soon as possible. I forget whether there was any other point which my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich mentioned particularly.
  With regard to Cyprus, I hope we may before long be in a position to lay the Papers on the Table; and I wish to say with reference to Cyprus in connection with some observations which I made a month or two ago which seem to have been misunderstood—that we have had very careful estimates prepared, and that so far as those estimates go we are very much encouraged to hope that the revenue of the Island will more than cover the expenditure, exclusive of those matters which belong to the military arrangements. At present that is such a serious exception, that lam not able to
  118
  go into the question; but the House may be sure it is a matter that engages our attention, and we do not think it is at all probable that Cyprus will be the burden upon us that some persons have supposed. With regard to the expenditure generally, so far as we are able to make any estimate of it, including, of course, military expenditure, the information which I have received from the spending departments encourages me to hope that at the end of the year we shall be able to show that the estimates of the year have not been exceeded. I am sorry I cannot give a thoroughly satisfactory report of some branches of the Revenue; but the course of the Revenue for the last month has been of a character more encouraging than we have recently found it to be: but I do not wish to forecast that about which I am really in the dark.
  I now come to a subject which has formed the principal topic of discussion this evening; and I, in the first place, want to assure the noble Lord opposite that I greatly regret that there should have been any delay in the presentation of the Papers which have been laid on the Table of the House. I do not know that there is any blame to be attached to anyone for that delay. The selection of Papers, which are contained in a large mass of correspondence, and which had to be looked over for a series of years, has unavoidably taken up a good deal of time; and when it is necessary, as it has been on this occasion, to consult persons who are affected by the publication of the Papers, a further delay takes place. We did not, till a very recent period, anticipate that it would be necessary to call Parliament together, or to make any appeal to it on this subject. We fully believed—and I think had very good ground for believing—that the necessity which has arisen would not arise. We were fully impressed with the belief—which was also the belief of Lord Lytton—that the Mission we proposed to send to the Ameer at Cabul would be received, and that this unfortunate necessity would not occur. When it did occur, we lost no time in taking the necessary steps for advising Her Majesty to call Parliament together, and in setting about the preparation of the Papers which have been laid before Parliament. The noble Lord complains that while this preparation of Papers

  119
  was going on, the Government took a step in advance by publishing separately a particular despatch of Viscount Cranbrook, summing up the case of the Government, and explaining to the country the views of the Government on the situation of affairs; and the noble Lord intimates that by so doing we were producing an unfair impression, and taking a course which we had no right to take—laying our own case before the country before there was an opportunity of the whole of the Papers being in the hands of the public at large. I can assure the noble Lord there was no intention in the publication of that despatch to endeavour unfairly to prejudice the public mind. We knew the subject was one which, to a great extent, the public were unacquainted with. We knew it was very desirable their attention should be drawn as speedily as possible to the outline of the case, which we endeavoured to present as fairly as it could be done, and which I venture to think we did present fairly. I am not disposed to admit there is a shadow of reason to impute to us anything in the nature of distortion or suppression, or any unfair dealing with the statements we made in that despatch. But there must be, in an account of transactions extending over so many years, and in which so many Governments have been concerned, and so many distinguished persons have taken an active part, and which were of themselves difficult and complicated transactions—there must be many occasions on which different views will prevail, and on which those who are interested will desire to state their case in a different way from that in which it would appear to the Government of the day. And I cannot but think that some advantages have arisen from the publication—premature, if you like to call it—of the despatch of Viscount Cranbrook, because it has given the opportunity to those who are interested in the matter to lay hold of the points to which they wish to draw attention, and to give the answers which they had thought themselves entitled and bound to give. I am told that no opportunity of an answer was given. I really think that is an extraordinary view for anyone to take who considers what has taken place, and what controversy has arisen since the publication of that despatch. If such controversy could go on when no oppor-
  120
  tunity of an answer was given, what would have gone on if an opportunity had been given I cannot conceive. After all, the despatch only anticipated the publication of all the Papers and the meeting of Parliament, by a very short period; and I must say that it gives very fair notice of the particular points on which explanation may be desired, while its result has been to assist the elucidation of the whole subject. The noble Lord goes on to make a much more serious charge. He imputes that we have introduced into that despatch a paragraph which, according to his view, misrepresented—and almost wilfully misrepresented—the conduct of our Predecessors at an important stage of these transactions. I quite agree with the noble Lord that the relations between statesmen sitting on different sides of the House, and who represent different Parties in the country, ought to be maintained upon a footing of perfect honour and confidence in respect of the representations they make of the conduct of their opponents. We may differ—and we do differ—very widely upon questions of policy; we may—and do—differ very widely upon matters of the greatest importance; and we may express our opinions—and it is well we should do so—with freedom and vigour; yet anything like an unfair representation of the conduct of an opponent is a matter which undoubtedly ought to be visited with most severe censure. But I can only say that having read and re-read the paragraph in question, and having examined and re-examined the correspondence on which that paragraph is founded, I can see no reason whatever for regretting or questioning the language of the paragraph in Lord Cranbrook's despatch. There ought to be no mistake about this despatch. Undoubtedly it was written, and it is signed by Lord Cranbrook; but it is also true that the despatch, before it was finally sent out, was submitted to the whole of the Cabinet, and that we are all responsible for the statements in that despatch—at all events, for the general character of the despatch. With regard to this paragraph 9, I think an undue amount of importance has been given to it in this respect: the noble Lord seems to imagine—as others have seemed to imagine—that our great object throughout this despatch, and espe-

  121
  cially this part of it, was to throw the blame of what has occurred on our Predecessors in 1873. Undoubtedly there is reason to doubt whether the conduct that was pursued in 1873 had the best results. Whether it was not, on the whole, open to the charge—I will not say charge, but to question—whether it was the proper policy to be adopted. But the great object that we had in writing the despatch, and in setting out this history, was not so much to throw blame on this Government or on that Government, but to show what the progress of events had been, and how matters had come into the state in which we found them when we were obliged to act a short time ago. But with respect to this particular paragraph, the substance and purport of it was that in 1873 certain communications were opened between Lord Northbrook and his Government in India and the Ameer of Afghanistan; that those communications led to an unsatisfactory result; and we attributed—undoubtedly it was a fair inference from the paragraph—that result, in a large measure at all events, to Her Majesty's Government at home. The paragraph certainly gives the impression that it was our belief that the Government at home had overruled Lord Northbrook in India. Lord Northbrook has since said that is not a true statement of the case. Of course, we know nothing of what may have been in the minds of Lord Northbrook or the Government, and we are bound to accept that statement. But allow me to say that if you read the different telegrams which passed between the Cabinet at home and the Government of India the suggestion which is contained in that paragraph is, at least, not an unnatural suggestion. I am sorry to trouble the House with extracts; but the challenge has been made, and it is on a point as to which it is desirable we should not submit to have it said that we are dealing unfairly with our opponents. I must therefore read some portion of this Correspondence. The matter begins in this way—There is a telegram from the Viceroy at Simla to the Secretary of State in London, dated June 27, 1873, and in that we read—
  "We think it for interests of peace that Russia should know our relations with Afghanistan, and we say in paragraph 18: 'Although we have abstained from entering into any Treaty
  122
  engagement to support the Ameer by British troops in the event of Afghanistan being attacked from without, yet the complete independence of Afghanistan is so important to the interests of British India that the Government of India could not look upon an attack upon Afghanistan with indifference. So long as the Ameer continues as he has hitherto done in accordance with our advice in his relations with his neighbours, he would naturally look for material assistance from us; and circumstances might occur under which we should consider it incumbent upon us to recommend Her Majesty's Government to render him such assistance.' I propose to inform Cabul Envoy of sense of this paragraph."—[Afghanistan, No. 1, pp. 102–3.]
  What is the answer he receives to that telegram? It is one which certainly appears in the nature of throwing cold water on the proposal. It is dated July 1, from the Secretary of State in London to the Viceroy at Simla—
  "I do not object to the general sense of the paragraph, which you quote as a communication to Russia from the Foreign Office, but great caution is necessary in assuring Ameer of material assistance which may raise undue and unfounded expectation. He already shows symptoms of claiming more than we may wish to give."—[Ibid. p. 108.]
  That is rather holding back than otherwise, and to a certain extent qualifying the intention of the Viceroy. A short time afterwards, on the 24th of July, after communications had been opened with the Ameer, the Viceroy telegraphs—
  "Ameer of Cabul alarmed at Russian progress, dissatisfied with general assurance, and anxious to know definitely how far he may rely on our help if invaded. I propose assuring him that if he unreservedly accepts and acts on our advice in all external relations we will help him with money, arms, and troops, if necessary, to expel unprovoked invasion. We to be the judge of the necessity."—[Ibid.]
  To which Her Majesty's Government at home reply—
  "Cabinet thinks you should inform Ameer that we do not at all share his alarm, and consider there is no cause for it: but you may assure him we shall maintain our settled policy in favour of Afghanistan, if he abides by our advice in external affairs."—[Ibid.]
  I do not deny that those telegrams may have been perfectly well understood between the Secretary of State and the Viceroy to mean that they were entirely in accord as to what they were to do; but certainly the impression of anyone reading the Papers would be that the Ameer was dissatisfied with that indefinite understanding known by the name

  123
  of "our settled policy;" that the Viceroy had been anxious to say something more definite; and that the language of the Cabinet at home had been rather to throw cold water upon that, and to suggest that the Cabinet did not at all share the alarm of the Ameer. If we turn to Lord Cranbrook's despatch, what do we find in the 9th paragraph?
  "Finding that the object of the Ameer was to ascertain definitely how far he might rely on the help of the British Government if his territories were threatened by Russia, Lord North-brook's Government was prepared to assure him that, under certain conditions, the Government of India would assist him to repel unprovoked aggression. But Her Majesty's Government at home did not share his Highness's apprehension"—
  That is perfectly true—
  "and the Viceroy ultimately informed the Ameer that the discussion of the question would be best postponed to a more convenient season."—[Ibid. p. 262.]
  Just so. What was the effect which this communication produced upon the Ameer?
  MR. GOSCHEN: You have not read what was said to the Ameer. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!]
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Here it is, at page 114 of the Correspondence.
  "The Envoy observed that at the previous interview His Excellency had said that if, in the event of any aggression from without, British influence were invoked and failed by negotiation to effect a satisfactory settlement, it was probable that the British Government would in that case afford the Ruler of Afghanistan material assistance in repelling an invader. His Excellency had also said that such assistance would of course be conditional on the Ameer following the advice of the British Government, and having himself abstained from aggression. Now the Ameer, in expectation of the assistance of the British Government, had up to the present time followed the advice of the Viceroy as regards abstinence from aggression, and in the event of assistance being given would continue to follow that policy."
  He goes on to point out that we did not give him sufficient re-assurance. Then the Viceroy made this peculiar communication to him—
  "The Viceroy replied that the British Government did not share the Ameer's apprehensions, but that as already mentioned, in the previous conversation, it would be the duty of the Ameer, in case of any actual or threatened aggression, to refer the question to the British Government, who would endeavour by negotiation and by every means in their power to
  124
  settle the matter and avert hostilities. It was not intended, by insisting on such previous reference to the British Government, to restrict or interfere with the power of the Ameer as an independent Ruler to take such steps as might be necessary to repel any aggression on his territories; but such reference was a preliminary and essential condition of the British Government assisting him." [Mr. GOSCHEN: Go on.] "In such event should these endeavours of the British Government to bring about an amicable settlement prove fruitless, the British Government are prepared to assure the Ameer that they will afford him assistance in the shape of arms and money, and will also in case of necessity aid him with troops."
  The Viceroy thought the Ameer should hold this assurance to be sufficient. The Envoy then pressed that the contingency of an act of aggression on the part of Russia should be expressly mentioned in the letter. He was answered that this suggestion could not be adopted, for the British Government were not prepared to admit the possibility of such a contingency occurring. Now, let me conclude this part of the story by referring to the answer which the Ameer gives, at page 119—
  "All that has been written regarding the northern boundary I have fully understood, and I offer up my grateful thanks to the Almighty that peace and tranquillity have, praise be to God, been established in all States in perpetuity, and that doubts and disputes have on every side been removed; and that such security has been established in all countries that no aggressions will take place, nor will any Power raise discussions or disputes with another within the dominions of that Power; and that the use of inimical expressions has been discontinued in diplomatic correspondence, and that peace and tranquillity have been secured to the whole world."
  Then he goes on and says, in effect—"Under all these circumstances, why was it necessary to hold all these conversations?" I have intervened so far with these quotations from the Correspondence because of the challenge of the noble Lord opposite. I do not for one moment dispute that Lord Northbrook acted entirely in accordance with his own judgment in what he said, and that it was not in consequence of a communication from the Cabinet, although a suggestion appeared to have come from the Cabinet. But it was impossible in reading these despatches not to remember that when Lord Mayo, in his former dealings with the Ameer in 1869, made certain communications to the Ameer, he was taken to task by the Secretary of State of that

  125
  same Government, and he had to explain and satisfy them that he had not gone too far in what he had said, which, being of a more definite character, had been quite satisfactory, as we know, to the Ameer. I cannot help thinking that a sort of assurance might have been given by Lord Northbrook, if he had been left as free as Lord Mayo was, to say in what form assistance would be given, and to explain under what circumstances it would be given. There was just that sort of restriction which might be represented by the difference between drinking a glass of champagne fresh out of the bottle and drinking it after it had been allowed to stand for a while. I have no doubt that the effect of all the qualifications insisted upon by Lord Northbrook was to produce upon the mind of the Ameer a wholly different impression from that which would have been produced by more definite assurances. I do not find fault with the Government of that day for what they did. They were placed in great difficulty. The British Government has, throughout its dealings with Afghanistan, been placed in a position which was necessarily difficult and, complicated. All I have to point out is, that the attempt to deal with Afghanistan in the way in which we have for many years attempted to deal with it has led to misunderstanding and difficulties; and I cannot doubt that many of those difficulties have been occasioned by errors of judgment, though perfectly honest and honourable. But we are going, by-and-bye, to have a more solemn and serious debate on this question, and it will be the duty of the Under Secretary of State for India, when he states the case and makes a proposal to the House, to take a more general view of our relations from time to time with Afghanistan than I have now done. But the noble Lord has brought another charge of a much more serious character against the Government. He threw out the suggestion that Her Majesty's Government and the Viceroy of India have been guilty of a deliberate intention to pick a quarrel with the Ameer. Now, that is about the most serious charge that could be made. Pick a quarrel which is to bring about a war in which, whatever may be our successes, we must suffer considerably, and in which we must, under any circumstances, inflict great suffering! To bring
  126
  about a quarrel for the purpose of attaining some object which we do not like to avow is one of the most serious charges that can be made against the Government. It is with the very deepest regret we find ourselves involved in a war at all. It is with the greatest possible reluctance that we have been brought by the force of circumstances to the position in which we find ourselves; and with all our admiration for the gallantry of our troops and for the military operations which have, so far, been conducted, we yet hope that the war will be of very short duration. But with all these qualifications, it cannot but be a matter of most serious regret that we should be forced into such a position; and to say that the Government and the Viceroy have deliberately brought about that state of things, and deliberately picked a quarrel, is to make a very serious charge indeed against the Government. I utterly and entirely deny the charge of the noble Lord. I need not now go through what the case of the Government really is in this matter, because the noble Lord opposite has done it for us. In the most complete and lucid way he stated what he understood to be the case of the Government, and he stated it with the most perfect accuracy. It was, and it always has been, our desire to live upon terms of friendship and to maintain good relations with the Ameer of Afghanistan. Our great object, and the object of all successive Governments, has been but one. We have never desired to enlarge our territories or to annex fresh soil, and certainly not such a country as Afghanistan; but what we have felt it our duty to provide for as well as we could was the security of India. Let me remind the House that it is a question not of ambition, or prestige, or covetousness, or anything of that kind. We are under obligations to those hundreds of millions of subjects who are under our charge in India to procure for them such tranquillity and opportunities for the development of the country as it may be possible for us to do. Whatever difficulties there may be lying in our way, the general effect of the British rule in India, I think, has been to produce happiness among its people, and if our rule were overturned it could not fail to occasion the most serious mischief. The Government has been desirous to prevent this injury, and

  127
  to maintain the confidence of the Native population in the British rule. Our power in India rests upon two bases—justice and strength, and it is absolutely impossible you can maintain security unless you are known to be strong. What is the quarter from which danger has been apprehended? It is the North-West, and it has been the object of successive Viceroys in every possible way to prevent and obviate danger from that quarter. We have endeavoured to do that for a long series of years, by keeping up, as far as possible, friendly relations with Afghanistan, and preventing others from interposing there. I do not propose to go into that question further; but I say that that is the object we have sought to attain throughout. Opinions I have formerly expressed have been referred to. Well, Sir, I hold those opinions as strongly as ever I did. I desire now, as ever, to abstain from the taking of an unnecessary step; but when we saw that a Russian Mission was received at Cabul at a time when an English Mission was refused—and refused on two grounds—one, that they could not receive any Mission at all; the other, that if they received an English they must receive a Russian Mission—it was absolutely impossible, if we were to have regard to the question of our security, for us to remain inactive. The noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman have intimated that, perhaps, we ought to have gone to Russia; and the noble Lord assumes and implies that we did not. Well, but we did. We made inquiries at St. Petersburg as to what the Mission was. And what was the answer we received? It was, that the Mission was sent under circumstances now happily passed away. A friendly character was given to the Mission. But does the noble Lord suppose that we could stop the danger that was going on in that part of the world by communications with St. Petersburg? Does he not know that there is this real difficulty—that the Government of Russia is often ignorant of what is going on in the neighbourhood of Afghanistan and in Central Asia, or is powerless to prevent or control the proceedings of its officers. It was necessary for us to take some step to secure our proper position in Central Asia. We acted upon that principle, and we sent a Mission with every precaution that could suggest itself to us, so that it might be
  128
  received in a friendly manner. It was a Mission at the head of which was an officer well known to the Ameer—a friend of the Ameer's—and whose views were of the most pacific character. It was sent with every circumstance of care and caution, that it might not interfere with the mourning then going on in the Ameer's Court. How was it met? It was met with hostile interruption upon territory which did not belong to the Ameer, for it was in a Pass which belongs to tribes more or less independent of the Ameer, but upon whom he put pressure, under threats of punishment, to refuse acquiescence to our passage, after they had assisted the Mission to come in a friendly way towards the Pass. Under these circumstances, what alternative had we? I venture to say that when the case is fully stated, and the judgment of the House is asked upon it, it will be very difficult, indeed, to show that the course taken by Her Majesty's Government was not forced upon us, or was one which we could have avoided without serious danger to British interests or the interests of the people of India. Well, Sir, something has been said as to the probable extent and limits of this war. It is impossible at this moment, when military operations are going on, to speak with confidence on such matters. Our object is clear. It is not aggrandisement; it is not annexation of large Provinces or the extension of our territory; but it is the security of our Frontier. How that security is to be obtained is a matter on which very serious attention must be bestowed. I hope and trust, from all we hear and read, that this calamitous struggle will be of short duration. I hope and trust that the arrangements which will be made may be such as to give confidence, and secure for us that Frontier which we have hitherto been unable to secure. This, at all events, I am able to say—that it is a struggle which has been forced upon us by the conviction that it was our duty to the people of England, and to the people of India more particularly, that we should not allow the dangerous state of things to which I have referred to continue; that we ought to make clear that which has hitherto been a matter of suspicion; that we should ascertain what were the feelings towards us of the Ameer; that we should take steps to vindicate our honour, which is essential as part of our

  129
  strength in India; and also that we should take steps to secure that which is the great object at which we have always aimed, and still aim—namely, the security of our Indian Frontier.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, it was not his intention to enter into the struggle which had been going on between the two front Benches with regard to the merits of the Afghan Question in the past—struggles which would probably be resumed at an early day. He rose for the purpose of asking for the presentation to the House of information which it was absolutely necessary should be placed in the hands of hon. Members. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken with an air of injured innocence as to charges which had been made by the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington) with respect to the Government; but the right hon. Gentleman must be aware of the tone which had been taken out-of-doors by some of his supporters, and also in the Press, as to Members of former Governments, and the charge which had been made to the effect that the present war was traceable to their policy and conduct. It was impossible that they could sit down quietly under such accusations, or not take the first possible opportunity of putting themselves right before the country. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that inquiries as to the character of the Russian Mission had been made at St. Petersburg, and that the Government had received assurances of a satisfactory nature; but the Papers showed that no satisfactory assurances had been received, and that the despatch which was sent to St. Petersburg immediately after the rising of Parliament required the withdrawal of the Mission, and was little short of an ultimatum. The despatches of the late Government and their Viceroy had been criticized; but it would be seen that the present Government held almost the same language as their Predecessors. The House was told in 1875 that if confidential Papers could be produced, it would be seen that the relations between this country and Russia were harmonious, and yet at that time all the acts now complained of had taken place, and they all remembered the speech of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, in which he said that he felt no alarm at the advance of Russia; that there was room
  130
  enough in Asia for England and Russia. The noble Lord spoke on that occasion with General Kaufmann's letter in his pocket. These were matters he would not then go further into, as he had merely risen to ask for further Papers which it was absolutely necessary they should have before they could give an opinion upon this war. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had not explained the delay in the production of the Central Asian Papers, which had been promised within a few days after the 15th of August, but had been kept back to the last moment before the meeting of Parliament, although they were essential to the understanding of these questions. Was it consistent with the ordinary observances of the House that, having actually laid Papers on the Table of the House in August last, under the title of "Central Asia, No 1," there should be delivered to hon. Members on Saturday last as part of the same Papers despatches three months later in date? But several Papers of the most vital importance had not been given to hon. Members at all. Surely Lord Lytton's Proclamation of War ought to be laid on the Table. Lord Lytton had been made to say in it that the Ameer had "openly and assiduously attempted, both by words and deeds, to incite war against the British Empire in India." There was not, as far as he knew, any evidence in support of this statement; and he should certainly like to know why a document containing it was not laid before the House, in order that it might be compared with the milder allegation of the hon. Member who had seconded the Address, that there was an "ill-concealed enmity" between the Ameer of Afghanistan and the Government of the Queen. Next, then, came the four letters written by the Commissioner at Peshawur, and referred to by the Ameer. These letters also should be before them. Perhaps they might serve the Ameer's view, and if they did they ought to be known here. They had, he understood, been published in India. The Instructions upon which Sir Neville Chamberlain would have acted had he reached Cabul would be a document in which the House would find the Government policy very clearly laid down. The Government might refuse to present these Instructions to the House; and, if so, hon. Members could

  131
  account for the refusal in their own way. He threw on the Government the responsibility of assenting or refusing to assent to their publication. At page 170 of the Afghan Papers, paragraph 34, there would be found an extraordinary statement alleged to be made by the Representative of the Ameer. That man was one of the ablest diplomatists in his service, yet he was represented in these Papers as saying that since his own absence from the Cabul Durbar His Highness had fallen under mischievous influences, which he himself deplored and condemned. He found nothing in the Papers to explain that statement, and he was inclined to think there was some mistake in the translation from the Persian, for he could not understand how so able and astute a man could make such an admission. If it was true, they ought to know what the mischievous influences were, and if it was not it ought to be rectified. Then at page 180 some extracts from a conversation at Simla with our British Native Agent at Cabul were given. Extracts were generally unsatisfactory; and it was almost always possible to make an extract report the very contrary of the tenour of the document or report from which it was taken. Sir Charles Wingfield, a great Indian authority, had represented Shere Ali as saying that the chief reason for his estrangement from the Indian Government was the fact of his having read in Sir Henry Rawlinson's works that the policy that was being pursued by the British Government towards Afghanistan was a policy of annexation. Was he right in believing that that part of the conversation omitted in the extracts was the part in which the Ameer's Agent said that? He came now to matters outside the Afghanistan Question. In the Speech there was a paragraph about the Treaty of Berlin. The noble Lord who moved the Address said that one result of the meeting of Parliament would be that no Power would check the carrying out of the Treaty; and the hon. Member who seconded it said, further, that on the carrying out of the Treaty of Berlin would depend the revival of trade. In that he quite agreed with the hon. Member; but he was greatly mistaken if he supposed the Treaty of Berlin was going to be carried out very soon. He had no doubt that the Russian
  132
  troops would retire by the stipulated time; but it would be still a very long step indeed to the final execution of the Treaty, and they might expect a formidable insurrection in Southern Bulgaria before that result would be consummated. We had been committed to certain engagements with Turkey. Were we ready to be a party to compelling the South Bulgarians to accept a Government, even when they opposed it by revolt? He would remind the noble Lord who moved the Address that his great Predecessor in the title constantly refused to impose by force upon a people a form of Government against which they maintained any reasonable sort of objection. Lord Castlereagh, who was so unpopular in consequence of the violence of his repressive principles with regard to a portion of this country, never would have gone so far as to impose by force upon foreigners a form of Government they did not like. This led him to ask for Papers on this subject. There had been a great many Papers in connection with the carrying out of the Treaty of Berlin, and surely there were many of those Papers which might be produced without the least inconvenience, such as the German Circular to the Powers in August, and their answers, the German Circular to Turkey, the French despatches recommending Turkey to carry out the suggestions of the Congress with regard to Greece. Would the Government present the past Papers with regard to Greece, the Greek Circulars of August last and our reply, and the French Circular of the 22nd October, to which we only replied on the 21st November, after every other Power had answered it? There were Papers published during the Recess with regard to the negotiations between this country, France, and Egypt. They were complete as far as they went; but they made no mention of previous communications. It was well known, however, that the Government went out of its way to make communications to the French Government respecting Egypt; and there was one in which they said that, under no circumstances, would they take any steps for the annexation of Egypt. He did not know whether there were any more Papers on this subject. The present Government seemed inclined to give Parliament a vast mass of information on subjects which were not so

  133
  material, and to keep them in the dark with regard to important matters essential to the understanding of our position. With respect to Egypt, he would make this remark. Lord Salisbury alluded in his despatch to the Correspondence between the English, French, and Austrian Governments with respect to the Tripartite Treaty; but M. Waddington went further in his reply to Lord Salisbury, and spoke about the clandestine Convention between ourselves and Turkey, and mentioned that France and Austria refused to act under the provisions of the Tripartite Treaty. That meant that they had been asked to act together with England in maintaining the integrity of the Ottoman Empire, and had refused. He wanted to know when that proposal was made to France and Austria? This was of great importance, because they had been told very early in the Eastern troubles by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that the Tripartite Treaty must be looked upon as virtually dead, and it seemed to him that after that statement was made France and Austria were invited to intervene by force to maintain the integrity of the Ottoman Empire. He also wanted to know what was the present situation with regard to Merv? The Government had attached very great importance indeed to the possession of Merv by Russia; and he should like to know whether there was any information to disprove the very serious rumours which were afloat on this question? More information was also needed with regard to Cyprus, previous questions in reference to that subject having been answered in an un-candid way in that House. The very question as to jurisdiction and sovereignty, which had been pooh-poohed last Session by the Solicitor General as highly speculative, had arisen in regard to the trial of an American before a Court presided over by a Turkish cadi, and at which the assessor was an Englishman. A conviction for digging up antiquities was obtained under a Turkish statute, and the antiquities were confiscated. The point was raised whether the Court was a Turkish or an English one; the defendant maintaining that if it was an English Court he should be tried by English law, and that if it was a Turkish Court he ought to be tried by the Consul. The Consul had been appealed to, and, as the American Government did not pass over
  134
  these matters quietly, there had no doubt been some communications with the Government. Information was thus needed not only with regard to the health of Cyprus—which, he feared, from the reports of to-day, was a serious question, for a diminution of the troops quartered there had been found necessary—but also with regard to the grave question of jurisdiction and future sovereignty. Parliament, unless otherwise informed, must treat as idle rumours stories as to a new secret Convention handing over Cyprus entirely to us; but it was important that in any new arrangement between England and Turkey Parliament should not leave these matters in the unsatisfactory position in which they now stood.
  MR. BOURKE: I only rise to trespass on the attention of the House for two or three minutes in consequence of what has just fallen from the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea. I am very far from complaining of any remarks of his. On my part, and on the part of the Government, I may state that we are always ready to give every Paper to the Members of this House which they ask for, provided it can be given with due regard to the public interests. It is very difficult to know what are the Papers which shall be presented to Parliament. After the Government have done all their duty in a matter, certain parts of a question, or certain other questions, may occur to hon. Members of this House, and therefore all the Papers required are not always produced at first. I can only say that all the Papers he may want with respect to the Foreign Office, if he would only give me Notice of them, I will do my best to produce to the House, and it will not be on any small or narrow ground that they will be refused. With regard to one or two remarks which were hardly worthy of the position the hon. Baronet holds in this House, and with regard to "extracts" which he thought were occasionally garbled and not produced by the Government with a very good intention——
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I did not allude to the present Government; I was referring to something that occurred some years ago.
  MR. BOURKE: Then I have nothing more to say upon that point. I am very glad, indeed, to have elicited that

  135
  expression from the hon. Baronet. There is another question upon which the hon. Baronet did say something, and upon which I am anxious to say a few words myself. I certainly did at the end of last Session use the words which he has attributed to me, and have never denied them for one moment, either in public or in private conversation, and those words were that the Central Asian Papers would be produced "in a few days." The fact of the matter is this—when I answered that Question I consulted those whom it was my duty to consult; and having satisfied myself that the Papers should be, and could be, produced within that period, I used the words "a few days" advisedly. The Vacation then began, and the preparation of those Papers did not cease, because the preparation of them was confided to one of the ablest and most industrious public servants we have, and he went on with the task. But events soon occurred which made it perfectly clear that the Papers which we intended to present, and which we thought would be sufficient at that time, would be inadequate, with regard to Central Asia. It was therefore determined that a very much larger series of Papers should be presented, and therefore an examination of the Central Asian documents for the last 13 years had to be undertaken. The Register for the last six years contains 15,000 documents; therefore, the examination of the Papers for 13 years was no light task. I, during the Recess, reminded the Office on several occasions of the promise I had given, and I also heard on several occasions of the subject from the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett). I have throughout done my best to have the Papers produced; but they were delayed, in the first instance, owing to the press of business, and, in the next place, owing to the great mass which had to be examined. All I need add is, that we were as anxious as any hon. Member could be that they should be presented, and that the statement that they would be produced "in a few days" was made by me in perfectly good faith. I hope this explanation will be sufficient for the House and for the hon. Baronet; and, at the same time, I think I may say that no great difficulty or inconvenience has been caused by the Papers not being produced. With
  136
  regard to one expression used by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea, "that the Papers had been kept back," I must say the Papers were not kept back for one moment; but, on the contrary, we have done our best to get them forward; so, as to having any intention to keep them back, such an intention has not existed for one moment. The hon. Baronet has already made a statement with regard to the Berlin Treaty; but I may say that we have no reason to suppose that any Power in Europe has any intention of not carrying out that Treaty; and I am sure the hon. Baronet will attach importance to what has been said by M. Waddington on the subject. M. Waddington, at a dinner which was given a few weeks ago in his honour, said, with regard to the Berlin Treaty and the work which has been accomplished by the French Plenipotentiaries—
  "They have inaugurated peace; they have constantly supported the great principles on which our modern society rests. They have maintained the honour and dignity of France, and they have brought back for her from Berlin the esteem and respect of Europe. The work of the Congress has been, and is still, the object of attacks as passionate as they are unjust. The moment for judging it as a whole has not yet arrived, and can arrive only when it has been completely carried out. The Treaty of Berlin is a work of compromise and equilibrium, whereby the Powers, while taking account of accomplished facts, have sought, as far as was possible, to conciliate a host of conflicting pretensions, claims, and resistances. I regard it as an equitable and comparatively durable solution of the Eastern Question; but on one condition—that' it shall be completely and loyally carried out in all its stipulations, without exception, to ensure which result the French Government will devote all its efforts. The Prefect has spoken of apaisement. It is a word I always hear with pleasure; but there is one I like still better—it is peace. We have at Berlin secured you peace abroad. May it soon be equally profound at home, and take root in the heart and mind of every Frenchman who loves his country. I give the health of the President of the Republic, the highest personification of French Fatherland."
  That was the sentiment by which Her Majesty's Government were animated in carrying out the Treaty of Berlin, and I wish to state that they are entirely in accord with the French Government on the subject. With regard to Greece, the hon. Baronet has already been informed by my right hon. Friend, that it would be impossible to present the Papers with respect to that country

  137
  at this moment. The negotiations are going on, and I can say they are favourable to the sentiments of Her Majesty's Government. As to the document to which the hon. Baronet has alluded on the subject of the Tripartite Treaty, I am not sure whether it is of any great importance now whether it is shown or whether it is not that Her Majesty's Government have asked the other Powers to join in communications on the subject. It is extremely unlikely, because unnecessary; and I do not think for one moment that the idea was entertained by Her Majesty's Government of asking the other Powers. With regard to the Central Asian Papers connected with the execution of the Berlin Treaty, if the hon. Baronet will kindly give me a list of the particular Papers which he wishes to have produced, and repeat his Question on Monday, I will then be prepared to give him an answer.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERtook this opportunity to ask for a little more information, especially on the point which was more particularly before them—the war with Afghanistan. Before that, he must state that although his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea asked for a great many Papers on a great many subjects, he yet gave good reasons for every question. He had been met very fairly by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; but there was one Paper which his hon. Friend would find it extremely difficult to include in the list which he had been invited to give in, because it was not actually a despatch, but a statement of M. Waddington. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) had only one more remark to make with regard to the general question, and that was as to the state of the negotiations, or the conditions to which this country and the Government stood committed with regard to Bulgaria and Eastern Roumelia. There appeared to be a feeling abroad that the English power might be used to prevent the people of Bulgaria being a united Commonwealth. Now, he would not enter into the question of the expediency of dividing Bulgaria; but he knew there was nothing that a large part of the population would look upon with more distaste than the use of the English power to put down such a union as that of the two Bulgarias. He entirely supported his hon. Friend in saying he trusted the Govern-
  138
  ment were not in any way committing the country without giving information, so that the House might form a judgment as to the ground on which they did so. His hon. Friend had anticipated him in two or three questions he was going to ask with regard to Papers that had been given to the House upon this country's position in Afghanistan. In the first place, he alluded to the Proclamation of War. He supposed that would be given. [Mr. E. STANHOPE: Yes, it is given to-night.] His hon. Friend had alluded to the terms of that Proclamation. He understood it went back for some time past, and supposed it referred to those acts which were alluded to in that part of Lord Lytton's despatch which appeared in page 170; but he did not think his hon. Friend quite described the full weight of the ground upon which the House might fairly ask for a little more information. At page 170 an account was given by Lord Lytton of the Peshawur Conference. In paragraph 33 of that despatch Sir Lewis Pelly is reported to have demanded from the Envoy an explanation of the reported hostility of the Ameer's conduct. The Envoy is stated to have replied that the reports which had reached us of the Ameer's utterances were much exaggerated, and he feared His Highness had fallen under influences which he must condemn. In the enclosures there were most detailed memoranda of all the interviews between Sir Lewis Pelly and the Minister of the Ameer, and yet there was no mention of this demand, or of the answer thereto. The question he (Mr. W. E. Forster) wished to ask was whether there was not some such allusion; and, if there was not, upon what Lord Lytton founded his statement in the 33rd and 34th paragraphs, that there was a demand for explanation, and that the Envoy gave it? He could not find in the detailed account either the demand or the explanation. One other Paper he should like to ask for, which was not of great importance; but he thought they should have the letter from Captain Grey, alluded to in the Memorandum by Dr. Bellew, in page 195. This letter he wanted produced; because, though he could not put his hand on the statement, he knew it was in the despatches, that one reason why the Indian Government believed the Ameer was hostile

  139
  was that he thought this Minister was prejudiced against him. With respect to the letters referred to in the despatch which Lord Cranbrook called the evasive letter, perhaps they were not in England. [Mr. E. STANHOPE: Yes, they are.] Then, again, the Nawab Gholam Hussein Khan was sent to sound the Ameer as to whether he would receive Sir Neville Chamberlain, and the practice was in Indian matters for a gentleman sent on a mission to make a Report. If he did make a Report, and if it was in England, would it be produced? If it was not, would the Government telegraph for it? He could not help thinking that the Report would throw a great deal of light upon the Ameer's conduct. The only other request for additional information which he would make referred to a different matter. The policy with regard to the admission of British Residents in Afghanistan had been admitted on all sides to have been changed by Lord Salisbury, who wrote on the 22nd of January to Lord Northbrook, and again on the 19th of November, in a tone which undoubtedly denoted a great change of policy. The question he was going to ask was, whether there were any opinions given by any Members of the Indian Council in England on the matter, and whether they would be produced? He could not think that there was anything in any of these Papers which the Government would refuse to give to the House. He had only one other remark to make, and it was with reference to the question as between the present Government and the Government he had had the honour of being connected with. It might be thought unseemly that there should be bickerings between two front Benches, between the present Ministers and the late Ministers, with regard to their past conduct when the country was in a difficult position, and when they were engaged in so very important a matter; yet the Opposition could not, with a due regard to their own honour, allow charges to be made against them without making some reply. He only wished, very briefly, just to state what the country, generally speaking, understood by Lord Cranbrook's despatch. They understood, first, that Lord North-brook and the Government did not agree as to the treatment of the Ameer; that, in consequence of that disagreement, Lord
  140
  Northbrook informed the Ameer that the discussion as to his reception of a Resident had better be postponed to a more convenient season, and that the result was that no assurances were given to the Ameer. He was confident that it was the impression of the country that the Ameer wanted assurances against Russia; that Lord Northbrook was prepared to give these assurances; and that it was owing to the action of the Home Government that they were not given. Now, the facts were these—that Lord Northbrook proceeded to give certain assurances containing the word "probable," and that it was in consequence of a telegram he received from the Home Government that he missed out the word "probable," and gave to his assurances a stronger character. The question of the assurances was not postponed. On the contrary, in the Blue Book there are positive statements made by Lord Salisbury and Lord Lytton, that assurances were given against aggression. He thought they had some right to complain of the right hon. Gentleman dwelling upon the refusal of Lord Northbrook to insert in his communication to the Ameer a distinct reference to a possible aggression on the part of Russia; because they had every reason to believe that for two years, at least, thereafter the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues would have taken up precisely the same ground. Lord Northbrook was given to understand by the Government that the policy of their Predecessors was approved.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGU*: Sir, a reference has been made by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. W. E. Forster) to some "acts of hostility" supposed to have been committed by the Ameer of Afghanistan against the English nation. No such acts could have been committed prior to the conclusion of the Peshawur Conferences in the month of May of last year; for Lord Lytton and the Indian Council wrote, in their despatch of May 10—
  "We see no reason to anticipate any act of aggression on the part of the present Ameer, or on our own part any cause of interference with His Highness. Our relations with him are still such as we commonly maintain with the Chiefs of neighbouring and friendly countries."—[Afghanistan, No. 1, p. 172.]
  Sir Lewis Pelly, moreover, on March 15, 1877, summed up the conclusions of the

  141
  Conference in a Paper for the Ameer's Envoy, and said—
  "The British Government harbours no hostile designs against Afghanistan. … The Afghan people may rest fully assured that so long as they are not excited by their Ruler, or others, to acts of aggression upon the territories or friends of the British Government, no British soldier will ever be permitted to enter Afghanistan uninvited. … The Ameer … need be under no apprehension whatever of any hostile action on the part of the British Government."—[Ibid. p. 220.]
  The supposed casus belli is simply and solely the refusal to receive, at the date named by Lord Lytton, an armed British Embassy of 1,000 strong. It is worth while to trace the causes of that refusal; for there is a patent and distinct chain of causes and effect, which brought about that refusal and the war. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has just accounted for the lateness of the production of the Papers—just a week before this time—and the short notice which was given for the assembling of Parliament—little more than a week—by saying that the Government had not at all expected a war; and that as soon as they saw that war was inevitable, they determined upon calling Parliament together. I was glad to hear that assertion; for it is as much as denying that the war was intentionally brought about, and a casus belli invented to serve a particular purpose. That, indeed, would be a crime too awful in its conception, and too heinous in its perpetration, for anyone calmly to contemplate. But if this be not true, then the Government may be accused of want of prescience in not foreseeing the war of which they had been warned by the Indian Council, and of blindness in not detecting a very manifest chain of causes and effect. At the time of our Afghan reverses, in 1842, a policy towards Afghanistan was inaugurated. That policy was to cultivate and maintain, by every means in our power, the goodwill and friendship of the Ameer, and, as a part of that policy, not to force upon him the location of European Envoys on his territory. That policy was perfected by Lord Canning; it was carried out by Lord Lawrence; it was endorsed and practised by Lard Mayo; and not repudiated by Lord Northbrook. During all that time, for 30 years, there has been an Indian Envoy at the Court of Cabul; but no British Envoy was forced upon
  142
  the Ameer. That policy was successful. On June 7, 1875, the Indian Government wrote, in a despatch to Lord Salisbury—
  "If we have formed a correct judgment of the sentiments of the Ameer towards the British Government, the main objects of the policy which was advocated by Lord Canning … are secured."—[Ibid. p. 134.]
  Lord Salisbury, however, comes to the India Office in 1874, and he soon determines to change the policy which had been maintained by so many successive Governments, and advocated by all who were acquainted with India, and which had been successful; he determined to change it, and adopt an opposite policy. He wrote a high-handed despatch, commanding a change of policy. The Indian Council replied by a dignified, but strong protest, warning him of the dangers which he was incurring. Lord Salisbury's despatch was written on January 22, 1875. The Indian protest was written on June 7th. On November 19th, Lord Salisbury sent a still more peremptory order, directing the appointment of a British Envoy. Again, Lord Northbrook and his Council remonstrated, protesting in strong and unmistakable terms—
  "We deprecate, as involving serious danger to the peace of Afghanistan and to the interests of the British Empire in India, the execution, under present circumstances, of the instructions conveyed in your Lordship's Despatch."—[Ibid. p. 155.]
  This was met by Lord Salisbury, and overriden, by a most peremptory order to carry out the opposite policy without a moment's delay. There is then a hiatus in the Blue Book. But we know that Lord Northbrook came home before his time, and that Lord Lytton was appointed. Lord Lytton had conferences with Lord Salisbury and the Russian Ambassador, Count Schouvaloff, and went to India to carry out the new policy. There was a new Council and a new Viceroy; and they wrote home in May, 1877, that the information concerning these conferences with the Russian Ambassador "influenced their considerations," and then they proceeded to affirm many things which they had a short time before most stoutly denied, in order to vindicate or at least exculpate the change of policy. Thus was the settled and time-honoured policy of 30 years reversed, and no

  143
  information is laid before the House of the grounds which "influenced" and brought about that change. We know not how or by what arguments that sudden volte-face, before the Russian Ambassador, was produced. It is now for the House to look at the results, not unpredicted and unwarned, and to judge of that change of policy. A policy approved and maintained by Parliament, by successive Administrations and Viceroys, has been suddenly and secretly altered, and Parliament knows not the reasons which induced the alteration. Unless the House of Commons is to be no more than a debating society, it must judge the acts of the Ministry, and hold them responsible for a change in a declared policy that Parliament had approved. The country expects the House to do this. Yet the information which alone can enable the House to arrive at this judgment, has not been laid before the House; and we are called together because the wilful change of policy has immediately resulted in a war, just as we were forewarned that it would. The fact I believe to be this—Lord Salisbury never apprehended the old policy, because of a most pernicious fallacy in his mind; and he initiated the new policy as a direct outcome of that fallacy. He could not understand the former policy, which has been termed "masterly inactivity," because he has no conception of any influence except brute force. He, for the same reason, disbelieved in the possibility of any Russian influence being exerted in Afghanistan or India, and told us to study "maps on a large scale," and see how far off India is from Russia; and he jeered at Russian power being felt in India, saying that you might just as well expect a Russian Army to march on the Cape of Good Hope. As he misjudged the former policy, so too when he found that Russian influence had become paramount at Cabul, he had no other idea of establishing English influence, except by brute force. Yet, "opinion is stronger than armies." That disbelief in anything except brute force is the grave error in Lord Salisbury's mind, which has proved fatal to our influence in the East, and has thrown Afghanistan into the arms of Russia, and given Russian policy full scope in Europe. He has, as I will presently show, been playing Russia's game, in fighting the Ameer, and
  144
  causing us to assume the character of aggressors, while Russia is enabled to appear as a protector. Lord Napier, in his able Memorandum on this question (at page 225 of the Papers)—a Memorandum penned on the very day of the signature of the Schouvaloff-Salisbury capitulation—May 30—says—"We have managed the Ameer badly. … the Afghans look upon us as a weak and treacherous people." That is very true; and all our recent acts and words have, I will show, tended to increase that distrust in the Ameer's mind. It will be found, by the Papers, that the Ameer reiterated frequently his profound distrust of the Russians. That feeling pervades, indeed, the whole of Central Asia. Thus we read in Sir Donald McLeod's Memorandum (page 47)—
  "All the information I have been enabled to obtain on the subject leads me to believe that there exists, throughout Central Asia, in the minds of all the most influential and best informed of its populations, a wide spread feeling of distrust and dislike of the Russians, as an aggressive and unscrupulous Power, who have brought their co-religionists (Mahommedans) to ruin and humiliation, in almost all quarters where their dominion has been established."
  That was written in 1868, before the events of the late war, the Berlin Treaty, and the Secret Agreement; or the same would have been also said of us. Another example of this feeling is given in the Ameer's letter of May 5, 1873 (page 110), in which he says—
  "It cannot be concealed that it is impossible for the Russians to remain always firm in their negotiations. For instance, they could not remain firm in their engagements about the Crimea even for a short period. My anxiety which I feel on account of the Russians will never be removed unless the British Government adorns the Afghan Government with great assistance in money and ammunitions of war for the troops, and unless great aid is given for the construction of strong forts throughout the Northern Afghan Border. And further, if an emergency arises from the Afghan Government to oppose the Russians, such opposition cannot take place without the co-operation of the disciplined troops of the British Government. … Time has approached very near, when the Russians, after taking possession of Urganj and Merve Shajehan, will make communications for exercising some influence in my kingdom."
  That was the state of feeling throughout Russia. They knew the Russians to be false, faithless, and robbers of territory by fraud and force. They recognized the fact that the Russian political prin-

  145
  ciple is—Destruction in order to annex. What should have been our line of conduct? We should have been careful to dissociate ourselves entirely from the Russians, and separated ourselves entirely from their proceedings. What was our line of conduct? On Gortchakoffs suggestion we did the very reverse. We set to work thoroughly to re-assure the Ameer (as we learn from page 211 and many other places). We told the Ameer that there is no danger from Russia; no precautions need be taken against Russia; Russia will never invade him, nor interfere in his territory; there is not the slightest reason to fear Russia. Lord Salisbury expatiated upon this theme in his speech about "large scale maps," and "Cape of Good Hope" re-assurance. Doubtless, that speech was read in Cabul, and the incredulous Afghans learned that we English considered that the inspection of a large map was enough to convince any sane man that the Russians could never reach Afghanistan, and that no apprehensions need be entertained of a Russian advance in Central Asia. But, at the same time, we were urging the Ameer to receive a British Envoy at Cabul, and English officers on his Northern Frontier. "I really cannot be answerable for their lives (reiterated the Ameer), my people have an ineradicable hatred to Europeans." Yet we continued to urge it vehemently. "Why then should you want to send Envoys and officers?" asked he. "Merely out of kindness; in order to protect your territory." "From whom?" "From Russian aggression." "That is but a pretext (thought he). You tell me not to fear Russian aggression, and yet you want to send Envoys and officers to protect me against Russian aggression. I suspect that you would send them to undermine my independence, so that you may make me a mere Indian Prince, or openly annex my territory." That was a very natural conclusion for him to arrive at, and that was the conclusion which he arrived at. Colonel Taylor, the British Commissioner at Umbeyla, wrote these words with regard to British officers in Afghanistan—
  "As a body, the Afghans do distrust us, and the re-appearance of fair faces in the streets of Cabul would not be popular, as they would be regarded as the forerunners of occupation."—[Ibid. p. 58.]
  146
  That was a very natural conclusion in regard to the real object in the urgency of British demands to send British. Envoys. The occupation of Quetta strengthened that suspicion. "It would be a very good step," said the Indian Government, "provided you could get the Ameer to concur in it; but not otherwise, as it would raise his suspicions." Look at the position of Quetta on the map; at the mouth of the Bolan Pass; excellent to bar an advance of the Russians; but no one fears an advance of the Russians; we are all thoroughly re-assured on that point. The only other use of it is, as a basis from which to effect a coup de main on Candahar, and then on Guzni, and then on Cabul. That was the next step to sow distrust, and to make the Ameer suspect our intentions. So that, as we re-assured the Ameer against all fears concerning Russia, as Prince Gortchakoff persuaded us to do, we were, in fact, causing him to distrust our own good intentions. Not content with this, the suggestion is quietly rumoured (as we find from the despatch of the Indian Government of May 10th, 1877) that the Ameer was "assumed to be dependent" on Great Britain. We are further told (page 166)—
  "Prince Gortchakoff had not been slow to fix upon us all the responsibilities of such a position. … It is the British Government which the Government of Russia would endeavour to hold responsible for the conduct of the Ameer."
  He had not only, then, been led, by our own words and acts, to mistrust us, and to suspect us; but he was induced to associate us in the same enterprize with the Russians, and we had so far succeeded that he was already regarded as a mere dependent of Great Britain. What was the effect on the Ameer? At the Peshawur Conferences, on May 19th, 1877, we find the Envoy saying significantly—You talk of danger? But danger is of two kinds, external and internal. Against all external danger you have re-assured me; you say there is none. There is then only a danger from within; and that is the very thing which I fear that your Envoys would cause. The mischief seemed, then, to have been already done; and it was worked by our own hands. Yet we were not content. We allowed ourselves to be inveigled into going further

  147
  in our mischievous re-assurance. The Envoy at the Peshawur Conferences was a cunning man. He bethought him of a delicate test. "You wish me to accept your British Envoys, to guard me against Russia, because the advance of Russia is so rapid in Central Asia? (thought he.) I will see whether you are sincere." He therefore said to Sir Lewis Pelly (page 114)—"The Turkomans, across the Oxus, are much afraid of the Russian Army which is approaching; and they have sent to the Ameer for help against the advancing Russians; but what do you, Sir Lewis Pelly, advise?" "Oh!" said Sir Lewis, "the Turkomans are a set of robbers; do not help them; leave them to the Russians." "Oh no! (thought the Envoy), you seem very much to concur in the Russian plans of aggression; perhaps you belong to the same gang, and are a mere pal of theirs." That was a suspicion. Was it a just suspicion? Of course, it was more than a suspicion. For the Peshawur Conference was closed in February, 1877; while on January 28, 1876, the Indian Government wrote, in their despatch, concerning—
  "The assurances given to the Ameer, that a good understanding exists between England and Russia on Central Asian affairs."—[Ibid. p. 154.]
  Then England and Russia had already come to an understanding, not only as to what should be done with Afghanistan, but also respecting all the Khanates of Central Asia! The booty was already divided beforehand! That was one way of "re-assuring" the Ameer, who had already begun to think that Afghanistan had been placed between the upper and nether millstone! Again, the Viceroy and Sir Lewis Pelly used a threat to the Envoy at Peshawur—a threat which flew like an arrow, to wound beyond its mark. On October 10, 1876 (page 183) they said—
  "Our only interest in maintaining the independence of Afghanistan is to provide for the security of our own Frontier, But the moment we cease to regard Afghanistan as a friendly and firmly allied State, what is there to prevent us from providing for the security of our Frontier by an understanding with Russia, which might have the effect of wiping Afghanistan out of the map altogether? If the Ameer does not desire to come to a speedy understanding with us, Russia does; and she desires it at his expense."
  148
  Just as I thought! said the Ameer to himself; they have been plotting together for my destruction; and if I cannot be persuaded to admit the "internal danger," they will tear me in pieces by force; better to trust to the God of Battles and of Justice, and die sword in hand. Lord Napier, in his Memorandum written on the Schouvaloff-Salisbury capitulation day, says—
  "Does not the example of Turkey, with her tributary States stirred into rebellion by emissaries from Russian societies, show the mischief which Russia might work in India?"—[Ibid. p. 225.]
  That the Ameer had been thinking much on this subject is proved by the fact that his Envoy spread out a map, and asked Dr. Bellew (on February 7, 1877) to point to Bosnia and Herzegovina and Servia and Bulgaria, and Circassia; and asked—
  "How it was that the nations of Europe (and notably Great Britain) permitted Russia to send her soldiers to fight in the Servian ranks whilst the Russian Ambassador remained at Constantinople."—[Ibid. p. 202.]
  Doubtless he asked, also, why we interfered to save Servia, who had been guilty of the "most outrageous and wicked war" (as the Prime Minister said on September 21, 1876), and to prevent Turkey from crushing Servia, and even from taking securities against a repetition of the offence. He perhaps asked why we had been content with telling Russia that it was a breach of Treaties and of International Law to invade Turkey; while we did not fulfil our obligations under those Treaties, and defend the integrity and independence of the Ottoman Empire. Dr. Bellew states that he asked about Circassia—Circassia, whose independence we had recognised—Circassia, the great bulwark that prevented the advance of Russia into Central Asia, the first fortress of India (as was well remarked by Sir Henry Rawlinson, and by others in these Afghan Papers). And we allowed Russia to take Circassia and menace India! Yet that was of little use to Russia; for the Caucasus, even although Russian, was yet impassable; and Poti, to the south, was marshy, and malarious, and with three miles of shoal water between it and the sea; and so we gave Russia the only good harbour on the coast—Batoum—and

  149
  enabled her to turn the Caucasus and land her troops to menace Persia and India. So the Envoy saw how that by our perfidious advice to Turkey we had weakened her hands—the Head of all Islam—and by our treacherous acts at Berlin we had given away her fortresses and harbours, and by our secret agreements, we had partitioned her Empire. Nay more; his suspicions were confirmed when he read the Premier's speech on the 28th July—
  "One of the results of my attending the Congress of Berlin has been to prove, what I always suspected, to be an absolute fact, that this horrible, devastating war, which has just terminated, would not have taken place if England had spoken with the necessary firmness."
  Was not all this enough to make the Ameer say: "Russia and England seem to be pulling together; they are in the same boat; while there is this difference between them—Russia is the stronger, and England is afraid; besides England deserts her allies in the hour of need; it is better for me at once to propitiate the Russians." These were the Envoy's words, as reported by Sir Lewis Pelly (page 181)—
  "The Russians broke Treaties at pleasure, wore very pushing in their policy, and feared no one. The recent political history of Europe showed that the English were unable to compel the Russians to adhere to Treaties, and were equally impotent to arrest Russian aggressions."
  That, then, was the Ameer's suspicion of our real intent in forcing British Envoys upon him; and that was the estimation in which he held us. In his eyes, we seemed to be plotting with his enemy, while pretending to be his friend; we appeared to be insidiously forcing Envoys upon him, in order to break up his independence; we were afraid to fight in fulfilment of our Treaty obligations; we connived at violations of law; we approached him with character gone and honours tarnished. And that was the time which Lord Salisbury chose for making his haughty demands (page 159)—
  "Her Majesty's Government…must have, for their own Agents, undisputed access to its Frontier positions (of Afghanistan).… They must he entitled to expect becoming attention to their friendly counsels; and the Ameer must be made to understand that, subject to all—"
  MR. E. STANHOPEobserved that the Ameer had never seen the despatch from which the noble Lord was quoting.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: He may have heard of the despatch of February 28, 1876, before the Peshawur Conference at the end of the year. Such things are easily done in India. I am, however, no longer speaking of the effect on the Ameer's mind; I have passed from that to the acts of the Government—
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, that the document referred to was a confidential and private despatch, containing instructions intended for the Viceroy. The Government thought it ought to be now published for the information of the House.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: Then, I think, Sir, that the next poetical effusion, which Lord Lytton writes, should be entitled—"The Sorrows of a Viceroy;" for it appears that he must submit to receiving despatches couched in language which no gentleman would address to his butler. Yet Sir Lewis Pelly, taking his cue from his superior, seems almost to have capped it. For, on February 15, 1877 (page 210), he told the Ameer's Envoy that the British Government would—
  "Strengthen the Frontier of British India without further reference to the Ameer.… The Viceroy will take such measures as he may deem wise and lawful for strengthening the Frontier of British India, and providing for the safety and repose of that Empire; and this without communication with the Ameer."
  Nothing, then, can be more manifest than this chain of causes and effect; nothing more clear than that the words and acts of the Government have led straight up to war, and that those acts and words were such as to make the Ameer conclude that England was perfidious and secretly hostile to him, and that his safest course was to cement a timely friendship with Russia. This effect had been foreseen, but not by the British Government. It was foreseen that British policy would throw Afghanistan into the arms of Russia, and that the consequent war was playing the game of Russia and securing her aims. The Indian Government, in their despatch of June 7, 1875 (page 133), said—
  "If we are correct in believing that the refusal (to receive British Envoys) would not show the intentions of the Ameer to be disloyal, it would afford no sufficient justification for a change of policy which might throw Afghanistan into the arms of Russia upon the first favourable opportunity. We may also observe that the re-

  151
  fusal would weaken the hands of Her Majesty's Government in any future negotiations with Russia when questions might he raised as to the real value of British influence in Afghanistan."
  Sir Richard Temple went further, and, in his Memorandum (page 69), he states the conclusions to which we had arrived—
  "If we engage ourselves in Afghanistan, Russia will find us in the hour of trial impoverished and embarrassed. If we keep out of Afghanistan, Russia will find us in the hour of trial strong, rich, and prosperous in India. If she really wishes us ill she must naturally desire that we may be so infatuated as to pursue the former course. But it is for us to avoid the course which our enemies, if we have any, would desire us to follow."
  So much for the expediency of this war; and now as to its justice. Either Lord Salisbury intended war, or he did not. If he intended to force on a war (which he has done, whether intentionally or not), then the war is unjust, and a grievous crime. If he did not, then by over-riding the Indian Government, in his pride and petulance, and despising its earnest warnings, he has committed a very grave error. They closed their despatch of January 28th, 1876, with a most solemn warning on a matter "of such grave importance," and "deprecated" the demand to send British Envoys "as involving serious danger to the peace of Afghanistan." Was it just to make such a demand? It was a violation of pledges and assurances repeatedly given by the British Government to the Government of Afghanistan, as will be seen on pages 89, 94, and 95. The Indian Government themselves assert in the above-mentioned despatch that—
  "The proposal to establish British Agents in Afghanistan is, as we pointed out in our Despatch of the 7th of June, a departure from the understanding arrived at between Lord Mayo and the Ameer at the Umballa Conferences of 1869."—[Ibid, p. 151.]
  At the end of the Conference at Peshawur last year, after the demand had been rejected, the Ameer was assured that there was no cause of quarrel or ground of hostility between England and Afghanistan, as you will see on page 172, where we have the statement to this effect deliberately written by the Indian Government; and on page 220, where there is Sir Lewis Pelly's own assurance. Yet the Conference was prematurely closed on the death of the Ameer's Envoy,
  152
  although the Ameer desired to prolong it, and had despatched another Envoy with instructions to accede to the British demands. The cause of war, if any, was therefore of a later date. The Indian Government (page 247) state it to be the Ameer's refusal to receive the English Mission, which was armed, and 1,000 strong. Yet he did not refuse; he merely wished to delay it, as he was mourning for his favourite son; and also he did not wish to accede to the peremptory demand to admit it. on a specified day; because he said it would "disgrace him in the eyes of his people." But he intimated that he would receive it later. Yet our pretended cause of war is his refusal to receive our Mission. Be it so. Would that be a just cause of war? Sir Neville Chamberlain evidently thought that the refusal would not be a sufficient cause of war; for he telegraphed to the Viceroy on September 21 (page 236)—"Shall I make … Faiz Mahomed … fire upon us?" and on being forbidden to do so, he telegraphed (page 244) that he would consider a refusal to let the Mission pass "the same as if we had been fired on." It is clear that such a refusal, even if absolute, would not give a cause of war. If an acquaintance whom I did not care to see were to call on me, and I told my servant to say—"Not at home," would he have a right to burst into my house, and enter my room and fire a revolver at me? On October 6, the Ameer wrote a letter of expostulation to the Viceroy, saying (page 252)—"I am astonished and dismayed by this letter, written threateningly to a well-intentioned friend;" then he pleads his "great trouble,"—the loss of his favourite son, and complains of the "harsh and breathless haste" in sending the Mission. This letter, Lord Lytton came to regard as "a direct challenge" (page 253). On October 30, Lord Salisbury telegraphed the Ultimatum which was to be sent to the Ameer, where the cause of war was thus stated (page 254)—"You did not hesitate to instruct your authorities on the Frontier to repel the Mission by force." Yet it was expressly stated by Major Cavagnari, Sir Neville Chamberlain, and others, that the Commander of Ali Musjid explained that, having received no orders from the Ameer, it would be his duty to oppose by force the forcible entrance of the Mission. It seems to me that there has

  153
  been no cause of war; and that Lord Lytton, in order to make one, trumped up a false tale about a threat to shoot down Major Cavagnari and his suite—a tale utterly repugnant to Major Cavagnari's own account of the affair. Yet war is either the highest and most solemn judicial act, to procure reparation or to defend a right; or else it is the greatest and most heinous of crimes. One murder is bad enough; yet an unjust war is murder—murder multiplied by thousands. If the Cabinet has made an unjust war, then on them rests the guilt. But if a majority of the House endorses and adopts that action, then the fault is with them; and unless the nation protests, the nation is involved in the crime. For my part, I enter my humble and feeble protest against that which I sincerely believe to be a crime.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURbelieved the war to be an error financially, politically, and in a military point of view; and his main reason for this belief was that it was based on a violation of Treaty obligations in reference to the new claim for the admission of British officers as Envoys, in violation of the condition for non-interference with the affairs of Afghanistan, as entered into between Her Majesty's Government and Dost Mahomed in 1855. He also questioned very much if they had any right to occupy Quetta without the consent of the Ameer. No doubt, the Treaty with the Khan of Khan of 1854 did give that right of occupation; but the two prior Treaties of 1839 and 1841 made the Khelat and Shawl territories subordinate to the Ruler of Afghanistan; and he hoped they would hear something from the Secretary of State which would set their minds at rest on those points. As to the Khyber Pass and the Afridis, the rights of Dost Mahomed in that direction were acknowledged by Sir John Lawrence, and he did not see how they could be disputed now. The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to the 1868 Memorandum of Sir Henry Rawlinson which, he said, was reported to have been circulated in India, and was known to several English officers there; and he drew attention to what was common rumour—namely, that a copy of it had fallen into the hands of the Ameer and said that it was, in all likelihood, after he pursued its contents, so hostile to
  154
  him, that his conduct towards England changed. At all events, the work published by Sir Henry Rawlinson in 1874, known as England and Russia in the East, advocated the occupation not only of Quetta, but of Candahar and Herat, and it was very likely a translation of this part might have been made for the Ameer by the Russians. He would remind the House that the policy of noninterference with Afghanistan had been initiated by a Tory Government at the time of our disasters. When our Army was withdrawn in 1842, Lord Ellen-borough, with the advice of the Duke of Wellington, by public Proclamation abandoned Afghanistan for ever. That was the resolution arrived at by the Tory Government, aided by the advice of a most experienced commander, who said that, though we might invade Afghanistan, the difficulty lay in coming back again from that country. He hoped that they would have an estimate given as to the probable cost of the war, and trusted that it would be a more accurate one than that given at the commencement of the Abyssinian War. To hold Afghanistan, he maintained they would require to keep at least 15,000 European and 35,000 Native troops, in all 50,000 European and Asiatic troops, in the country. The cost of these, with the many military charges, could not be less than £4,000,000. It would be a fatal policy to cast this enormous charge on the present embarrassed finances of India.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, that the Queen's Speech was one of the most meagre ever delivered in that House. It did not contain one matter connected with the affairs of England, Scotland, or Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken as if it were a usual thing to omit such matters from the Queen's Speech to a Parliament specially summoned; but in 1867, when Parliament was called together in November on a question of at least as much magnitude, he found that in the Speech from the Throne there were many important questions affecting the three countries of the United Kingdom. Fenianism in Ireland was referred to, and it was stated that it was intended that there should be repressive laws with regard to it. It was also stated that Reform Bill Scotland land and Ireland would be introduced; that a Commission would be issued to settle the boundaries of

  155
  existing boroughs in England; that Bills with regard to bribery and corruption at elections, to public schools and general education, and to consolidate the Acts relating to the Mercantile Marine would be brought in. Parliament was called together in 1857 in consequence of a monetary crisis of great severity, and because India was then in rebellion—a more important reason for calling Parliament together than the question of Afghanistan. Was there on that occasion no reference in the Queen's Speech to local matters of importance? On the contrary, the Speech said that the attention of Parliament would be called to the law to regulate the representation of the people in Parliament, and that there would be introduced Bills to amend the law relating to real property and to amend several branches of the Criminal Law. The Government on that occasion indicated to the House of Commons what measures would be brought in, after, of course, the period of adjournment, but no such thing was done now. The late Lord Derby in February, 1858, when Parliament met, and when, in the House of Lords, the adjournment of the House was moved at an early period of the evening, said he conceived that was a course of proceeding most unusual, and that he was quite surprised the Government had made no statement of their general policy, and of the measures which they intended to introduce into the House after the adjournment. The present Government had made no such statement either; and very likely when the House met in February they would still make no announcement of their policy. In 1847, on the 18th of November, when Parliament was called together in consequence of the state of trade, and a commercial crisis owing to the failure of several banks, and the condition of trade in America, and also because of the famine in Ireland, the Government indicated the measures which they intended to introduce. That was an occasion when they may have avoided giving to the country a statement of what their policy was. But they said in the Queen's Speech that they should introduce a Bill to regulate navigation, and that a Commission would be appointed to report on the best means of improving the health of the Metropolis. An Amend-
  156
  ment was moved and seconded in consequence of there being no measure for the amelioration of the condition of Ireland, upon which an assurance was given by the Chief Secretary for Ireland as to Bills which the Government intended to introduce after the adjournment. Well, was the Chief Secretary for Ireland in his place to-night to tell them if the Government meant to do anything for Ireland. There had been three bad seasons—that of this year having been the worst that had occurred since 1847—and was no measure to be introduced for the amelioration of the condition of that country? Had they been promised a University Bill? Had they been told their Grand Jury Laws were to be amended? Had they been told there was to be a Land Bill? They had been told nothing of the kind. Why, there might be a Dissolution of Parliament before the right hon. Gentleman would have an opportunity in February of stating what measures he intended to introduce. The House might not meet after the adjournment until there had been a General Election; and it was very convenient for the Government not to make any declaration of their intentions either with regard to England, Scotland, or Ireland. He should not be at all surprised to hear of a Dissolution of Parliament before February; and, therefore, the Government were acting very wisely. They had come to a wise conclusion in saying—"Oh, we will just go before Parliament on this Afghan Question, with which we will amuse them before we meet again. We will dissolve Parliament, and in the meantime we will not tell them what we will do." The Government could not be charged with having promised to do this or that, and with not having done it, and with having thereby incurred opposition. Whether that was the object of the omission or not, the omission might be very convenient. Irish Members had come 600 miles at an unusual period of the year to hear what Her Majesty would say with respect to the affairs of Ireland and the people of Ireland, and then not hearing one word on the subject was a proceeding which, at all events, merited the condemnation of Irish Members.
  MR. E. STANHOPEhoped the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) would excuse him

  157
  if he did not refer to the subject which the hon. Member had mentioned, but addressed himself at once to the subject with which he was connected, and to which most of the remarks that evening had been directed. The Government had been asked to give some additional Papers. He had laid on the Table that night some additional Papers with reference to the relations between this country and Afghanistan. First, there were some Papers relating to Mr. M'Nabb, which had been left out by inadvertence as referring in great part to other subjects, and to the omission of which he was glad that attention had been called. Secondly, there was the Proclamation, in justification of which, against a statement that had been made by several hon. Members, he wished to say that it certainly was the case that at the very time the negotiations were going on between Sir Lewis Pelly and the Envoy of the Ameer, the Ameer was preaching a religious war against us. Thirdly, there were four letters, or rather one letter, written to an official of the Ameer, three copies being sent to other officials. There was a fifth letter, which was addressed to our Agent at Cabul, and that letter was opened by the Ameer. The following was the text of the Commissioner of Peshawur's letter, dated September 7, to Mustaufi:—
  "After compliments, I write this friendly letter to inform you that the 16th or 17th of September has been fixed for the departure of a Mission of high rank from the British Government to Cabul, and that the Mission will start whether Nawab Gholam Hussein shall or shall not by that time have had the honour of waiting on His Highness the Ameer. The object for which Mission is deputed is friendly, and the refusal of free passage to it, or interruption or injury to its friendly progress, will be regarded as act of hostility. I am to explain that the Mission will not in any case enter capital of Cabul before expiry of the month Ramazan. In conclusion, may you keep well."—[Afghanistan, No. 2, p. 21.]
  With regard to the Papers asked for by the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardine and others, he was quite sure the House would understand that until he (Mr. E. Stanhope) consulted his noble Friend he could not say whether those Papers could be given. Some of them, he believed, were not in the possession of the India Office; whilst some that were asked for were obviously impossible to be produced. For instance, the noble
  158
  Lord the Member for Westmeath (Lord Robert Montagu) suggested that they should publish some opinions which the Viceroy had expressed in his Council.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUexplained that he referred to a report of a Conference between Lord Lytton, with his Council, and the Russian Ambassador.
  MR. E. STANHOPEreplied, that there was no report of such a Conference. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had asked whether the Government would lay on the Table any opinion which had been expressed by a Member of Council adverse to the course which had been adopted? He would have to look into that matter. He doubted whether any such opinion had been expressed in the form of a Minute. With regard to the Papers actually presented to Parliament, he must say that any attempt to withhold Papers which could with propriety be produced would subject them to suspicions which they were most anxious to avoid; and he supposed that in no Papers had the secrets of diplomatic intercourse been so fully given to the world. The hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had accused the Government of having struck out a passage containing an allegation by the Ameer in which the name of Sir Henry Rawlinson was mentioned; but the despatch to which he alluded contained no reference whatever to Sir Henry Rawlinson, or any statement of his. Then there was another charge made by the hon. Baronet with reference to a conversation, of which, he believed, there was no report at all, but of which, at any rate, no report was sent home. He came next to one or two of the speeches which had been addressed to the House in the course of the discussion that evening. He was sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (General Sir George Balfour) would not expect him to follow him at any length into the observations which he had made; but he was bound to say that if anyone had broken a Treaty it was Shere Ali, because he had bound himself to be the friend of our friends and the enemy of our enemies. The hon. and gallant Gentleman went on to say that we had no right to occupy Quetta. Now, this was a question which would, he supposed, have to be gone into hereafter; but he would say at

  159
  once that we had an absolute Treaty right to occupy Quetta; that we had done so to the advantage of the Ameer; and that the Ameer had since expressed his satisfaction at the result of the occupation upon the trade of Southern Afghanistan. He wished next to make one or two observations on the curious and discursive speech which the House had heard from the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath. The noble Lord jumped about from one thing to another, asking for explanations and pointing out contradictions, till no one knew what Government it was of which he was speaking; and he should really not venture to follow him through the very curious account of the transactions which he had given, if he were not anxious at once to point out that some of the propositions which the noble Lord had laid down could not for a moment be sustained. It was, in his opinion, unpardonable in the noble Lord to have accused the Viceroy of India of having trumped up a false statement. The noble Lord went on to say that we had attempted to impose Resident Agents on the Ameer contrary to our express promise. Now, he (Mr. E. Stanhope) would venture to say that no such promise had ever been given; and when it was suggested that such a promise had been made by Lord Mayo, he could only reply that no mention of the subject had been made by Lord Mayo in his communications with the Ameer. If hon. Members would look at the paragraph of Lord Mayo's despatch in which the subject was mentioned, they would find that it was described as a boon desired by the Ameer himself. As to the statement of Lord Cranbrook, in the famous 9th paragraph of his despatch, of which so much complaint was made by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, he must express his surprise that they were content to rest a complete change of policy on the authority of a single telegram. Having reversed, by means of a telegram, the whole of our Indian policy as regarded the Ameer, they were satisfied to allow it to remain on the authority of that telegram, and in not one single despatch did the Duke of Argyll think fit to place on record an explanation of his views. Let him examine for a moment what the words of that telegram were. The Ameer was to be assured that we were
  160
  to maintain our "settled policy" in favour of Afghanistan, if he would only consent to abide by our advice in external affairs. Well, when a settled policy was spoken of, he presumed what was meant was the policy which was settled at the time of Lord Lawrence and Lord Mayo. But what happened? Lord Northbrook met the Envoy of the Ameer, and gave him further assurances of a somewhat vague character. The Envoy was then kept waiting for six weeks, and during that time there were further conversations; and when the Ameer at last asked for definite pledges against encroachment by Russia, and that it should be put in the writing from the Viceroy to the Ameer, instead of any satisfactory assurances having been given, Lord Northbrook, in a letter dated the 6th of September, informed him that, in his opinion, the question was of such importance that the discussion of it should be postponed to a "more suitable opportunity." In his despatch of January 28, 1876, Lord Northbrook had said that nothing short of full promises of protection would be satisfactory to the Ameer; and that, consequently, in the Viceroy's letter, the question had been deliberately reserved for future consideration. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) had called attention to a paragraph in the Address to which he had some objection, and he thought it very desirable there should be some change in the wording of it. He (Mr. E. Stanhope) would ask leave of the House to propose an Amendment of certain words of the Address, which he thought would entirely meet the views of everyone. He would ask, in the third paragraph, to omit the words "to express our regret," and to substitute the words "humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us."
  Amendment proposed,
  In paragraph 3, line 1, to leave out the words "To express our regret," in order to insert the words "Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us,"—(Mr. Edward Stanhope,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
  Words inserted.
  Main Question, as amended, proposed.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, before the debate closed, he thought some further reference should be made to the very pointed remarks by his noble Friend the Member for the Radnor Boroughs (the Marquess of Hartington) with reference to the discrepancies in the despatch, as to which remark had been made, and as to which no explanation had been given either by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He thought it was absolutely due to the House that some such explanation should be given before the debate closed, for there were discrepancies on which comment might be made on another occasion. It was absolutely necessary to elucidate the problem why, when a great change of policy had occurred, it had been subsequently contradicted in Parliament, as had been done by Lord Salisbury. In the last despatch it was very distinctly stated that a change in the policy towards Afghanistan was deliberately made by the Government some time ago, and steps were taken in connection with that change of policy. Lord Salisbury had made a statement in the House of Lords as to the continuance of the former policy; and yet when his noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington) had read this despatch the Chancellor of the Exchequer made no answer to it. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that arose from an oversight.] He had no idea of impugning the truth, veracity, or honour of the Foreign Secretary or any Member of the Government; but when hon. Members read in a despatch statements which they knew were not accurate, they were perfectly entitled to speak of them in language which was warranted by the despatch itself. He considered that the discrepancies he had referred to were worthy of grievous censure, and that the explanations which had been up to this point given by Members of Her Majesty's Government were not satisfactory explanations, and also that the charges made against them were well founded, and had not been disproved. The House would remember the manner in which that despatch had been published and received, and the very singular argument they had heard from the right hon. Gentleman that evening, that the very incompleteness of the despatch would be advantageous to those it impugned
  162
  if it only notified certain points of attack and defence. That despatch had been published in a very unusual way in the newspapers, a week before the Papers were issued. It was a carefully arranged statement for a particular Party purpose; but the grounds on which it was based were not made public, so that the Government deliberately kept back from their opponents the defence from an attack which would have been impossible if the Papers had been issued in the usual way. When the whole question came to be discussed next week it would be seen what were the real facts, and we could then enter more fully into the matter. Notwithstanding the repudiation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he contended that paragraph 9 of Lord Cranbrook's despatch conveyed a most unfair inference. That paragraph, too, had been said to be not a principal part of the despatch, but only part of a long narrative; yet it was remarkable that every person in the country who spoke or wrote on the subject had immediately fixed on that 9th paragraph. He was willing to believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Colleagues were as simple as they professed to be; but they were the only Members of their Party who were so simple. Besides, the 9th paragraph of the despatch was the foundation of almost all that followed. The whole argument of the central part of that despatch was that a wrong policy had been adopted at a certain time; that to that error all the mischief the despatch described was due; and that, therefore, an opposite policy was wise. It was noteworthy that there were only two statements in the whole despatch for which the authority was given, and both of these were in the 9th paragraph. It should, therefore, have been preeminently accurate, as when published no one could verify the quotations. Yet what happened? The quoted telegram consisted actually of an opinion and an instruction. The opinion was quoted in the paragraph; but the course which the Viceroy was instructed to pursue was not stated. And what the Viceroy said he had done was omitted, the only part quoted being his account of what neither he nor anyone else could have done. This was the real basis of the charge of unfairness which had been brought against the Government.

  163
  He would give the House an illustration of what he meant in the shape of a narrative of a similar kind. Suppose it were proposed to give an account of the events connected with the last Administration, and suppose it were stated that the late Government at the time of the General Election deemed it desirable to disestablish the Irish Church, and suppose the narrative then went on to say—"but Her Majesty's Opposition did not share the sentiments of the Government, and the Opposition ultimately succeeded in themselves becoming the Government." That would be exactly a parallel case to this objectionable paragraph in Lord Cranbrook's despatch. All the statements contained in such an imaginary narrative as he had described were perfectly true, but it was not the whole truth, and a similar suppression stamped this despatch with the character which was now universally ascribed to it. The hon. Gentleman who had last spoken had made a most ingenious defence of the omission in paragraph 9; but he placed it upon a ground that appeared to him (Mr. Childers) untenable. He had endeavoured to draw a line between "the settled policy" of the Governments of Lord Mayo and Lord Northbrook and the assurances which Lord Northbrook wished to give in 1873. For that there was not a shadow of foundation. He could prove this by the statements of the Government itself, for the despatch was not the only account that had been given of these assurances. With regard to the assurances of material assistance offered by Lord Northbrook to the Ameer in 1873, if the House would refer to the statements to the Ameer at the Peshawur Conference, and even to Lord Lytton's despatch narrating that negotiation, it would be seen that the present Government considered that those assurances had been of the amplest character; and it was not until the last despatch of Lord Cranbrook was compiled, that it was thought essential to throw blame on the late Government. The fact was that the Ameer wanted more unconditional and absolute assurances than any Government whatever had been prepared to concede to him. In a discussion in the other House, in 1874, Lord Derby, speaking with express reference to those negotiations of 1873, declared in the most emphatic manner, on the part of the present
  164
  Government, that the assurances which the Ameer was seeking to obtain, and the condition which he was seeking to attach to them, were such as it would be improper for the British Government to assent to. He could not, therefore, accept the explanation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given as to the accuracy and fairness of that despatch. When the right hon. Gentleman said that despatch was the act of the Government and not that of an individual Minister, it was quite unnecessary to apologise for any strong language about it, which absurdly enough had been attempted to be called a personal attack on Lord Cranbrook; but it was necessary promptly to unmask its grossly and unfairly inaccurate character, and, that inaccuracy had now been conclusively shown in the course of the debate.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWER: Sir, I shall endeavour to follow the example of my hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. M'Carthy Downing), and give expression to the feeling I entertain regarding this Address. My hon. Friend quoted several instances to show that the practice of submitting a Speech which contains no reference to local legislation is very unusual; and he complained that the claims put forward on behalf of the Irish people had been completely ignored. In my opinion, when we have been summoned here from different parts, we ought, at all events, to have been informed of the intentions of the Government respecting our own country, in the condition of which we are far more interested than in the successful policy of the Government in Afghanistan. Although I am opposed to the foreign policy of the present Government, I have not taken part in the Party quarrels or divisions in this House; and I do not intend to take part with the Liberal Party in any division which may be called for on foreign policy, being convinced, as I am, that, as between the two Parties, it is six of one and half-a-dozen of the other. What has this debate been this evening? Not such as to enlighten us as to the right and wrong of the war, but simply an attempt on the part of the Government to vindicate their policy, and an attempt on the part of the Opposition to show that something they did on a certain occasion is not deserving of the censure which has been cast upon it. Neither

  165
  Her Majesty's Government on the one hand nor the Opposition on the other have endeavoured to show that the policy of either of them is one that will recommend itself to liberty-loving men, or to those who profess to be actuated by Christian principles. Ireland is often regarded as an integral portion of the Empire; but my first duty as an Irish Nationalist is to assert the distinct nationality of Ireland. And why? Because, in ordinary times, Ireland is shut out from the observation of Europe, and her aspirations are judged by the caricatures given in the English Press. It is, therefore, when questions of an international character are before the House, that it becomes the duty of Irishmen to stand forward before Europe and declare that their first consideration is the nationality of their own country. The Union between Ireland and England is only a Union in name. It is not a union of hearts. It is the result of the blackest crime ever perpetrated by one nation against another—the destruction of the Irish Parliament. And the Imperialism of Lord Beaconsfield in 1878 ought to be as odious to the Irish people—certainly, it was as destructive to liberty—as the Imperialism of Pitt in 1798. It has the same object in view—English aggrandisement; it adopts the same means of reaching its object—corruption and violence; it proceeds from the same arrogant, liberty-hating Tory Party, and marches forward to the same dishonoured victory over the bodies of brave patriots fallen in defence of their native land. I have read all that has been written and spoken recently by English statesmen of both Parties on the subject of the Afghan War, and I am bound to say that a good deal of what they have said of each other is substantiated by the official Correspondence which has been placed in our hands. The accusations they have levelled at each other are well sustained in the official Papers; and as an Irishman I have the greatest pity for England, whose politicians are plunged in such violent dissensions that they seem determined to fight each other like the Kilkenny cats, until there is nothing left but their tails. We Irish are so often lectured on the sin of disunion that we would be justified in preaching a sermon on the beauty of Christianity for the benefit of Indian Viceroys and ex-Viceroys, and English
  166
  Ministers and ex-Ministers; but it requires too large a stock of English hypocrisy and self-complacency to succeed in such a task. I object to the Address in answer to the Royal Speech, because it is the duty, Sir, of the Representatives of the people to demand the redress of grievances before granting Supplies. I, for one, shall exhaust all the Forms of the House in refusing the Supplies for this wicked war. In the name of my constituents I denounce it as a base and cowardly aggression on an independent State. I shall vote against the Address, because I condemn and abhor the brutal policy which has been pursued towards the Afghan nation. I shall vote against the Address, because the Government has turned a deaf ear to the cries for justice which have been repeatedly raised on behalf of the Irish people in this House. Ireland repudiates from her heart and soul this blood-stained Imperialism, which tramples on the rights of nations; and though I care not who may betray her honour, by associating her fair name with the unhallowed policy of the Government in this unholy war, I assert that her sympathies are now, as they have ever been, on the side of struggling freemen in every oppressed land.
  MR. SULLIVANsaid, that the curtain fell last Session upon Her Majesty's Ministers placing on the back of John Bull Asia Minor. Now they were going to place there Asia Major too. The policy of Her Majesty's Government seemed to him to be one of universal annexation and war with smaller Powers, with those who might be weak enough to be safely bullied, in order that their territories might be added to that already overgrown Empire. The state of home affairs in England and Ireland was far more serious and far more worthy of a winter Session than this Afghan business, or any of these aggressive wars of Her Majesty's Ministers. What was the condition of Ireland at that moment? In a commercial and industrial point of view her condition was eminently worthy the attention of Her Majesty's Government; yet it was at that moment, when trade was depressed, and finances paralysed, that they came forward and prevented the revival of public confidence by creating gloomy apprehensions of further financial burdens and additional wars. They must

  167
  lay at the doors of Her Majesty's Government the guilt and blame of whatever financial disaster might occur in Ireland from that broken confidence which could only he restored by a policy of peace. They had fondly hoped that after the Berlin Treaty and the return of the Prime Minister from that capital, there would be an end to the torture and suspense to which they had been accustomed for the past two years, but they had been mistaken. Every interest in the country was groaning under the present condition of affairs, for they could not tell from day to day what policy would be brought forth by that Ministry of surprises. Indeed, next week might see the Government spring upon them another war, and that at a time when great numbers of the people of England—in Staffordshire and elsewhere—were suffering from absolute starvation. He should have thought there would have been some reference in the Queen's Speech to the distress from which the people were at present suffering. Grave evils were at the doors of their manufacturers, and that was the moment selected by the Government for a military promenade with a Mission that would not, perhaps, be characterized truly in our day, but which 20 years hence England would blush to name. It was an unjust and aggressive war; and no greater crime that he knew of could be charged to a public Ministry than that of making war on an uncivilized community with an unjust cause. No nation should draw the sword lightly. What were the grounds for the war? The Prime Minister said that we wanted a,"scientific Frontier;" and although that had not been avowed by Ministers to-night, he would rather believe Lord Beaconsfield's statement at the Guildhall than some of the reasons which had been advanced in that House. No. That was good for the Guildhall, but it would not do for the Houses of Parliament. They spoke of an "expedition." But what was an "expedition?" It might be scientific or geographical. They euphemistically called the war an "expedition" because they were ashamed to give it its proper name. The Indian Secretary, in his final despatch, was far more anxious to convict the Opposition than to convict the Ameer of wrong. Why had these voluminous despatches been withheld and then flung upon us in a mass, while
  168
  public opinion in England had been misled by inspired telegrams from India? The object clearly had been to fan the war flame. Else, why were the Government dumb while the newspapers commented on the false telegram about the alleged insult? The Ministers put into the Royal lips a version of the story of the wolf and the lamb. The object of the Viceroy had been to pick a quarrel with the Ameer: on the same pretences on which they had gone to Afghanistan they might go to the North Pole. As for the despatch which had been issued by Lord Cranbrook to hocus the people, it was a Party document manifesting much more anxiety to show that the Liberal Party were wrong than that the Ameer deserved punishment. It was of a piece with the false telegrams sent from Simla with the tacit connivance of the Government officials to arouse the war feeling in this country. It was one of those tricks of political life which were unbecoming the dignity of Cabinet Ministers. He considered the Ameer came out of this quarrel with credit, whilst it was greatly to the reproach of Her Majesty's Government. They wanted to fasten a quarrel upon him in order to put Residents in his towns. He had previously known that Residents were spies, who would undermine his power, and he got a promise from an English Viceroy that no Residents should be put in his territory, and now that promise was sought to be evaded. Russia gave them an undertaking and now she was violating it. Let them settle with Russia; but she was strong and the Ameer was weak. Was that a policy worthy of Great Britain, when they wished to make the Indians pay for their "scientific Frontier?" Just as they struck the Ameer rather than Russia, because he was weak and Russia was strong, so they taxed the Indians rather than the English, because the former were unrepresented in Parliament, and had no one to take their part. They were plunging India into bankruptcy; but for a country which had felt the march of Great Britain's wonderful civilization his voice at least should be raised, and his vote given to whoever in that House made a struggle against that unjust war, and against the imposition of additional taxation on people who were not represented; and he believed he might say that the voice and vote and

  169
  the best will of Ireland would be given with a protest against a public wrong, and to defend those who could not speak for themselves.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, he regretted that no answer had been given by the Government to the remarks which had been made as to the omission of any reference to Ireland. He regretted that there were not more Irish Members present; but he hoped that they would be there before the end of the Session to protest against the total omission of Irish affairs from the Queen's Speech. It might be said that England and Scotland were also omitted; but he objected to the total omission of home affairs. He might be told that the whole interests of the country were entirely with the war; but he thought there were many grievances in Ireland—the Land Question, for instance—which most of them would say ought to be settled before any foreign war was considered. When they saw the tremendous slap in the face the Ministry were giving Russia by that war, they could not say in what they were involved for, or that the war in Afghanistan would not be followed by war with Russia. Then, again, there was not a word in the Queen's Speech about the Irish University, and he was afraid the Government would not do anything on the Land Question. If the Ministry would give something moderate in that direction, they would be satisfied. He would allow that the Government had done some good last year; if they would give them the University, it would be something more. The absence of any reference to Irish affairs left the Members in a most painful position in facing their constituents. In face of a war, he considered that a country which elected its Members freely had a very great superiority over the country which could not elect its Members freely. There was a vast number of persons in England who were not represented; but, as a matter of fact, England could elect its Members more freely than Ireland. At present the householders in Ireland were not represented in that House; and he did think it most unfair that they should be pledged to a war, and plunged into it without having some vote in the matter. He thought that they ought to have some declaration by the Government to a franchise equal in Ireland as in Eng-
  170
  land before they were committed to a war. He was sorry there was not a large number of Irish Members present; but he thought that the expression of the regret of the Members who were there would, perhaps, be the means of bringing over a good many more, so that if no satisfactory statement was forthcoming from the Government they might try their strength.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKthought the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) very inconsistent, for while condemning the course of Her Majesty's Government, he announced his intention of not voting against them. This was not a matter simply between Her Majesty's Government and the Opposition. These were questions in which they were all deeply interested; and he could, not understand how hon. Members could use expressions which touched the very verge of the usage of Parliament, and then declare that they were not going to vote. He had also referred to South Africa; but the fact was that this country had spent its money and its blood there, because it honestly believed it was necessary to protect the lives and property of Englishmen. It might be an error of judgment; but he thoroughly believed that there was nothing to be ashamed of in our conduct there. We were, in fact, making heavy sacrifices, believing that we were doing our duty. The hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) had condemned our previous dealings with the Ameer, and he (Sir John Lubbock) was previously of somewhat the same opinion himself; but he was bound to say that upon reading the Papers he had altered his views. In 1855 the Ameer made a stringent Treaty with us, and yet after receiving a friendly Mission from Russia, when we wished to send one, he refused to accept it; and again, after he had had ample time to consider the matter he treated all communications with contempt. In this and other matters it seemed to him that we had just cause of complaint, and he (Sir John Lubbock) thought that the Ameer brought this war upon himself. Whether the war was politic was quite another question, upon which he should probably quite agree with the hon. Member. He could not keep from expressing his astonishment when last Session Her Majesty's Government came down with large Supplementary Estimates and pro-

  171
  posed, not to meet them manfully by extra taxation at the moment, but to distribute the payment over a period of years. But at that very moment they knew that this Afghan War was looming in the immediate future. ["No, no!"] Hon. Members said "No;" but he did not think that anybody could read those Papers without coming to the conclusion that Her Majesty's Government had determined at the time that the Ameer should receive an Envoy, and that the Ameer had also made up his mind that he would not do so. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had brought in a Bill to establish a new Sinking Fund; but he did not act up to his own principles, and borrowed money with one hand while he was repaying it with the other. After making every allowance, he thought this state of affairs most unsatisfactory; and he could not help feeling that it was much to be regretted that Her Majesty's Government should have rushed into this war, and that they should have departed from the old policy of the Indian Government.
  MR. O'CLERYsaid, he also had to complain of there being no reference to Ireland in the Speech, and considered Imperial England held towards Ireland a somewhat similar position to that held by Imperial Borne towards the subject-provinces in the old days. He must say, however, that there had been times when England, did not treat her in that way, and those were periods when England was entering into a great war, and when English resources were strained to the uttermost to maintain her position. At that time Ireland was loyal to the core, and gave 100,000 volunteers. The result was that when the war was at an end they had a great English Minister—Pitt—deliberately striking them down. While the blood of Ireland was shed on every field to maintain English splendour, how did they find Ireland treated during the famine? With supreme indifference. There was a time in the Crimean War in which the English Government were obliged to consider Ireland; and in regard to that war there was no higher praise given by English officers to anyone than that they gave to the Irish soldiers. They had always been told during a war that it was not the time to make applications; but he would be false to his own position if he said that
  172
  the Irish people felt any interest in the struggle now being entered upon. The English enjoyed the blessings of a free Government, and there was not an Englishman who did not feel that he was defended by the Government; but an Irishman had not the same feelings. Irish people might regret the loss of life, and the Irish were compelled by the force of English laws to take part in what was undoubtedly an unjust war; but, beyond that, they could not take any further interest in this struggle. This Session, which had been called to discuss the fate of Afghanistan, would be better used for discussing the questions relating to Ireland. They thought they were entering upon a very little war; but they could not disguise from themselves that it might turn into a very large one. They thought they were only waging war with Afghanistan; but it might be possible that our real enemy—Russia—would not act towards Afghanistan the same part that England acted towards Turkey. Therefore, it was the first duty of every English patriot to see that the claims put forward by Irish Representatives should receive the measure of respect to which they were entitled, and by so doing Englishmen would be doing a higher duty than by providing for war with Afghanistan.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. O'Clery) had used, perhaps inadvertently, an expression which he thought ought not to go uncorrected. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of Russia as an enemy of this country. He must point out that the Queen's Speech assured them that Her Majesty was now in friendly relations with all the great Powers of Europe—Russia included, of course. He had heard other expressions from hon. Members on that side of the House as to the injustice, and almost the cruelty, of this war, which unfortunately existed in Afghanistan; but as it had been generally understood that the debate on the justice or injustice of the war was to take place, not on that night, but on an early opportunity, he hoped hon. Gentlemen would withhold those strong epithets until the question had been fully debated. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) had complained that there was no reference to Ireland in the Queen's Speech.

  173
  If legislation for England or Scotland had been mentioned in the Speech, while no notice was given to Ireland, then the latter country might have thought itself neglected. But at the beginning of an Autumn Session, called for a specific purpose, he thought it sufficient in the Queen's Speech only to state generally that measures would be laid before Parliament in the ensuing Session. There was the precedent of 1854, in the case of the Crimean War, for the course which had been followed in the present instance, and he thought in the matter of precedents they were pretty evenly balanced. When Irish Members spoke of that as a grievance, he hoped they would remember that the last measure which the Government had passed for Ireland was one of peace, goodwill, and, he believed, of justice. That being the last message of the Government to Ireland, he hoped that they would acknowledge, and do the Government the justice of believing, that they might have other measures to introduce for that country equally beneficial. A general statement would be made to Parliament, immediately after it re-assembled, of the measures which the Government intended to bring forward; and when their list of measures was produced the Irish Members might rely upon it that their country would not be overlooked.
  MR. O'CLERYexplained that his use of the expression had been misunderstood. What he meant to infer was that it was against Russia that they had to defend themselves in the East, rather than Afghanistan.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee appointed, "to draw up an Address to be presented to Her Majesty upon the said Resolution: "—Viscount CASTLEREAGH, Mr. HALL, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Mr. Secretary CROSS, Mr. Secretary STANLEY, Mr. WWILLIAM HENRY SMITH "Viscount SANDON, Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Mr. EDWARD STANHOPE, Mr. BOURKE, Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE, and Mr. WINN, or any Three of them:—To withdraw immediately:—Queen's Speech referred.
  House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.

Preamble
THE PARLIAMENT, which had been Prorogued in the usual form from the 16th day of August to the 2nd day of November; and thence to the 30th day of November; was now commanded to assemble on the 5th day of December for Despatch of Business by Proclamation, as follows:—
"BY THE QUEEN—A PROCLAMATION.
"VICTORIA R.
"Whereas Our Parliament stands prorogued to Saturday the Thirtieth Day of November instant: We, by and with the Advice of Our Privy Council, hereby issue Our Royal Proclamation, and publish and declare, that the said Parliament be further prorogued to Thursday the
2
Fifth Day of December One thousand eight hundred and seventy-eight; and we do hereby further, with the Advice aforesaid, declare Our Royal Will and Pleasure that the said Parliament shall, on the said Thursday the Fifth Day of December One thousand eight hundred and seventy-eight, assemble and be holden for the Despatch of divers urgent and important Affairs; And the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses, and the Commissioners for Shires and Burghs of the House of Commons, are hereby required and commanded to give their Attendance accordingly, at Westminster, on the said Thursday the Fifth Day of December One thousand eight hundred and seventy-eight.
"Given at Our Court at Windsor, this Twenty-seventh Day of November in the Year of our Lord One thousand eight hundred and seventy-eight, and in the Forty-second Year of Our Reign.
"God save the Queen."
And the PARLIAMENT having met accordingly, the Session was opened by Commission.
THE HOUSE OF LORDS being met;
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House,
"That it not being convenient for Her Majesty to be personally present here this day, She has been pleased to cause a Commission under the Great Seal to be prepared, in order to the holding of this Parliament."
Then Five of the LORDS COMMISSIONERS—namely, The LORD CHANCELLOR; The LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of Richmond and Gordon); The LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Duke of Northumberland); The LORD STEWARD (Earl Beauchamp); and The LORD SKELMERSDALE—being in their Robes, and seated on a Form placed between the Throne and the Woolsack, commanded the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod to let the Commons know "The Lords Commissioners desire their immediate attendance in this House, to hear the Commission read."
And the COMMONS being at the Bar, with their Speaker:—The Commission was read by the Clerk:—Then

THE QUEEN'S SPEECH.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR delivered HER MAJESTY'S SPEECH to both Houses of Parliament, as follows:—
"My Lords, and Gentlemen,
"I REGRET that I have been obliged to call for your attendance at an unusual and, probably, to most of you, an inconvenient season.
"The hostility towards my Indian Government manifested by the Ameer of Afghanistan, and the manner in which he repulsed my friendly Mission, left me no alternative but to make a peremptory demand for redress.
"This demand having been disregarded, I have directed an expedition to be sent into his territory, and I have taken the earliest opportunity of calling you together, and making to
4
you the communication required by Law.
"I have directed that Papers on the subject shall be laid before you.
"I receive from all foreign Powers assurances of their friendly feelings, and I have every reason to believe that the arrangements for the pacification of Europe, made by the Treaty of Berlin, will be successfully carried into effect.
"Gentlemen of the House of Commons,
"The Estimates for the ensuing year are in course of preparation, and will in due time be submitted to you.
"My Lords, and Gentlemen,
"I propose that after full deliberation upon the matters which have led me to anticipate your usual time of meeting, and after a suitable recess, you should proceed to the consideration of various measures for the public benefit which will then be laid before you.
"I confidently commit to your wisdom the great interests of my Empire, and I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may attend your counsels."
Then the Commons withdrew.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.
PRAYERS.
ROLL OF THE LORDS—Garter King of Arms attending, delivered at the Table (in the usual manner) a List of the Lords Temporal in the Sixth Session of the Twenty-first Parliament of the United Kingdom: The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
SELECT VESTRIES—Bill, pro formâ, read 1a.

AFGHANISTAN (EXPENSES OF MILITARY OPERATIONS).

  NOTICE OF MOTION.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: My Lords, I beg to give Notice that on Monday next I shall move—
  "That Her Majesty, having directed a Military expedition of Her Forces charged upon Indian Revenues to be despatched against the Ameer of Afghanistan, this House consents that the Revenues of India shall be applied to defray the expenses of the Military operations which may be carried on beyond the external frontiers of Her Majesty's Indian possessions."

THE QUEEN'S SPEECH.

  ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
  The QUEEN'S SPEECH reported by The LORD CHANCELLOR.
  THE EARL OF RAVENSWORTH, in rising to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty in answer to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech, said: My Lords, on rising for the first time to address your Lordships I must claim your indulgence, I am afraid for some time, on two grounds—upon general grounds, my Lords, and upon special grounds; because, though I cannot allege entire inexperience in public business or in debate, having served a considerable apprenticeship in "another place," I cannot disguise from myself that within this Chamber popular passion and prejudice have no influence. My Lords, to woo and to win the popular ear is not the ambition of many of your Lordships; but that fact does not render the task of addressing you for the first time any easier. It is, therefore, on general grounds that I claim your indulgence, and there are special grounds likewise upon which I shall claim it.
  This is a special summons to Parliament, and it has met for a special purpose. The subject which you have to discuss is one of no ordinary importance; and in attempting to address your Lordships upon it I cannot but consider for a moment the circumstances that have occurred. I see before me statesmen of profound and lengthened experience; I see before me old and skilled diplomatists; I see Secretaries and ex-Secretaries and ex-Viceroys of India; and I see, likewise, military men of the highest and most exalted rank, and profound in the science and the arts
  6
  and strategy of war. To render my task more than ordinarily difficult, I feel that the atmosphere of the House of Lords, though essentially calm and judicial, is, at the same time, a critical one. My Lords, exactly 10 years ago an eminent Indian statesman wrote thus from Calcutta, as Viceroy, to the then Secretary of State for India. He said—
  "No man can doubt that the approach of Russia towards the North-Western Frontier of India may involve us in great difficulties."
  My Lords, the Viceroy who wrote this was Sir John Lawrence, and the Secretary of State for India was the Duke of Argyll; and I venture, my Lords, to allude to these plain words, because I think they are fitting words to open the discussion of the subject which you are about to deal with. They were prophetic words then, my Lords, and they have come true now; they are the "keynote" of this debate.
  Now, my Lords, I trust that in discussing this matter we shall not blink this question, because it is a question upon which we should not speak with bated breath; and I think—in fact, I firmly believe—that a plain outspoken Parliamentary debate upon the question of Central Asia will do more than anything else to effect that which every statesman and lover of his country ought to desire—namely, to bring about an understanding between Russia and England upon that question. I venture to think, my Lords, that plain speaking will do more to accomplish that end than the whispers of Cabinets, the words of Generals, or the wiles of diplomacy. My Lords, the Frontier policy—or rather the policy that should guide us with respect to the Frontier of our North-Western Provinces in India—is a question that has occupied and taxed the energies of our greatest statesmen, and for years almost has appeared to baffle their efforts at solution. I should like to remind your Lordships that there has existed for a long time two distinct schools of policy on that subject; and they are, if I may use the expression for the sake of argument, what I may term the backward school and the forward school of Indian politicians. To give some idea of the bent of mind of the backward school, I would draw your Lordships' attention to of event of some importance

  7
  as far back as the year 1857, when an eminent Indian statesman proposed the abandonment of Peshawur and the cession of it and a portion of the neighbouring district to Dost Mahomed. I do not allude to that matter now by way of criticism, for that is unnecessary; but I may mention, in passing, that this rather remarkable proposal was stoutly combatted at the time by Sir Sidney Cotton, and that great and good man, Colonel Edwards, afterwards Sir Herbert Edwards, and the Viceroy of that day, Lord Canning, rejected the proposal. I allude to this as an indication of the length to which the disciples of the backward school have been, and may be now, prepared to go. My Lords, when doctors differ the patient suffers, and in this case the patient is the Indian Empire. I think he would be a bold statesman who would get up and attempt, looking at the intrigues and conspiracies, the insurrections, the mischief, and the danger that might result to our Indian Empire from delay, to recommend that we should wait until these two schools had settled their differences. I venture to think, my Lords, that the time for argument has passed—that the time for action has arrived.
  Now, my Lords, to speak plainly. Her Majesty's Gracious Speech has informed us that we are at war in Afghanistan, and I venture to call your Lordships' attention to that little word "in," for I am rejoiced that we are not at war with Afghanistan—we are at war with the Ameer, but not with his subjects; and if we can trust the Manifesto which has been issued by the Government of India it is not a war of ambition—it is not a war of aggression, it is not a war of annexation—but it is a war for the support of the honour of the Crown, the dignity of the nation, and the safety of our Indian Empire. Now, my Lords, very serious accusations have been largely and liberally levelled at Her Majesty's Ministers for some time past. They have been accused of having entered into this war recklessly, hastily, and without justification, and even, my Lords, wickedly, for I have seen the word wickedly used, and by a noble Lord who I did not expect would use such an expression. My Lords, these are grave charges. They are more than charges—they are impeachments—and if they be just and true, I think it is time that the High
  8
  Court of Parliament should ascertain, by careful examination, whether they; are true or not. My Lords, I am here tonight charged with the duty of opening the case for the defence against these charges, and I must ask your Lordships' indulgence once again while I do so.
  In the first place, allow me to refer to my own position for one moment. I can assure your Lordships, with all sincerity, that I would not have allowed myself to be placed in this prominent position if I did not entertain the firm conviction and belief that Her Majesty's Government were justified in the course that they have taken, and I go beyond that and say that there was no other course which in honour they could have pursued. Now, my Lords, in order to make good the position that I have ventured to take, I must begin by asking your Lordships' permission to review and give a brief history of the past position of affairs, and to make a short retrospect of our relations with Shere Ali. First of all, my Lords, it is my duty to remind you that so far back as 1855 a Treaty was concluded between the old East India Company and the father of the present Ameer, Dost Mahomed. It was short and simple, and in its terms it was a Treaty of friendship and amity. It was a Treaty that bound both signatories to respect the integrity of each other's territories; but it is to the third portion of that Treaty to which I particularly wish to refer. It bound the Ameer to be the friend of our friends and the enemy of our enemies; but there was no such obligation on our part, and it is clear that the Ameer always considered the Treaty as a one-sided instrument. Moreover, my Lords, Lord Canning himself has so described that Treaty, and it is important to bear that fact in mind. In 1856 an important engagement was entered into between the Government of India and the old Ameer, which had reference mainly to the war with Persia, then going on, and there were certain engagements as to a subsidy, which I shall have to allude to by-and-bye. In 1863 Dost Mahomed died, and the Ameer—Shere Ali—notified the event to our Government in a very proper and respectful manner. He informed the Indian Government of the death of his father; but it so happened from some reason or other, of which I

  9
  am not aware, that for six months after that important communication was received no notice whatever was taken of it, and I think your Lordships will agree with me that that was a very unfortunate start to make with a man of the peculiar temper of the Ameer. If Shere Ali had been an angel on earth—and certainly I believe he is far from that—he must have felt very much annoyed at such a delay. Then broke out the civil war, in which at first Shere Ali was successful, his brothers, Mahomed Ufzul Khan, Azim Khan, and a son of Ufzul, Abdul Rahman Khan, being in arms against him. In 1865 he gained a very considerable victory over his elder brother and against his nephew, the son of Ufzul Khan; and that victory appears to have been gained in a very gallant manner, but not without a severe loss to the Ameer, because he lost his favourite son, who was shot in the battle by his own uncle. I do not allude to this as a great political event, but as a very great event in the life of the Ameer, and it appears, from the testimony of writers of the time, that it had a very great effect on the mind of the Ameer. It is even uncertain whether that effect has entirely disappeared at the present time. Moreover, my Lords, I might remind you that the sorrow which was caused by that event has been re-opened very lately by the death of Abdoolla Jan, the youngest and favourite son of Shere Ali. In 1864 the war went on. Soon after his brother gained so great an advantage over him that Shere Ali was almost forced into banishment, and he fled to Herat with a few followers. Then came a curious portion of the history of our relations with Afghanistan. Ufzul Khan ascended the Throne of Cabul, and Shere Ali remained in possession of Herat, and at that time the Viceroy of India wrote a letter to the actual Ameer, who had located himself at Cabul, while the other dethroned Ameer was at Herat. It began by saying—
  "I am very sorry for the Ameer; he is a very old friend of mine, and I never had any occasion of quarrel against him. I am sorry for his degradation;"
  but it goes on to say—
  "I am delighted to congratulate you (Afzul) on the victory you have gained, and I have no doubt that you will be my friend."
  10
  There were at that time not one, but two Rulers of Afghanistan—one at Cabul and one at Herat—and the letter concluded by recognizing both. Now, that letter recognized a principle against which Shere Ali had a great objection, and that was, the recognition of a de facto Ruler. Shere Ali has always said—"If you recognize a de facto Ruler, the effect of it will be to encourage everyone who is opposed to me to rise up against me, and if he succeeds in getting upon the Throne, you will immediately recognize him." What Shere Ali wanted was the adoption of another principle. He wanted, the de jure principle, and he wanted us to recognize his absolute right to the Throne, and he said—"I not only want you to recognize my right to the Throne, but my son's right to the succession. I want him recognized as the heir to the Throne de jure." Now, Ufzul having shortly afterwards died, then came Shere Ali's famous victory, in 1867, in Candahar, which led to his re-entering Cabul in 1868. After that I find a letter written by the Ameer to the Viceroy, and there appeared to be a curious strain of irony running through it. It was to this effect—"Here I am at last; thank God for it; but no thanks to you." It is evidently in an ironical spirit that the Ameer wrote that letter. Now, I may remind your Lordships that the subsidy of six lacs of rupees which had been formerly given to the Ameer was allowed to go on, and there was also a valuable annual present of arms. I now come to a part of the narrative to which I refer with very great pain, and I am sure that your Lordships will share with me in the sorrow with which I mention the name of the Viceroy—my late dear and lamented Friend, Lord Mayo. He arranged matters with Shere Ali at a meeting at Umballa, and for some considerable time our relations with the Ameer became comparatively friendly—they were peaceable, at least, and so far they were satisfactory—and the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), who I regret to see is not in his place, in an interesting letter which he has lately written, has paid a noble and graceful tribute to the late Lord Mayo, to the effect that the influence which we obtained at that time over the mind of Shere Ali was owing to his exertions, his manly 'presence, his genial, open-

  11
  hearted countenance, and his transparent sincerity of character. My Lords, Non cuivis homini contingit adire Corinthum; and while I mention that our relations with Shere Ali at that time became more satisfactory than at any other time, it is no disparagement to the noble Lord the late Viceroy (Lord Northbrook) to say that during his tenure of office he did not get on quite so well with the Ameer. I merely mention that as a fact. There is no doubt of the abilities of my noble Friend as an administrator under trying difficulties; but, at the same time, I feel bound, to state the circumstances. Some very curious things came out upon the occasion of the Conference at Umballa. At that time we had an insight into the mind of the Ameer. He was very sore then upon one or two points. He was sore at the premature recognition of his brother Azim, and he made various observations upon the one-sided character of the Treaty of 1855; he wanted the succession recognized of the son whom he had chosen to succeed him. He did not get all that he wanted upon that occasion; but he obtained something. In point of fact he got a great deal, because Lord Mayo promised him that the British Government would view with displeasure any attempt to disturb the Ameer, and he presented him with two batteries of artillery, and a considerable stand of arms; and no doubt the Ameer and Lord Mayo left the Conference in a very good humour one with the other. The Ameer wrote a very striking letter afterwards, in which he said—
  "I strongly hope that the British Government will always do good and be kind to me, and keep me under its protection."—Afghanistan, No. 1, p. 91.]
  That was what the Ameer wanted; but it was what he never could get. There were many other matters discussed upon the occasion, and among them the presence of British officers in Afghanistan, and I think that there was very good reason at that time to hope that the Ameer would have consented to the presence of British officers at Herat, Candahar, and Balkh; but he certainly would not have consented to the presence of British Residents at Cabul, because he said it might embarrass him with his subjects: I do certainly think that
  12
  he would have given his consent to the presence of Residents in the other towns that I have mentioned. Her Majesty's Government, however, at the time, did not altogether approve of what had been done at the Conference, and they insisted upon certain conditions being inserted—certain reservations and certain provisions being made.
  I pass now from that point, and come down to the year 1873, and it is an important epoch in the history of our relations. We found the Ameer still friendly, but, at the same time, he was less attentive to our representations than he had shown himself before. Now, what had occurred in the interval? Very great events had occurred. What had been styled the bugbear of the Indian Government—namely, the Russian advance—had become a stern reality. The Russian troops had advanced through Central Asia; Russia had made her influence paramount at Samarcand and in Bokhara; she was now upon the Oxus, and Khiva had been annexed. That caused very great alarm, and the annexation of Khiva especially shook, I hope not for ever, the confidence of England in Russian promises. The Ameer was alarmed, and he wrote to us that he should be glad to have a Conference with the Viceroy. The Conference was held at Simla. Now, my Lords, I must call your attention for one moment to the circumstances in which the Ameer found himself placed, and I think the best way to do so is to refer to two telegrams that passed between the Viceroy and the Secretary of State. The Viceroy telegraphed on the 24th of July, 1873, to the Secretary of State for India, as follows:—
  "Ameer of Cabul alarmed at Russian progress, dissatisfied with general assurance, and anxious to know definitely how far he may rely on our help if invaded. I propose assuring him that if he unreservedly accepts and acts on our advice in all external relations we will help him with money, arms, and troops, if necessary, to expel unprovoked invasion. We to be the judge of the necessity."—[Ibid. p. 108.]
  The reply of the Secretary of State to that telegram, on the 26th of July, was as follows:—
  "Cabinet thinks you should inform Ameer that we do not at all share his alarm, and consider there is no cause for it: but you may assure him we shall maintain our settled policy in favour of Afghanistan, if he abides by our advice in external affairs."—[Ibid.]

  13
  Now, there are two or three very important considerations with reference to those telegrams. The continuance of the subsidy was one of the topics of consideration between the Ameer and the Viceroy, and the record of the conversations is certainly very puzzling reading. In the first instance, we were to negotiate in the event of invasion; but if the negotiations failed, we were to take another course, and if hostilities broke out we undertook to give the Ameer material assistance. But if the granting of the subsidy was to continue, it was to continue not only upon the condition of the Ameer's conduct towards the British Government, but upon the manner in which he treated his own subjects. Now, the withdrawal of the subsidy on such a ground would be a very difficult and delicate operation. It appears to me that it would be a very difficult thing, indeed, to treat with a Sovereign when you have deprived yourselves of the opportunity of obtaining the information that is necessary to enable a proper opinion to be formed. We have no British officers in Afghanistan, and therefore no person on whom we can fairly rely for obtaining such information; and it was not the policy of the then Government to place Residents in the Frontier towns, so that we could ascertain from them what was going on in the country, and the general treatment by the Ameer of his subjects. There is another point which had reference to the continuance of the subsidy. The assistance of our troops was to depend upon the implicit acceptance by the Ameer of our advice in all the external relations of his country. Then what becomes of the independence of the Ameer, which was another stringent principle insisted on, if at that time we were to be absolute judges of his foreign policy? Now I go on, and I may mention, in passing, that a careful record of these conversations was kept and sent to the Ameer, accompanied by a letter from the Viceroy telling him that Her Majesty's Government was bound by their substance; and I can quite understand, having read the despatches, that the Ameer was puzzled when he read the Correspondence, and I can quite imagine that he should have said when he got up from the perusal of them—"I don't understand these Englishmen. I don't know what they mean to do or
  14
  what they don't mean to do; but one thing seems clear, and that is that they are not friendly to me, and I will have nothing more to do with them." If he did not say that, that was the spirit in which he seems to have acted. Now, the next thing which I wish to allude to is the Conference which took place in 1877 at Peshawur. That was intended to be a friendly Conference, and Sir Lewis Pelly was empowered to make many important concessions. At that Conference a great deal was said on the part of the Ameer with reference to the necessity of recognising the succession of his younger son, on which he had set his mind; but, after all, the Conference was an abortive one. The Afghan Envoy was ill almost all the time the proceedings were going on, and he died before the Conference ought to have ended. But I think it is the true solution of the failure to say that it was too late; that the Ameer had made up his mind as to who should be his friend, and had made choice of Russia, and not of us. Then, or shortly after, confidential communications with Cabul took place from Tashkend. And long before these Papers were produced to us, we have the evidence of an independent witness upon the subject. That witness is M. Vambéry, the traveller, and he tells us that on the 13th of August of this year—which was the very day that the Treaty of Berlin was signed—a Russian Mission started from Tashkend, and a Russian General remained five weeks at Cabul, and was treated with every consideration, in fact received with open arms. Then it was that we resolved to send a friendly Mission to Cabul, and informed the Ameer of our intention, telling him that it was sent with a friendly object. We were, however, stopped and looked upon as intruders, and your Lordships will remember the reception it met with at the entrance of the Khyber Pass, and you will also remember the words that were addressed by the Afghan Sirdar to our Envoy—"If it were not for my personal friendship for you I should have fired upon you, and if you go farther I shall do so." Now, my Lords, I have concluded this long, and I am afraid tedious, review of our relations with the Ameer, and I come to the inference that I wish to draw from that retrospect. The inference I draw is, I think, the true one,

  15
  and I assure your Lordships that I have no wish to treat the subject in a narrow Party spirit; but I want to get at the truth, and the truth is simply this—that the Ameer never was a friend to England in our acceptation of the term, and we were never friends to the Ameer in his acceptation of the term. The cold and neutral tinted policy which we had too long pursued in India had no attraction for the Ameer; he wanted brighter colours and a warmer tone. He sought for them at Simla, but he found them in Turkestan.
  My Lords, statesmen must, as school children must, submit to be judged by results. If a certain policy proves a failure we are not to be debarred from condemning it by such high-sounding terms as "benevolent neutrality," or "non-intervention," or "non-interference." My Lords, non-interference is an excellent rule in private life, so long as nobody shows a disposition to interfere with you; but if another man is interfering with your business you must interfere with him. Caution is a very desirable thing; but over-caution leads a man into quite as great straits, as rashness and over-caution is apt to be regarded by semi-civilized communities and Sovereigns as timidity. We all know, if we know anything of human nature, that nobody cares for a timid man. My Lords, I would ask, with the greatest possible respect, but, at the same time, with the greatest possible confidence, whether any noble Lord who sits on the opposite benches will get up and say that after the insult which was offered to our Envoy any English Cabinet could have stood motionless, and tamely submitted to that insult? Knowing that Russian influence was dominant in Afghanistan; feeling, as every English Cabinet must feel, that it was responsible for the honour of the Crown, the dignity of the nation, the tranquillity of the Frontier, and the tranquillity of a country numbering 200,000,000 of inhabitants within its Frontiers, will any noble Lord get up and say that an English Cabinet could, under such circumstances, have tamely submitted to that insult? If there is one man in this House so hardy and so bold as to say that, I would venture to tell him that he must settle his account with his countrymen—he must be responsible to them for such advice.
  16
  Now, my Lords, I have done, or nearly done. Since the outbreak of hostilities in Afghanistan our noble soldiers and our gallant and instructed officers have done what English soldiers have ever done—their duty. It is too early to speak of results. I am not going to attempt to foretel what will be the issue of the present war. The matter is in the hands of Providence, and we must abide the result with hope and confidence. It has been said that we have failed to make a friend of the Ameer, and, before quitting the subject, I would remark that he does not appear to have been able to make very good friends of his feudatory clans.
  There is another paragraph in the Most Gracious Speech of Her Majesty upon which I wish to say one or two words. Her Majesty says—
  "I have every reason to believe that the arrangements for the pacification of Europe, made by the Treaty of Berlin, will be successfully carried into effect."
  That statement will, I think, be regarded by the country with great satisfaction, because it implies the sanctity of Treaties. I hope the time is far distant when the sanctity of Treaties will cease to be recognized. Treaties are, my Lords, the title deeds of Empires; they are the guarantees of the independence, liberty, and safety of smaller and weaker States; which in turn may be regarded as neutral zones, marked out by the negotiations of diplomatists and statesmen, and established as barriers againt the encroachments of the greater and more powerful States. Of all countries, England is the last that ought lightly to regard Treaty obligations. I believe that in insisting on a firm adherence to the stipulations in the Articles of the Treaty of Berlin, England will receive the support of Europe. At any rate, England is bound to regard the obligations of Treaties even more than any other State that could be named, because it has always been our boast that an Englishman's word is his bond.
  I wish to allude for a moment to one subject which is not mentioned in Her Majesty's most gracious Speech. Having been connected for many years with, large mining, manufacturing, and agricultural districts, and with the commerce of the country, I wish to ask your Lordships' permission to express—as I do

  17
  from the bottom of my heart—my sympathy for the thousands, I fear I must say the millions, of my fellow-countrymen who are suffering hardship, privation, and misery from the depression in the chief industries of the country. In the expression of that sympathy I am sure every noble Lord who hears me will heartily join. Probably the reason why the subject is not referred to in Her Majesty's most gracious Speech is, that the Government felt that unless they could afford relief, it would be better not to introduce the subject; besides which they may have felt that, under the circumstances, it would be wise to concentrate the attention of Parliament on the special topic of the war in Afghanistan. I may add that I should not have ventured to make this allusion to it, had I not felt that I might possibly pour a drop of comfort even among the disheartened millions of whom I have spoken. My Lords, there may be a ray of light amid the deepest gloom. A ray of light has not appeared on our horizon yet; but one has appeared on the horizon of a distant and a friendly State. The President of the United States, in his Message the other day, told his countrymen that he saw symptoms of improvement of returning prosperity, and of a revival of trade; and. I believe that when a revival of trade occurs in America, it will not be long before it reaches our own shores. Our American friends have proved very good prophets in the prediction of atmospheric changes; and I hope the President's prophecy will prove equally well founded.
  And now, my Lords, it only remains for me to thank you—as I do from the bottom of my heart—for the large measure of indulgence and kind attention which you have accorded to me, and to apologize for the length, and to many noble Lords the tedium, of the remarks which I have made. I now move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, thanking Her Majesty for Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech from the Throne, as follows:—
  "MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN,
  "WE, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
  18
  "We humbly thank Your Majesty for the gracious expression of your regret that Your Majesty has found it necessary to call for our attendance at an unusual, and, as Your Majesty is pleased to say, probably at an inconvenient time.
  "We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that the hostility manifested towards Your Majesty's Indian Government by the Ameer of Afghanistan, and the manner in which he has repulsed Your Majesty's friendly Mission, has left Your Majesty no alternative but to make a peremptory demand for redress.
  "We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that in consequence of this demand having been disregarded, Your Majesty has directed an expedition to be sent into his territory, and has taken the earliest opportunity of calling us together, and making to us the communication required by Law.
  "We thank Your Majesty for directing that Papers on the subject shall be laid before us.
  "We rejoice to learn that Your Majesty receives from all Foreign Powers assurances of their friendly feelings, and that Your Majesty has every reason to believe that the arrangements for the pacification of Europe, made by the Treaty of Berlin, will be successfully carried into effect.
  "We humbly assure Your Majesty that after full deliberation upon the matters which have led Your Majesty to anticipate our usual time of meeting, we shall be prepared to give our careful consideration to such measures for the public benefit as Your Majesty may hereafter direct to be submitted to us.
  "We humbly assure Your Majesty that our best care shall be devoted to the maintenance of the great interests of Your Majesty's Empire, and we unite with Your Majesty in praying that the blessing of the Almighty may attend our counsels."
  LORD INCHIQUIN: In rising to second the Address, which has just been moved by my noble Friend (the Earl of Ravensworth) in answer to Her Majesty's most Gracious Speech, I wish, in the first place, briefly to refer to some of the events which took place during the late war between Russia and Turkey, and to those events which immediately preceded the signature of the Treaty of Berlin; because it appears to me that in order rightly to appreciate the circumstances which have led to the declaration of war with Afghanistan, it is essen-

  19
  tial to bear in mind the occurrences which have recently taken place in Europe as well as in Asia.
  I think it will be conceded on all sides that the task which Her Majesty's Government have had before them in carrying out the foreign policy of the country has been lately one of unexampled difficulty and danger; and that they have carried that policy out with honour to themselves and satisfaction to the country, I think has been sufficiently proved by the reception which the First Minister of the Crown and the Foreign Secretary received on their return from the Berlin Congress, and also by the overwhelming majority with which the other House of Parliament pronounced a decision in their favour. My Lords, the difficulties which they have had to encounter have proceeded, in a great measure, from the aggressive policy which has been pursued by Russia, and by the threatening attitude which that country has on more than one occasion assumed towards England, and also from the pledges and assurances which have been given by her, and which, like the proverbial pie-crust, seem to have been made only to be broken. My Lords, the astounding revelations of diplomatic un-scrupulousness and intrigue which are contained in the volume which has just been issued upon affairs in Central Asia have shown that Her Majesty's Government have not without sufficient cause pursued the course they have done with regard to Afghanistan. But, my Lords, the difficulties which they have had to encounter have not only proceeded from without. They have also, in great measure, proceeded from within. I allude especially to the agitation which took place in this country before and during the late war. I think it cannot be doubted that those agitations had a most injurious effect, and that they made it exceedingly difficult for Her Majesty's Government to act with that decision and promptitude which they otherwise would nave used. My Lords, these internal difficulties and agitations undoubtedly had a most injurious effect during the late war. They produced an effect upon Russia which made her imagine that she had nothing to do but to go on with her conquests, without taking into consideration the possibility of England's interference, and led her to pursue her victorious course up to the very walls of Constantinople.
  20
  But, nevertheless, all this time Her Majesty's Government were keeping a watchful eye upon the interests of this country. They were only waiting until the time arrived to intervene, and when it did arrive they interfered with so much effect that the Treaty of San Stefano, which completely abrogated Turkish power in Europe, was submitted to the assembled Powers of Europe at the Congress of Berlin, and the result was the conclusion of the Treaty of Berlin. By that Treaty, Turkey was re-established as an European Power; and I think it will be a source of immense gratification to everyone in this country to hear the announcement which Her Majesty has made in Her most gracious Speech, that she has every reason to believe that this Treaty will be faithfully carried out.
  My Lords, while these affairs were going on in Europe, Russia was not idle in Asia. She had for years been pursuing a policy of interference, pressing on her arms in every quarter, and annexing first one country and then another; and, my Lords, at the very time that the Treaty of Berlin was signed she was intriguing with the Ameer of Afghanistan, in order that she might, in the event of war breaking out between her and England, send an army into his dominions for the purpose of making a descent on India. I would recommend those who read the Papers upon the Afghan Question to judge of the intentions of Russia. But, my Lords, I must draw your attention to one special incident recorded in the Central Asian Papers. I allude to the publication of the letters from General Kaufmann to the Ameer. The publication of those letters, following as they did the categorical denial of their existence, given first by Prince Gortchakoff, and subsequently by General Kaufmann himself, form a curious and interesting commentary on the repeated assurances given by Russian statesmen, and even by the Emperor himself, that Afghanistan lay outside the sphere of Russian action.
  My Lords, I shall endeavour, as shortly and as briefly as I can, to touch on the subject of Afghanistan. It has been so fully dealt with by my noble Friend that I shall not attempt to go over the ground again; but, in the first place, I wish to say, that after carefully perusing the Papers which have been placed in our hands, it appears to me that the

  21
  despatch of the Secretary of State for India is most fully justified upon examination of those Papers. It appears to me that no inference is drawn in that despatch which is not borne out by the Papers. The whole matter may, I think, be stated in two simple questions—first of all, have we been fair in our dealings with the Ameer throughout? and, secondly, are we justified now in declaring war against him? I think the first question must be answered in the negative, and the last in the affirmative. It appears to me that if instead of pursuing that course of masterly inactivity and timidity which marked our dealings with Afghanistan in the early part of the Ameer's reign, we had come boldly forward and told him that we would recognize him as the de jure as well as the de facto Ruler of Afghanistan, and if, guarding ourselves against interfering in his domestic affairs, we had promised to assist him in defending himself against foreign enemies, he would still have been our staunch ally. But it is a remarkable fact that Lord Mayo appears to have been the only Viceroy who really inspired confidence in Shere Ali. He certainly established an immense influence over him, and especially at the time of the Umballa Conference. But it is also remarkable that after the Umballa Conference a letter was written by the then Secretary of State for India (the Duke of Argyll) to Lord Mayo, disapproving in a certain measure of what he had done there. My Lords, the fact is that we have always been unwilling to take any risk upon ourselves. We have asked from the Ameer everything, and on our part we have been unwilling to grant anything in return. But the same error appears on our part in our dealings with the Ameer in 1873. That year was a very remarkable one, though I will not dwell on it on account of my noble Friend having so fully called attention to it; but I may say that there is no doubt that that year was the turning point in our negotiations with Shere Ali. He had become alarmed at the rapid advance of Russia in Central Asia, and at the taking of Khiva, and appealed to us for more explicit assurances of our protection; but the Viceroy, Lord Northbrook, was not authorised by the Home Government to give these promises. Again, after the Conference
  22
  between the Viceroy and Shere Ali's Envoy at Simla the same difficulty arose. The Viceroy was not able, on account of the orders which he had received from England, to give Shere Ali those assurances which he sought. This was the state of affairs when the present Government came into Office; and the first thing which Lord Salisbury did was to write to Lord Northbrook, the then Viceroy, stating what scanty information was being received from Afghanistan, and suggesting that a British Agent should be established at Herat and Candahar. Now, my Lords, it will probably be in your recollection that Shere Ali had assented to this proposition before; but what was the answer which the Viceroy sent? He sent an answer saying that he and his Council considered that the policy which had been previously pursued was much better than that suggested by the Secretary of State. A short time after that the Secretary of State again writes, saying that if it was injudicious to send a British Agent, he suggested, under the circumstances, that the best thing to do was to send a British Mission. This, again, was declined by the Indian Government; and it was not until Lord Lytton came into office that a real attempt was made to establish a British Mission, and to find out whether Shere Ali was willing to give the necessary consent. And, my Lords, Lord Lytton, when he went out, was instructed to offer the assistance which Shere Ali had before appealed for in vain. But it was too late. The mischief had been done, and it was impossible to undo it. Things remained in this way until July and August of this very year, when a notice came to say that a Russian Mission was at that moment in Cabul; and the Viceroy telegraphed home to know whether the matter was to be treated as an Imperial question, or one which concerned the Indian Government. Having been told that it was to be dealt with in the latter capacity, he informed the Ameer that a British Mission would be sent immediately to Cabul, and with what result is well known to your Lordships. It was impossible for the Government to put up with such an open insult; and I have no hesitation in saying Her Majesty's Government had no other course open to them than that which they

  23
  have taken. There may be people who will say "Perish India," and would rather sacrifice their own country than sacrifice their particular views as to our relations with the Ameer; but I believe the people who are of that way of thinking are very few: and I am sure that your Lordships and the bulk of the people of England will tolerate no interference with our Empire, but will sacrifice blood and treasure to maintain it, and will be prepared to say "England's friends are our friends, and England's enemies are our enemies." I beg to second the Address. [See p. 17.]
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, it has been my lot not unfrequently during the existence of the present Government, on the occasion of the opening of Parliament, to express the great pleasure I have felt at the ability with which the Address to Her Majesty in answer to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech have been moved and seconded in this House by young Peers. The noble Lord who has just seconded the Address (Lord Inchiquin) we have often had the pleasure of hearing before; and with regard to my noble Friend who moved it, he is an old soldier in debate whom we gladly welcome, though coming from another regiment. I hope that neither of my noble Friends, nor any of your Lordships, will think I am wanting in courtesy to those noble Lords, or that I do not consider the topics with which they have dealt of the greatest importance and gravity, if I do not follow them in detail in the statements they have made, and which I shall avoid doing for the reasons I shall shortly give. I observe, though I do not complain of it, that neither of the noble Lords has followed the usual practice of adverting to each of the points mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. "With regard to home matters there is, indeed, very little to be said—for there are only two points in it. The first is the reference to the inevitable, and, I am afraid, the annually increasing Estimates; and there is also an announcement of certain anonymous Bills to be introduced into Parliament after a suitable Recess. I own that after the experience I have had of the announcement of Bills in Queen's Speeches in the last two years and the results, I am able to wait with indifference till February next to know the names of the new friends or the old friends with new
  24
  faces, as the case may be. The noble Earl who moved the Address appeared to me to hit a very serious blot, which had struck me on reading the Queen's Speech. We all know the warm and active sympathy which Her Majesty evinces when any calamity happens to any class, or even to individuals, among her subjects; and I do think it is somewhat strange that Her Majesty's Ministers should entirely omit to insert a single word of sympathy on the part of Her Majesty with the great distress which indubitably exists among the trading, the manufacturing, and the agricultural classes of this country. The noble Earl spoke with great feeling, as becomes his great knowledge of this subject; and I am happy to agree with him in the hopes of improvement which he expressed as to the future. No doubt the depression has arisen mainly from causes with which Her Majesty's Government have nothing to do. First, there was the inflation of a few years ago, against the dangers of which the Leader of the late Government so eloquently warned the public. Then there was the commercial disturbance caused by the Russo-Turkish War. I do not know how far it can be said that Her Majesty's Government had nothing to do with that, for the Prime Minister told us last year that if the Government had taken a course they did not take that war might have been prevented, while others think there was a different course which might have had the same effect. Her Majesty's Government have nothing to do with bad harvests, nor with the folly of the enormous loans to insolvent States, enabling them for a short period to buy the produce of our labour. My firm belief at this moment is that these causes are diminished, if not removed, and that the one thing wanted is confidence. With confidence there would be a return of gradually increasing prosperity; but how far Her Majesty's Government, by their acts, are contributing to restore that confidence it is not for me to say. It is quite clear that a Government which describes every diplomatic move as a diplomatic triumph; which announces—with perfect truth—that this country is able from year to year to sustain the strains of war without being exhausted; which startles the country with great responsibilities for which it is utterly unprepared, even if

  25
  it follows a policy that may be wise—may be popular—it does not contribute to bring about the sort of confidence which is essential to the prosperity of trade and manufactures. I do not complain of the Speech being short; but there are some very singular omissions to which I must allude. While a most serious war is raging in our dominion of South Africa, and we are despatching troops thither, it does seem to me that in a communication from Her Majesty to Her Parliament there should be some reference to the state of affairs in that important Colony. There is, indeed, an allusion to the Treaty of Berlin—a very satisfactory allusion it is; and I am ready to admit with great pleasure that if Her Majesty's Government, in concert with the other European Powers, have, by judicious diplomatic measures, contributed in any degree to induce Russia and Turkey to execute all their engagements under that Treaty, not excluding any, they will have done a very great and important work. I am very glad, indeed, Her Majesty's Government are able to inform us that they think those two countries will execute the Treaty, and that it will work satisfactorily, though of this I require more information to be convinced. But there is another matter which affects this country much more vitally than the Treaty of Berlin, and that is the Anglo-Turkish Convention; we are not quite sure how that is being carried out. That came upon us all with a surprise. As the result of that Convention we found ourselves in possession of Cyprus, and loaded with immense responsibilities—the government of Asia Minor and the Protectorate of Turkey. My Lords, we who dared last year to criticize the value of Cyprus were stigmatized as unpatriotic. I admit that many people thought that it was a great success at the moment and for a particular purpose. I am told—though I do not know whether it is true—that a great Continental statesman, who has constantly recommended annexation to this country, when he heard of it said—"It will succeed; it will be popular in England; they will call it progress, but it is acquisition." My Lords, we have heard a great deal of Russian aggression of late; but I find in these Papers a Governor General declaring of India that we fear no aggression and desire
  26
  no acquisition; and the late Foreign Secretary (the Earl of Derby) said that the strength of this country consisted in this—that we feared nobody and wanted nothing. It appeared to me to be a proud and true assertion. I am afraid that these former truths can hardly now be maintained. I rather gather that the acquisition of Cyprus, even apart from the mode in which it was made, is not now considered of such high value by those who made it as it was at first. I judge this from the different manner in which they defend it. One Minister states that it is to be considered a model school of good government for the Turks. I very much doubt whether many Pashas will be sent to Cyprus to study our administration more than they have been sent to Malta, to England, or to the Ionian Islands. The Prime Minister has spoken of Cyprus as "a place of arms;" but before it becomes so I am afraid many improvements will have to be carried out and much expense incurred. It is, indeed, a little out of the way; but by the time it is fortified, harbours provided, and the pestilential climate rendered salubrious, I trust it may turn out to be of some use. But then it seems there is some further consolation in store for us. A right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Gloucester) has spoken of our possession of Cyprus as a providential dispensation that would promote the spread of the Christian religion. Nobody would be more delighted than I should be if such an object could be attained; but I confess I do not quite understand how that brilliant and gallant soldier Sir Garnet Wolseley, administering Mahommedan law in that Island, will promote in any very sensible degree the advancement of the Christian religion. I hope the Government will succeed in their endeavours to introduce better government into Asia Minor; but I am disappointed that they did not think it worth while to mention the subject in the Royal Speech.
  I now, my Lords, come to the subject to which both the noble Earl and the noble Lord so properly devoted their attention. No doubt your Lordships have a perfectly Constitutional right to move an Amendment to the Address in answer to the Speech from the Throne; but, my Lords, it is a right which for the last 20 years has not been exercised. It is a right the exercise of which states-

  27
  men have always deemed it well to avoid if possible, it being desirable, out of respect to the Sovereign, that in our Address to the Throne we should be as unanimous as possible. An Amendment is all the more unnecessary when an Address does not commit the House, and we have simply to thank Her Majesty for the information we have received. There is another reason, my Lords, why I think an Amendment on this occasion is almost impossible, with due regard for the convenience of Peers. Parliament has been summoned very suddenly; but the Papers bearing upon the causes of that summons have been delivered to us only a very few days ago, and we have had no time to study them in detail. I think the House will expect some explanation why the Central Asia Papers, which were promised before the close of last Session, have been withheld from your Lordships and the country till the beginning of this week. With regard to the Afghan Papers, they consist of so large a mass that some considerable time must be required to master them—I venture to say that the great majority of your Lordships here present have not had the time requisite to master their details. I therefore at once wish to state that it is not my intention to move any Amendment to the Address; but I beg it to be clearly understood that I think there are matters of the very greatest importance with which we have to deal, and that it will be impossible for this House not fully to discuss the whole subject, and to express an opinion upon it. Speaking of what has been achieved in the field, I must say it is to me a source of very great pleasure to hear of the brilliant dash and courage of our troops which have led them on to success. Whatever may be the cause, or in whatever part of the world, our troops never fail, whether on land or sea; and the fact of their success will enable us, so far as the Opposition is concerned, all the more thoroughly to discuss and debate the policy of the Government, which the noble Lord who seconded the Address stated turned on two points—first, whether the conduct of the English Government had been just to the Ameer; and, secondly, whether the war itself was just. I agree with him in thinking the first question must be answered in
  28
  the negative, and I should have thought that the two questions were somewhat connected. This, my Lords, is the great question which has called Parliament together. I had no great anxiety about the meeting of Parliament. I felt perfectly certain it would be called together. Not that it makes any great difference to Parliament whether it meets now or in February, so far as it may exercise any influence after the mischief has been done—after a war has already commenced. Once you cut the jugular vein, it does not much matter whether you send for the surgeon at once or a week afterwards. There are great Constitutional questions connected with it. No one denies the absolute Prerogative of the Crown to declare war and make peace; but there are questions connected with every Prerogative of the Crown, with regard to the discretion and the extent to which it is used; and it is perfectly clear to me, that if year after year you take the country and Parliament perfectly by surprise and throw on them the responsibility of measures, without the means of forming a judgment having been afforded, you do weaken the foundations on which the principle of Prerogative rests, and you may do a great deal of mischief thereby. I do not wish to enter into the Constitutional question—it rather belongs to the whole merits of the case, on which I do not wish to dwell to-night. But there is this peculiarity in the case—there has been a great change of policy on this most important matter. During the last three years, not only has Parliament not been taken into confidence on the subject, but Parliament has actually been led to take a wrong view of what was the policy of the Cabinet. During that period had Parliament any reason to suppose that the policy of the Government with regard to Afghanistan was different from that of all the Secretaries of State, and of all Governors General from the time of Lord Dalhousie to the time when the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) took the Seals of the India Office? It is not my habit to trouble your Lordships by reading long extracts from Blue Books; but I must trouble your Lordships with a few. In the first place, what were the general principles held by the Conservative Party upon this subject nine years ago, when they were in power? Sir Stafford

  29
  Northcote, when at the India Office, said in the House of Commons, on the 9th of July, 1869—
  "Looking at it from an Indian point of view, this debate had been eminently satisfactory, both in the opinions that had been expressed and the opinions that had not been expressed. There had been no advocacy of a policy of annexation, of a policy of extending the British dominions, or of a policy of advancing in order to meet Russia midway between our Frontier and hers. The general feeling evidently was in favour of the policy of keeping within our own Frontiers—of developing the internal defences, extending the existing railways, and improving the harbour of Kurrachee, rather than attempting to go into the country of Afghanistan. In addition to the other reasons which might be stated against such a proceeding as the latter, there was the danger of creating suspicion in the minds of the natives. He believed the hon. Member for Gravesend had given expression to the feelings of Englishmen of all parties, when he said that we ought to keep free from the imbroglio of Afghan policy. There was a general feeling that we ought not to repeat the mistakes we made in 1840; that we ought to keep ourselves entirely free from entangling alliances. What we should do was to maintain friendly relations with the natives on our borders, to desire the existence of a good Government in Afghanistan. It was a misapprehension to suppose that we wanted to erect Cabul into a bulwark against Russia."—[3 Hansard, cxcvii. 1578–9.]
  No doubt Sir Stafford Northcote fairly represented the opinions of the Government on that occasion. I will not quote the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby), speaking in behalf of the noble Marquess in 1874, but he certainly gave no indication of any change of policy. But in 1877 there arose considerable disquietude on this subject among those conversant with India, and on June 11 of that year the noble Marquess said—
  "I can assure the noble Lord that any danger of a Russian inroad on the Frontier of British India is not quite so far advanced as he seems to imagine. The nearest point on the Caspian at which supplies could be gathered by Russia is over a thousand miles from our Indian Frontier. The consideration of the danger to which the noble Lord refers may possibly interest a future generation of statesmen; but that calamity is not of such imminence as to render necessary the Motion by which the noble Lord seeks to avert it. I will not dwell longer on the geographical circumstances, except to protest against the statement of the noble Lord that the Empire of British India knows no bounds. My Lords, the bounds of that Empire are very minutely marked out, especially on the North-Western side. Whatever the Empire of Russia may be, there is no doubt whatever as to what the Frontier of British India is. It is perfectly well known. I cannot help thinking that in discussions of this kind
  30
  a great deal of misapprehension arises from the popular use of maps on a small scale. As with such maps you are able to put a thumb on India and a finger on Russia, some persons at once think that the political situation is alarming, and that India must be looked to. If the noble Lord would use a larger map—say one on the scale of the Ordnance Map of England—he would find that the distance between Russia and British India is not to be measured by the finger and thumb, but by a rule. There are between them deserts and mountainous chains measured by thousands of miles, and these are serious obstacles to any advance by Russia, however well planned such an advance might be."—[3 Hansard, ccxxxiv. 1564–5.]
  Do such sentiments appear to be those of a Minister who was making a great change in the Indian policy, out of fear of Russia? Not very long after that the Duke of Argyll put a Question to the noble Marquess. I may say, in passing, that the Duke of Argyll greatly regrets that an important question like this, in which he takes so much interest, should be discussed when he is unable from ill-health to be present. Lord Salisbury answered—
  "With respect to the information asked for by the noble Duke, I can hardly give him much positive knowledge; but I think I can give him some negative information. He has derived from the sources open to him the following statement, as I understood him:—that we had tried to force an Envoy upon the Ameer at Cabul; that we had selected for that purpose Sir Lewis Pelly, whose vigour of mind and action might possibly inspire apprehension in the Councils of a Native Prince; that we had supported this demand by a large assemblage of troops on the North-Western Frontier; and that we were preparing boats upon the Indus. Now, we have not tried to force an Envoy upon the Ameer at Cabul; we have not suggested Sir Lewis Pelly as an Envoy to Cabul; the troops were assembled on the North-Western Frontier without the slightest reference to any such demand; and with regard to the boats on the Indus, I never heard of them until to-day."—[Ibid. 1835.]
  With regard to sending Envoys, the noble Marquess stated that he referred to Candahar and Herat, and not to Cabul; but in the Papers it is distinctly shown that it was announced to the Ameer that it was intended to send Sir Lewis Pelly to Cabul. The Papers say nothing about the massing of troops on the Frontier, and I do not know from the Papers what was the reason for which they were sent. Then the noble Marquess continued—
  "Our relations with the Ameer of Cabul have undergone no material change since last year. I do not believe that he is worse dis-

  31
  posed towards us than hitherto, or that his feelings are in any way more embittered towards the British Government."—[Ibid.]
  My Lords, I shall listen with great anxiety to the explanation of the noble Marquess; but I must ask, after all that had happened, how was it possible to say that our relations with the Ameer had undergone no material change, and that the feelings of the Ameer were not more embittered towards the British Government? Well, my Lords, a despatch from Lord Lytton was sent on the 20th of February, 1876; the next Paper to it is the answer, on the 10th of May—not the 10th of May, 1876, but the 10th of May, 1877. Now, I really want to know what passed all this time. Are we really to believe that during these 14 months, when such important transactions were going on, not a single communication passed between the Secretary of State and the Viceroy of India? That seems almost impossible; but if there were a number of such despatches, I presume that they will be produced. Or are we to understand that the system of Correspondence known as "private and personal communications," and which, when attempted in the Foreign Office, exploded in the Warner police case, was adopted during that period? As I said before, I shall listen with anxiety to the explanation of the noble Marquess, how it was that during all that time there were no communications between the two Governments? But, however long that despatch of Lord Lytton was in coming, it must have been in the hands of the noble Marquess a week or a fortnight before the day when he gave the reply to which I have referred; and how, then, was it possible to say that there was no change in the position when at the time we had broken off all diplomatic relations with the Ameer, and we gave him to understand that he was not to entertain any hope of help against Russia? The noble Marquess having given this explanation, what happened? The noble Lord (Lord Lawrence), a former Governor General of India, whom I have always found the most courteous of men, did not acquiesce. He said that—
  "So far as Central Asia was concerned, there was nothing to be desired beyond the statement of the noble Marquess to the House, coupled with that made 'elsewhere' on the previous Monday; but, with regard to our policy on the
  32
  North-West Frontier and our relations with Cabul, he feared that something more had occurred than had yet been heard of. It seemed unlikely that all the doubts, forebodings, and suggestions which had appeared in the Indian papers should have so little basis as contended for in the explanations of the noble Marquess. It was clear from the Indian papers, and he included those which supported the action of the Indian Government, that something of very considerable importance had occurred to cause agitation on the North-West Frontier of India."—[Ibid. 1836.]
  What did my noble Friend (the Earl of Northbrook) say? He said—
  "It is with great satisfaction, therefore, that I have heard the assurance of the noble Marquess that the policy I have referred to Her Majesty's Government will continue to pursue. I am satisfied that he has given us that assurance in perfect good faith, and that we may trust him to resist any attempt to put it aside."—[Ibid. 1843.]
  I may add, with regard to this point, that it was through the advice of my noble Friend (the Earl of Northbrook), and through his influence upon us, that we entirely gave up the idea of taking Parliamentary action on this subject.
  Now, I come to another question, to which I have been invited by the noble Lord who seconded the Address—I do not pretend, however, that I should not have referred to it even if the noble Lord had not done so. The noble Lord says that, in the despatch of the 18th of November, the Secretary of State for India gave a perfectly correct statement of all that had happened. Now, my Lords, I must say that a certain portion of the despatch of the noble Viscount (Viscount Cranbrook) conveyed the most erroneous impression possible of what had occurred. When a subject interests the public they resort to every device to get easy information upon it; they fly to the newspapers, to abstracts, digests, &c. to get at the matter without great labour. Very few men are gluttons of Blue Books. Now, I do not blame the noble Viscount in the slightest degree for writing and publishing the despatch—I think he was perfectly right in taking an opportunity of stating his own case. But in producing such a statement, which he knew would be read by hundreds of thousands who would never dream of reading two pages of a Blue Book, surely it was incumbent on him to use special care and accuracy in respect of everything? I do not undervalue the difficulty of making a précis

  33
  of such a multitude of Papers, and this is very able, very clear, and very interesting; but what did the noble Viscount do? He gave a short historical sketch of what had happened with regard to this question in previous stages and under different Governors General. I am not aware that any fault can be found with that part of the despatch. My noble Friend behind me (Lord Lawrence) will correct me if I am wrong; but I think the description of his policy was perfectly fair and accurate. But when the noble Viscount came to deal with the policy of the late Government the case was very different. The ninth paragraph of the despatch contains the part to which I refer, and I will read it to your Lordships. Paragraph 9 says—
  "Finding that the object of the Ameer was to ascertain definitely how far he might rely on the help of the British Government if his territories were threatened by Russia, Lord Northbrook's Government was prepared to assure him that, under certain conditions, the Government of India would assist him to repel unprovoked aggression. But Her Majesty's Government at home did not share His Highness's apprehension, and the Viceroy ultimately informed the Ameer that the discussion of the question would be best postponed to a more convenient season."—[Afghanistan, No. 1, p. 262.]
  Now, I venture to appeal to your Lordships—and I found my appeal on what has appeared in the public Press and on the comments generally made—and to these I must add the reproaches addressed to me by political Friends—I put it to your Lordships whether that paragraph was not likely to lead to the erroneous impression that Lord North-brook desired to make an engagement somewhat similar to that which the Ameer desired, but before doing so he referred home for permission; that he got instructions, which were opposed to his proposal; that, therefore, he did not give the assurances which he wished to give, and that he postponed the discussion to a more convenient season? I appeal to your Lordships, whether Liberal or Conservative, who have read the despatch, whether that description is correct? But the truth is exactly the reverse. My noble Friend did not propose to give what the Ameer desired; but he wrote home for permission to give an assurance which he thought sufficient. Those instructions were not of a dissenting character to
  34
  withhold any assurances which he desired to give, but of an assenting character to the assurances which he desired to give; and those assurances he accordingly gave. He did not postpone anything owing to instructions, but spontaneously, in consequence of the Envoy not being ready to negotiate on one point. I state the case as it is, leaving it to the noble Viscount to make an explanation. There is one point with which I think the noble Viscount has not dealt sufficiently, and that is the result of the interview between Sir Lewis Pelly and the Ameer's Representative in 1876. The result of this interview is described in these words—
  "Although the Ameer had been informed in writing, both of the concessions which the British Government was ready to grant to him and the conditions attached to them, and although, at the same time, it was signified to him that it would be of no avail for him to send his Envoy to Peshawur unless His Highness were prepared to agree to those conditions as the bases of the proposed Treaty, it became apparent in the course of the Conference that the Minister had received no specific authority to accept them. As, moreover, the language and conduct of Shere Ali, which had so long been dubious, became openly inimical, you judiciously took advantage of the sudden death of His Highness's Envoy to discontinue negotiations, the bases of which had been practically rejected."—[Ibid. p. 264.]
  This does not, however, convey all that may be found in the other Papers. There is an extract from a cipher telegram, dated the 30th of March, 1877, from the Viceroy at Calcutta to Sir Lewis Pelly at Peshawur. The Viceroy says—
  "Close Conference immediately, on ground that basis on which we agreed to negotiate has not been acknowledged by Ameer; that, Mir Akhor not being authorized to negotiate on that basis, nor you on any other, Conference is terminated ipso facto; and that you will leave Peshawur on a stated day. The date of it you will fix yourself, but it should be as early as conveniently possible, in order to show we are in earnest and avoid further entanglement. Let your language to Mir Akhor be most friendly. If, in the meanwhile, new Envoys or messengers arrive to continue negotiation you will tell them that your powers are terminated. On closing Conference, write to Ameer friendly letter notifying the fact. I entirely approve your letter to Ameer."—[Ibid. p. 222.]
  Now, my Lords, what is the description given by Lord Lytton himself in his long and able despatch of the 10th of May? His Lordship says—

  35
  "Apparently the Ameer, whose object was still to gain time, was much surprised and embarrassed by this stop. At the moment when Sir Lewis Pelly was closing the Conference, His Highness was sending to the Mir Akhor instructions to prolong it by every means in his power; a fresh Envoy was already on the way from Cabul to Peshawar; and it was reported that this Envoy had authority to accept eventually all the conditions of the British Government. The Viceroy was aware of these facts when he instructed our Envoy to close the Conference. But it appeared to his Excellency that liabilities which the British Government might properly have contracted on behalf of the present Ameer of Cabul, if that Prince had shown any eagerness to deserve and reciprocate its friendship, could not be advantageously, or even safely, accepted in face of the situation revealed by Sir Lewis Pelly's energetic investigations. Under these circumstances, the prolongation of the Peshawur Conference could only lead to embarrassments and entanglements best avoided by the timely termination of it."—[Ibid. pp. 170–71.]
  I think that is a most important fact, and I am not arguing now whether Lord Lytton was right or wrong—I am not arguing the merits of the case in the slightest degree; but I do think that the description in the despatch of November 18 does not fully set forth these important facts. And here I wish to give noble Lords a caution as to the epithets used by the noble Viscount in describing the conduct of Lord Lytton. Lord Lytton has gained all his experience in life in diplomatic circles, and has had no experience of administrative business either in Parliamentary, official, or commercial life; but I must say he sometimes seems to do business in a rather peculiar manner. Now, there is one very curious Paper. I have known all the Viceroys of India for a very long time, and I cannot imagine one of them—Lord Dalhousie, Lord Canning, Lord Elgin, Lord Mayo, or the noble Earl and Baron now in the House—sitting down, as Lord Lytton appears to have done, with a shorthand writer at his back, making a magniloquent speech, interspersed with metaphors of a more or less Oriental character, to his own Envoy, and desiring that Envoy to deliver faithfully that speech, which had taken half or three quarters of an hour in delivery, to the Ameer when he returned to him. The special qualities on which the noble Viscount complimented Lord Lytton are his discretion, consideration, and the conciliation with which he treated the Ameer. Now just let us look at this. As regards his discretion, let us take a
  36
  few sentences. We find Lord Lytton saying—
  "The moment we cease to regard Afghanistan as a friendly and firmly allied State, what is there to prevent us from providing for the security of our Frontier by an understanding with Russia, which might have the effect of wiping Afghanistan out of the map altogether? If the Ameer does not desire to come to a speedy understanding with us, Russia does; and she desires it at his expense."—[Ibid. p. 183.]
  Now, I am perfectly ignorant as to whether there is a foundation or not for that declaration of Lord Lytton. I do not know whether the noble Viscount opposite thought it necessary to enter into negotiations with Count Schouvaloff in regard to the partition of Afghanistan. But if it is true, what do you think of Lord Lytton, who was selected from diplomacy of all professions, making such a declaration as this to the Ameer? The Viceroy tells the Ameer that Russia has negotiated with us. Is not that the greatest inducement you can offer to the Ameer to place himself also in communication with Russia? I must, therefore, caution your Lordships against believing in the absolute discretion of Lord Lytton. Then Lord Lytton is praised for the moderation of his monitions to the Ameer. Well—it appears that—
  "The Viceroy then said that, if the Ameer remained our friend, this military power could be spread round him as a ring of iron, and, if he became our enemy, it could break him as a reed."—[Ibid.]
  A very pleasant alternative indeed! Placing the Ameer in such a position as this reminds me of the alternative suggested by the historic mottoes of the Colonna and Orsini families, one of which I unworthily possess—"You can break, but you cannot bend me," the other being—"You can bend me, but you cannot break me." I do not see how this can be described as great consideration. Then it is said Lord Lytton is so conciliatory. Well, in a subsequent sentence we find Lord Lytton, speaking of the Ameer, saying—
  "This is the man who pretends to hold the balance between England and Russia independent of either! His position is rather that of an earthen pipkin between two iron pots."—[Ibid.]
  That is not the language of conciliation. There is an omission in the Papers to which I wish to call the attention of the noble Viscount, I refer to the omission

  37
  of four very important letters, as to which the noble Viscount will no doubt give an explanation, as it was stated that their terms were unusually harsh and had produced a most pernicious effect. The noble Viscount says he never received them. But it is an extraordinary thing that he did not remark the omission of such important documents, which caused the Ameer to describe them as making it impossible for him to accept the proposal. Then, again, I think we should have had the Report of our Envoy the Nawab Gholam Hussein Khan, on his return to Simla, which does not appear in the Papers. My Lords, I said just now that I could not go into the merits of the question, though I think the noble Lords opposite were quite right in doing so. As it is our intention, when the noble Viscount (Viscount Halifax) brings forward his Resolution, to raise the question, I think it is more becoming on the present occasion to abstain. One reproach is frequently addressed to those who belong to the Opposition. We were placed in a very difficult position last year; and one of the complaints made against us was—"You attack the Government, but you do not state your own policy." Now, I entirely deny that anybody has a right to demand—and it would be easy to quote Sir Robert Peel or the present Prime Minister on this subject—an explanation of our policy. I, therefore, deny that I can be called upon to state exactly what I should have done after each false step that has been taken. It often happens in private life that a man comes to you and says—"I have got into a difficulty; what am I to do now?" The answer is—"If you had come to me only a week ago, I think I could have given you very fair advice; but after what you have written and done and said, it is impossible for me to do more than tell you what I think is the least of two evils." If your Lordships would think it worth while to know generally what my policy is, I can state it in a very few words. My policy with regard to the North-Western Frontier of India is the same as that which has been the policy of all the greatest authorities and the most experienced men in India up to the time when the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) took the Seals of the India Office. That is enough to say as to our general policy. If you say all
  38
  that is Jassecl—we have changed all that, and we are now in a very different position—I can only say at this moment that my policy—and I think I should have the concurrence of my Friends in this—would be that, however strong our opinion may be of the injustice of the conduct of the Government towards the Ameer; however disastrous and unnecessary may have been the bringing about of this war; however much we are convinced that you have effectually played into the hands of our great rival in the East, yet at this moment, the emergency having been created, I would use every effort to induce your Lordships—who, I am sure, need no such persuasion—to co-operate in the strongest manner with the other House of Parliament in mating the most ample provision for the sake of the brave and gallant troops with whom we sympathize so entirely. I would go further, and I would press on the Government the consideration whether they really have taken all the precautions that are required—because we could not be certain of the success they would meet with—whether they have sent them sufficient reinforcements, with all the requisites which should be furnished to them. I would also urge the Government to be perfectly frank and open with Parliament, and to tell us the amount of money they require, and the manner in which it is to be raised. I would especially advise them to guard against fallacious Estimates, such as those which were at first produced, and afterwards doubled or nearly trebled, in the case of the Abyssinian War. I would have them explain how far they would leave saddled on the people of India, and how far on the people of this country, the cost of a war which they themselves declare not to be an Indian, but an Imperial one.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: My Lords, I am deeply indebted to the noble Earl (Earl Granville) for giving me an opportunity, which I might not otherwise have had, of saying what I wish to say in reference to this despatch of the 18th of November. I take upon myself the whole and entire responsibility of that despatch, and I neither apologize for nor retract a single sentence of it. The noble Earl has adopted a different tone from that which has been held out-of-doors. I sat with hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to me in the other House of Parliament for 20 years, and

  39
  on no occasion have I known my conduct to be impugned for honesty and integrity. But now, one of those right hon. Gentlemen, in the coarsest invective, has charged me with falsehood, and another has, with more poisonous insinuations, held me up as guilty of that offence. If I have committed the offence which they allege in publishing that despatch—if in writing that despatch I have wantonly or deliberately prejudiced the public mind against a former Ministry without truth and without reason, and with the knowledge that it was false—then I would admit the justice of all the attacks which have been made upon me. But, my Lords, the question is, not whether I have arrived at a right or a wrong conclusion, but whether I took such fair and reasonable means as I was bound to do in arriving at the conclusions stated in that despatch—whether I put down that which would fairly arise in one's mind from an examination of the Papers before me? And in a few moments I think I can prove to your Lordships that what I said in Paragraph 9 is true. I do not deny that what the noble Earl affirms may be the true reading; but I do say that to an outsider reading these Papers the conclusion which I came to is the only legitimate and fair conclusion at which an honest and impartial mind can arrive. That is a fair and open statement, and I propose to vindicate myself upon it. Why did I publish that despatch? For this reason. I am not going now to discuss the question of policy. One noble Lord, an ex-Viceroy of India, has gone about the country spreading his opinions in respect of this matter in letters and speeches, and a noble Earl, another ex-Governor General, has lately spoken upon it at a meeting at Winchester. I make no complaint of that. A right hon. Gentleman, a Member of the other House and a man of the greatest possible influence, has also made a speech, in which he declared the state of things which existed when his Ministry was in Office. Every sort of imputation and insinuation have been directed against the conduct of Her Majesty's Government; and I thought it was only fair that a simple and true historical statement of the case should be given to the public. In preparing that document I sought to conceal nothing on the part of my own Government, and I said nothing offensive—or nothing that
  40
  was intended to be offensive—against the Government of my Predecessors. I only desired to give a simple, plain, and honest statement, and one which would be justified by the Papers, the production of which was to follow it in a very few days. And when people impute to you that you are a knave, they might at least give you the credit for not being a fool also; for one would hardly give in the margin of a despatch that was false the references to the Papers which would so soon convict it of falsehood. That is an imputation, therefore, which corrects itself. With respect to what has taken place in this House, I have no complaint to make. The noble Earl (the Earl of Northbrook), in a letter addressed to the newspapers, says that I have come to an incorrect conclusion. An incorrect conclusion is one thing; a wilfully false representation is quite another. The noble Earl had a right to speak, and was, I suppose, speaking, of his own policy, and his interpretation of his instructions. All I attempted to do, in my despatch, was to present the version which I thought the Papers would justify. What I wrote had reference to events in 1873, when he was Viceroy; and, first, I would call attention to a despatch which he sent home on the 27th June, 1873. That despatch he sent home with a view of calling the attention, as he said (paragraph 18), of the Government of Russia to what he thought was our policy in Afghanistan. That part of the case has not been spoken of, but it is most material to my view of the case. That paragraph was to this effect—
  "Although we have abstained from entering into any Treaty engagement to support the Ameer by British troops, in the event of Afghanistan being attacked from without, yet the complete independence of Afghanistan is so important to the interests of British India that the Government of India could not look upon an attack upon Afghanistan with indifference. So long as the Ameer continues, as he has hitherto done, to act in accordance with our advice in his relations with his neighbours, he would naturally look for material assistance from us; and circumstances might occur under which we should consider it incumbent upon us to recommend Her Majesty's Government to render him such assistance."—[Afghanistan, No. 1, p. 107.]
  Lord Northbrook wished his despatch, with that passage, to be communicated to Russia; and he says—"I propose to inform Cabul Envoy of sense of this paragraph." That was his proposition—that when the Cabul Envoy came

  41
  to Simla he would inform him of the intentions of the Government. That despatch was sent home by the Viceroy to the Secretary of State in London, and he got an answer from the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), whose absence I deplore, because he has written a letter to which I would much rather refer in his presence than in his absence. It is a great disadvantage to me that I am not face to face with him, for he would, I am sure, argue the point fairly. The Secretary of State telegraphed to the Viceroy thus—
  "Your telegram of the 27th June. I do not object to the general sense of the paragraph, which you quote as a communication to Russia from the Foreign Office, but great caution is necessary in assuring Ameer of material assistance which may raise undue and unfounded expectation. He already shows symptoms of claiming more than we may wish to give."—[Ibid. p. 108.]
  That was sent on the 1st of July, 1873. Now, what happened? That despatch was sent to the Foreign Office with the view of being communicated to the Russian Government. Was it communicated to the Russian Government? The Duke of Argyll said he did not object to that; but that he did object to statements being made on the subject to the Ameer's Envoy without great caution. In estimating what the opinion of Her Majesty's Government was as to what was to be communicated to the Ameer, it is material that we should see what the Foreign Office said on the subject—because that would indicate what their intentions were about the material assistance which was to be given to the Ameer. Well, the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary (Earl Granville), writing on the 25th of August, 1873, said—
  "I am to request that you will state to the Duke of Argyll that Lord Granville would not think it desirable to communicate with the Russian Government, as suggested by the Indian Government, a copy of the former despatch (June 30, 1873), and so convey to it indirectly an intimation that any aggression by it on Afghanistan would be resisted by Great Britain with force of arms."—[Central Asia, No. 1, p. 206.]
  And the noble Earl added that this had reference to present propriety in not indicating a desire to modify our policy with regard to Central Asia, and with respect to Afghanistan in particular. But when I am judging of what the Government of that day meant and intended to do, I must look to the whole
  42
  of their proceedings. That was in August, after the telegram was received. Thus the Government, which, according to the noble Earl, had sanctioned conditional and material assistance being given to the Ameer, now said that it would not communicate to the Russian Government a copy of the former despatch (of June 30, 1873), and so convey to it indirectly an intimation that any aggression by it on Afghanistan would be resisted by Great Britain by force of arms. If the noble Earl means to put it that he would not submit that communication to Russia, on the ground that Russia would take it as an intimation of an offensive character, all that I can say is that Russia had been informed again and again that we could not view these things with indifference—in fact, the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary had already told the Government of that country that we could not view the question of an advance on Merv with indifference. My view of the transaction was that, in August, 1873, the Government had not come to any determination as to the circumstances in which they could give material assistance in men, arms, and money to the Ameer of Afghanistan. Now, my Lords, I will go a little further. What is the telegram of the noble Duke, which, it is said, has been misrepresented in this despatch? The telegram from the Viceroy to the noble Duke is dated July 24, 1873, and it is to this effect—
  "Ameer of Cabul alarmed at Russian progress, dissatisfied with general assurance, and anxious to know definitely how far he may rely on our help if invaded. I propose assuring him that if he unreservedly accepts and acts on our advice in all external relations we will help him with money, arms, and troops, if necessary, to expel unprovoked invasion. We to be the judge of the necessity. Answer by telegraph quickly."—[Afghanistan, No. 1, p. 108.]
  The Viceroy of India either knew the "settled policy" of his Government at homo at the time or he did not. If he knew that it was the settled policy of his Government to give material assistance to the Ameer on certain conditions, why did he send this telegram to the noble Duke asking for a speedy answer? He had received one answer, telling him he must exercise great discretion in the matter—he had had a conversation with the Envoy, and had said that it was probable that, under certain circumstances, assistance would be given.

  43
  Now to that telegram, asking for further assurances and for help in money and arms, what was the answer? The reply of the noble Duke was this—
  "Cabinet thinks you should inform Ameer that we do not at all share his alarm, and consider there is no cause for it; but you may assure him we shall maintain our settled policy in favour of Afghanistan, if he abides by our advice in external affairs."—[Ibid.]
  "Our settled policy in favour of Afghanistan!" Where is it to be found? I cannot find it. The noble Earl (Earl Granville) has complained that during a certain period of late date no despatches appear to have passed between the Home and the Indian Governments; but I think your Lordships will view with astonishment the fact that during the whole of the time that the Duke of Argyll was Secretary of State for India, and the noble Earl (the Earl of Northbrook) was Viceroy, not a single despatch on this subject sent by the noble Duke to the noble Earl the Viceroy can be found, and that the only indication of the policy of the Duke of Argyll on the matter is to be found in the telegram now before us. That, my Lords, is something startling—and yet the noble Duke is amazed and indignant that I should have misrepresented him. The only other document in which the noble Duke refers to Afghanistan is his letter to Lord Mayo, and that merely deals with questions connected with the internal affairs of that country, without in any way touching upon its external relations with other nations. There is certainly no despatch from the noble Duke which indicates any "settled policy" with regard to furnishing material assistance in men, arms, and money to the Ameer. There is no despatch—and it is a remarkable thing that though there is this despatch of the Viceroy, of June 13, there is no despatch of the noble Duke acknowledging it. Going a little further, let us see what really did pass between the noble Earl and the Envoy of the Ameer. In page 112 of the Papers it will be found that the Viceroy observed—
  "That if in the event of any aggression from without, British influence were invoked and failed by negotiation to effect a satisfactory settlement, it was probable that the British Government would in that case afford the Ruler of Afghanistan material assistance in repelling an invader. Such assistance would, of course, be conditional on the Ameer following the advice of the British Government, and having himself abstained from aggression."—[Ibid. 112.]
  44
  That was the statement in the first conversation, which was subsequent to the first telegram. Then we come to the second conversation, which occurred after the receipt of the noble Duke's telegram. It appears from the Papers—
  "That his Excellency proceeded to say that Lord Mayo had assured the Ameer that any representation he might make would 'always be treated with consideration and respect,' and his Excellency was quite prepared to maintain the policy of Lord Lawrence and Lord Mayo, and to entertain in a similar spirit the request now preferred."—[Ibid. 113.]
  Now, Lord Mayo had never done anything with regard to the external affairs of the country, and Lord Lawrence had, so far as I know, given no promise with regard to material assistance to the Ameer. Then there is the further point as to what the noble Earl said to the Envoy. On page 114, in reply to the Envoy, who was pressing for definite promises of assistance, it appears that—
  "His Excellency the Viceroy replied that the British Government did not share the Ameer's apprehensions, but that as already mentioned in the previous conversation, it would be the duty of the Ameer, in case of any actual or threatened aggression, to refer the question to the British Government, who would endeavour by negotiation and by every means in their power to settle the matter and avert hostilities. It was not intended, by insisting on such previous reference to the British Government, to restrict or interfere with the power of the Ameer as an independent Ruler to take such steps as might be necessary to repel any aggression on his territories; but such reference was a preliminary and essential condition of the British Government assisting him. In such event, should those endeavours of the British Government to bring about an amicable settlement prove fruitless, the British Government are prepared to assure the Ameer that they will afford him assistance in the shape of arms and money, and will also in case of necessity aid him with troops. The British Government holds itself perfectly free to decide as to the occasion when such assistance should be rendered, and also as to its nature and extent: moreover, the assistance will be conditional upon the Ameer himself abstaining from aggression, and on his unreserved acceptance of the advice of the British Government in regard to his external relations."—[Ibid. 114.]
  Well, my Lords, if it seemed probable to the Ameer in the former conversation that he was to get the assistance of the British Government, I think that when he heard all the guarding and cautioning that were laid down in the second conversation he would have considered it very problematical whether he was to get any assistance at all. It will be observed that there is not a word

  45
  in that second conversation about our "settled policy." I can only say that I think the inference I have drawn from the language of the noble Lord a perfectly just one. On the 6th of September, 1873, he writes to the Ameer—
  "I have had some conversation with your Envoy on the subject of the policy which the British Government would pursue in the event of an attack on your Highness's territories. A copy of the record of these conversations is attached to this letter. But the question is in my opinion one of such importance that the discussion of it should be postponed to a more suitable opportunity."—[Ibid. 816.]
  Thus nothing was done except in the way of conversation—nothing definitely settled. Nothing is said in that letter about promises or assurances; and, therefore, nothing having been done, nothing settled, nothing complete, I consider that the inference which I drew was a just and legitimate one, and that I fairly expressed it in the ninth paragraph of the despatch. The Government said in a telegram that they did not agree with the alarms of the Viceroy about the Ameer. If they had, the telegram would have been direct in its answer, instead of being general terms, such as "your proposals approved" would have been used; and this view of the telegram is supported by the letter of the Viceroy, who said that he would give no assurances, and that the whole question would be postponed for future consideration. I do not pretend to be infallible; I may be mistaken: but I consider that the view which I took was a perfectly legitimate view. There was a statement made by the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) in the debate which took place in June, 1877, and I gather from what he then said, as I gathered from these Papers, that he was in favour of a policy of masterly inactivity; that they were desirous of being on friendly terms with the Ameer; but that they should not bind themselves by any obligations to him beyond being generally friendly, and giving him assistance in arms and money in order to consolidate his strength. The noble Duke said—
  "The policy of the last three Viceroys of India towards that country had been one of watchfulness and friendly support. We do not wish to tangle ourselves in any permanent arrangements towards that Sovereign.'—[3 Hansard, ccxxxiv. 1831.]
  I look to the Papers, and the deduction
  46
  I draw from them is, I think, a fair and just conclusion, and is borne out by that observation of the noble Duke. My only object in this discussion has been to vindicate myself from the charge of unfairness. I can say most sincerely that when I was told that paragraph 9 had been found fault with, I searched in every direction to see what the ground of complaint was; and it was not till I read some of the violent speeches made that I at all imagined what it was I was supposed to have mis-stated. I have given you my reasons for coming to the conclusion I did; and I say most distinctly that if I had to re-write that paragraph with the same Papers before me, I should re-write it in the terms I originally adopted. I have already said that I accept the noble Earl's statement of the understanding which he put upon the noble Duke's telegram. With regard to the Commissioner's letters to which allusion has been made, I have only to say that they were not letters addressed to the Ameer personally, but to Gholam Hussein and the Mustaufi, and that they have now been placed on the Table with certain other Papers. It is complained that Parliament has never been informed of these things; but I would point out that none of these Papers relating to Afghanistan previous to 1874—and they were very important—were put before Parliament by our Predecessors. Nothing was said about them. That, however, is a question of policy, and I do not mean to go into it. The Viceroy's speeches form another subject into which I need not now enter. They were delivered at a time when I was not Secretary of State for India; and my present object, as I have already said, is only to vindicate myself, not to go into questions of policy. I think it will be an evil day for this country if one Party begins to make personal charges against the Gentlemen sitting opposite them; and it will not tend to the friendly intercourse which I have had with those who have been opposed to me. In becoming a Member of a Government succeeding another, I cannot call to mind that in one instance—though I may have differed from the policy of my Predecessors—I have ever imputed to them anything wilfully wrong in their action. In the present case I contend that I have full justification for the language I have used, and upon that

  47
  point I have given evidence which, from my point of view, appears conclusive. If I have arrived at an incorrect conclusion with regard to the policy of the noble Lord opposite, I maintain that it was a fair and reasonable conclusion, and one which might have been taken by any one conscientiously studying the question.
  EARL GREY, who rose with Lord Northbrook and was very imperfectly heard, was understood to say that he was sorry to interfere with his noble Friend, who was no doubt anxious to vindicate his own conduct as Viceroy of India; but he thought there was a question of far higher national importance than that as to the comparative merits and faults of different Ministries and Governors General of India, which could best be discussed on this occasion, and to which it was high time to come. The question to which he adverted was whether Ministers, in omitting to advise Her Majesty to consult Parliament when they considered it necessary to order preparations to be made for entering upon hostilities with the Ameer, had acted as they ought to have done? The question seemed to him one of such importance that it was his intention to raise it formally by an Amendment on the Address. The noble Earl (Earl Granville) had said that to move an Amendment on the Address was an inconvenient course; but with that he (Earl Grey) was not disposed to agree. There were questions which could only properly be brought under discussion by an Amendment on the Address. The old Parliamentary practice of moving Amendments on the Address was a right and proper practice; and it was invariably followed in the best periods of our Parliamentary history, and, it ought not to be abandoned. At the same time, he agreed that the whole question of the justice and policy of this war might, perhaps, be best discussed on the Motion of which the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India had given Notice, and he would not, therefore, enter into it at present. The question to which he wished to call their Lordships' attention was this—Was it right that this country should be involved in a terrible war—for it was a terrible war they had now in hand—without an opportunity having been afforded to Parliament of expressing an opinion
  48
  upon its justice or expediency? He was quite aware that it was the Prerogative of the Crown to declare war; and he was strongly of opinion that that power was properly placed in the hands of the Sovereign. He believed that detriment to the national interest would result if a large discretionary power was not intrusted to the Executive Government. At the same time, although it was the Prerogative of the Crown to declare war, it had, formerly at least, been held to be equally the duty of the Ministers of the Crown not to exercise that great Prerogative without giving Parliament the earliest information on the subject, and without calling for the opinion of Parliament and asking its approval of the course they had decided to take. He could point out many instances in which that rule had been acted upon; indeed, he could not recollect any instance in the best times of our Parliamentary history when a different course had been followed. The practice—as he believed the invariable practice—had been that when the servants of the Crown found that a necessity for war was about to arise they advised the Sovereign, by formal Message, to announce that to Parliament, and to ask for its support. Thus, when the great Revolutionary War broke out, Mr. Pitt did not wait for the commencement of hostilities in order to communicate with Parliament. On the contrary, on the 23rd of January, 1793, a Message from the Crown was sent to the House of Commons in reference to the relations between England and France, and recommending Parliament that provision might be made for an augmentation of the Forces; and it was not until a fortnight after that war had actually began that Mr. Pitt brought down another Message saying that war had been declared by France against England. In like manner, after the Peace of Amiens, when the relations between this country and France were again embarrassed, a Message was brought down on the 8th of March stating that danger of war rendered desirable an increase of the Forces, and it was not until the 16th of May that a further announcement was made. Those two instances would prove to their Lordships that when this country was involved in danger of war, the announcement to Parliament was not deferred until the

  49
  war had begun; but when the danger became serious, it was at once made known to Parliament, and the support of Parliament requested. And the advantage of that practice was also illustrated by two cases in which no war actually followed after Messages from the Crown to announce its probability, and in which the sending of those Messages contributed much to avert the threatened danger. In 1790 great indignation was excited in this country by the seizure by Spain of two British ships in Nootka Sound, and on the 5th of May Parliament was informed by a Message from the Crown that no satisfaction had been made or offered by Spain for this outrage, and
  "His Majesty has judged it indispensably necessary to give orders for making such preparations as may put it in His Majesty's power to act with vigour."—[Parl. History, vol. 28, p. 765.]
  This appeal was promptly and unanimously answered; and the Spanish Government, influenced probably by the determination of the country and the Legislature to support its Government, gave way, and war was avoided. In the following year the British Government was disposed to interfere between Russia and Turkey, in order to obtain better terms than Russia was inclined to grant, and a Message was sent to Parliament asking for a grant of money to increase our Naval Force to enforce our mediation. But that proposal was met with strong opposition in Parliament and the country. The Government carried the Vote it had proposed, and Resolutions which were moved against its intended measures were rejected, but by majorities so small, in comparison with those that Mr. Pitt was usually supported by, that, although the Naval Force was for a short time augmented, it was speedily reduced, and it was not used in the manner the Government originally intended, and the policy of the Government was very considerably modified, so much so, that when the subject was referred to in the following Session Lord Hawkesbury said it had been clear that the opinion of the country had been against war with Russia, and Ministers were not ashamed of deferring to it. These two cases showed completely the great importance of Parliament being
  50
  informed in due time of what was intended. In the one case, the support of Parliament induced Spain to give way, and to abandon an untenable position; and in the other, such a manifestation of opinion was produced that so powerful a Minister as Mr. Pitt thought it proper and necessary to yield to the opinion of the country; so that in both instances the practice of making a timely communication to Parliament had been the means of saving the nation from the calamity of war. Nothing could more clearly support the principle for which he contended—that Parliament ought not to be committed to a war without timely information, so that it might judge of the necessity and justice of the war. He maintained that when war was imminent the announcement to Parliament should not be deferred until hostilities had actually commenced; but that, when danger became so serious as to make warlike preparations necessary, it should be made known, and the support of the Legislature invited. Parliament ought not to be led into a war without timely information, so that, if its judgment should be against hostilities, it might have an opportunity of interfering; and he felt so strongly on this subject—believing the old Constitutional principle for which he contended to be so important, and holding that the departure from it, in the present instance, had been accompanied with so much injury to the country—that it was his intention now to move, as he did in a similar case in 1857, an Amendment to the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. His Amendment was to insert after the first paragraph the following words:—
  ("We beg humbly to express to your Majesty our sorrow that the great calamity should have occurred of a war with the Ameer of Afghanistan, and we feel it to be our duty very respectfully to express to your Majesty our regret that as soon as your Majesty's servants were satisfied that war had become so probable as to impose upon them the necessity of ordering costly preparations for it to be commenced, they did not advise your Majesty to summon Parliament to meet with the least possible delay, in order that due provision might be made for the expense to be incurred, and that an opportunity might be offered to Parliament, before the war was begun, of considering the grounds on which it was to be undertaken, and of forming a judgment as to its justice and necessity.")
  That Amendment was, he thought, couched in moderate and respectful

  51
  terms; at the same time, it might be of service in upholding what he believed to be a great Constitutional principle. He asserted the right of Parliament to be consulted upon a matter of this kind, and especially to express an opinion upon the objects of a war. He agreed that they must now postpone a discussion of the policy and justice of the war; but though he could not then state his reasons for so doing, he would not shrink from taking this earliest opportunity of expressing his strong opinion that the war in which they were now engaged was flagrantly unjust, and as impolitic as it was unjust—so impolitic that even if its success were complete the consequences might be only less disastrous and injurious to the country than defeat. For what would happen—what would be the result of success? It must, however successful it might prove, cause an expense which, in the present state of the finances, both of England and of India, would be most inconvenient; and, at the same time, it would have the effect of totally alienating Afghanistan from us, and making its population our bitter enemies, driving them to throw themselves into the arms of that very great Power of whom we were so much afraid—Russia. That was not his own opinion only; it was the opinion entertained and publicly expressed by men of far greater knowledge, whose opinions and judgment were entitled to far greater weight than his own. It was the opinion entertained by a very large number of people in this country; and though you might prove it to be wrong, he maintained that before we were involved in a war of this kind Parliament ought to have had an opportunity of discussing the question. Nor would it have been difficult to afford Parliament that opportunity. It appeared, from the Papers before the House, that as early as the end of September, or the beginning of October, measures for collecting troops and other measures of a preparatory nature were actually in progress. This, therefore, was the time when, according to the practice of former times and the conduct pursued by Governments in earlier periods, what was going on ought to have been made known to Parliament, and Parliament ought to have been enabled to pronounce its judgment. If every Cabinet, no matter of what Party it might be com-
  52
  posed, were to be entitled, without the slightest previous warning or intimation, to enter on a war which might extend indefinitely, as this war might extend, from hostilities with the Ameer to hostilities with Russia, then there was virtually an end of anything like a free Constitution. In regard to the present war, Parliament and the country had been kept entirely in the dark; and not only that, but they had been expressly assured that there was no change of policy on the part of Her Majesty's Government which was likely to involve us in such a war. So late as 1877 a positive assurance was given by the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) that there was no such change intended; although it was now perfectly clear from the Papers on the Table that already a great change had actually taken place. Whereas formerly the Ameer of Afghanistan had been assured that he would not be pressed to receive a British Agent, that course was ultimately pressed upon him in such a manner as to lead to the war now going on. Looking at the practice of former times and Governments, he maintained that the course adopted by Her Majesty's Ministers in the present instance was a fatal departure from that practice, and that the country ought not to have been involved in an unjust and impolitic war in a secret and clandestine manner; but that proper notice ought to have been given of what was taking place, so that Parliament might have had an opportunity of discussing the matter. Entertaining that feeling so strongly, he felt it his duty to submit his Amendment, as expressing his strong disapproval of, and protest against, the course which had been adopted by Her Majesty's Government.
  Amendment moved, to insert after the first paragraph—
  ("We beg humbly to express to your Majesty our sorrow that the great calamity should have occurred of a war with the Ameer of Afghanistan, and we feel it to be our duty very respectfully to express to your Majesty our regret that as soon as your Majesty's servants were satisfied that war had become so probable as to impose upon them the necessity of ordering costly preparations for it to be commenced, they did not advise your Majesty to summon Parliament to meet with the least possible delay, in order that due provision might be made for the expense to be incurred, and that an opportunity might be offered to Parliament, before the war was begun,

  53
  of considering the grounds on which it was to be undertaken, and of forming a judgment as to its justice and necessity.")—(The Earl Grey.)
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSET: My Lords, I cannot approve the noble Earl's Amendment. It appears to me that the propositions laid down in that Amendment interfere with the Prerogative of the Crown and diminish the responsibility of Ministers. The noble Earl has mentioned several precedents. He quoted the case of 1793; but in that case we did not declare war. The war was declared on the opposite side of the Channel: that precedent, therefore, was inapplicable. In the case of the Abyssinian War there was a debate in the House of Commons, and on that occasion Mr. Gladstone stated that it was the right course—that it was the duty of Ministers to take the responsibility of declaring war upon themselves, coming to Parliament afterwards. I shall not go into the personal question to-night. It would take some time; but surely nobody can suppose that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India would intentionally mis-state the case. He has tried to do what, no doubt, is very difficult—to draw-up a précis of the opinion of the opposite party—and he only failed where all historians have failed. Going into details, it would not be difficult to show that every history is untrue in some respects; and, for my own part, I do not know any history that is perfectly true. But I come to the more serious question—the question of this war. I cannot agree with the speech of my noble Friend below me (Earl Grey). He says it is an unjust war—not only an unjust, but an impolitic war—a war which, whatever its result, you will be worse off at the end of than you are now; but, on the other hand, the noble Earl (Earl Granville) said he would go on with it, and although it was contrary to justice and to policy, and likely to be profitless, nevertheless, he would urge the country to give every assistance to carry it through. There seems to me, my Lords, a very serious contradiction there. If I thought a war both unjust and impolitic, I would do what I could to prevent it. As to Russian aggression, I remember in 1873 my noble Friend, representing Mr. Gladstone's Government, stated that Russia coming to Khiva was to be looked upon with great concern, not only on account of England, but on account of
  54
  India. But surely if Russia reached Cabul, there would be still more danger. And what did the late and the present Government say? Both the former and the present Government had agreed that Russia could not be allowed to have a preponderating influence in Afghanistan. Will you, my Lords, allow it? If you will, then say so. There was a neutral zone; but that is gone. What, then, are you asked to do? You must make some other provision. I confess, my Lords, much as I regret it, this war appears to me to be unavoidable. I do not see how the Government could take any other course than that they have taken. I say so with deep feeling, because I well remember the disasters and the deplorable mismanagement that occurred in 1838. My Lords, then we were united; now, I am sorry to say, there has been formed what is called "an Afghan Committee," who are anxious to encourage the Ameer and the enemies of the Queen. I think it a misfortune that any such Committee should have been formed; and I deeply deplore that a noble Lord who has been Governor General, and who is peculiarly acquainted with that country (Lord Lawrence), should have thought fit, no doubt conscientiously, to put himself at the head of that Committee. I regret it, because that noble Lord was an ornament to India, and is an ornament to your Lordships' House. In speaking thus I do not mean to pledge myself that all the measures taken from 1873 to the present time were judicious in all respects. Far from it. But the great question of all is, What are we to do? I, for one, give my cordial assent to the policy of the Government, because I do not see what else they could do. It is not speeches that are wanted, but action; and I hope that vigorous action on their part will bring the war to a successful issue.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, after the small personal details to which we have had to listen this evening, your Lordships must have listened with pleasure to the courageous and patriotic speech which we have just heard. I wish it may produce the same effect upon others who share the general political opinions of the Speaker, but who have not been able to imitate hid patriotism. But, my Lords, that speech makes me the more regret that I am

  55
  compelled, on personal grounds, to pursue another course. I deeply feel the wretchedness of the small personal details which I am obliged, out of deference to others, to bring before your Lordships, but I have no other alternative. I have often noticed the singular skill of the Leader of the Opposition and noble Lords on the other side. Perhaps some might have thought that when the fallacies employed were being exposed by my noble Friend (Viscount Cranbrook) the noble Earl opposite would have felt discomfited; but I traced no sense of discomfiture upon his countenance. He is too well satisfied with the result of the stratagem to which recourse has been had. The noble Earl's policy is to draw aside the attention of the country from the broad issues before it, and, if possible, to conceal the fact that his favourite, his most attached, political Friends have been taking the side of the enemies of their country. That is a matter upon which the traditions of the Party to which he belongs naturally make him sensitive. The noble Earl has shown singular judgment and astuteness at this, perhaps the most important, political juncture which this country has witnessed in this generation, in turning your debates almost entirely upon questions of small personal attack. I admit, however, that though the imputations which he had to make were not of a very pleasant nature, he put them in words to which no exception can be taken. I do not wish to detain your Lordships on this personal matter; but the accusation which the noble Earl made against me was substantially this—that being questioned by the Duke of Argyll I misled the House as to the real state of the case. The noble Earl quoted my words in justification of that charge. He began by saying that my words would indicate what the nature of the Duke of Argyll's Question had been. I regret that he did not quote the actual Question of the Duke of Argyll. When a legal opinion is produced, it is usual to give the question on which the legal opinion was founded. When the dictum of a Judge is quoted it is a matter of ordinary practice to ask what was the precise nature of the case to which the dictum refers. Words taken by themselves are often misleading, instead of giving information. As I understand the charge
  56
  of the noble Earl, it is that at a time when I knew that Sir Lewis Pelly had been commissioned to go to Cabul I denied that any Envoy had been sent to Cabul at all. Now, my Lords, it is necessary to read the Question of the Duke of Argyll to which I replied. What he said is spread over a speech of considerable length—I will not read many passages, but I will select some of them. They go to show that what the Duke of Argyll was asked was as to whether it was true that I had forced on the Ameer of Cabul a Resident at his Court. The Duke of Argyll said—
  "No doubt it would be very convenient to nave a Resident at Cabul, if you could get a man for the place, and that he was received with cordiality; but it was notorious for a long time past that the present Ameer had set his face against having such an officer in his Court. …. Rumour said that the Government of India had determined upon a change of policy, and had resolved to insist on the Ameer having a resident British Envoy at his Court."—[3 Hansard, ccxxxiv. 1830.]
  Well, my Lords, the noble Earl said, parenthetically in the course of his remarks, that I should not attempt to explain the statement by observing that what we had deliberately attempted to do was to attempt to induce the Ameer to receive resident Envoys at other places besides Cabul. I dare say when the noble Earl made that observation, he thought it was unimportant whether the Ameer received an Envoy at Cabul or Herat. But the difference is essential. Her Majesty's Government had been impressed with the opinion that to ask the Ameer to receive an Envoy at Cabul would be not only idle, but unwise, because of the turbulent and revengeful character of the population, which would render the residence of the Envoy dangerous. Moreover, there is no doubt that a Resident at Cabul would have such powers of interfering in the internal government of Afghanistan, and of overshadowing the dignity of the Prince himself, that such a proposal would have very naturally raised objections in the mind of the Ameer—objections which it was the desire of Her Majesty's Government to avoid raising. We did not want to interfere in the internal government of Afghanistan or to overshadow the authority of the Ameer. What we wanted was to have officers on the Frontier, who might see something of what was going on within them and

  57
  beyond them. I need hardly explain to the House why we should wish to know what was going on in Afghanistan. It is sufficient to say that the year before Khiva had been occupied—without going further I am sure the House will understand why we desired to know what was going on in Turkestan and in the Ameer's territories, without having any intention whatever of interfering in the internal government of Afghanistan or overshadowing the Ameer in his own Court. I dwell upon this point to show that the difference between asking for an Agent at Herat and at Cabul is immense. It was a distinction upon which the Ameer insisted all along. We have a curious account in Lord Lytton's letters in 1877, derived from officers who saw the Ameer at Umballa. A considerable number of them represented that they knew from personal knowledge that while the Ameer was willing to admit an Agent at Herat, or on his Frontiers, he would not admit one at Cabul. We were exceedingly careful to avoid making this particular demand to which the Ameer was certain to object. My first instructions to Lord Northbrook were, that he should take measures for obtaining the assent of the Ameer to the establishment of a British Envoy at Herat; but I did not suggest any similar step with regard to Cabul. Lord Lytton, when he came to propose the terms on which the negotiations should be conducted, was careful to make a similar distinction. He says, in Article 5 of the Treaty, he proposed that for the protection of the Afghan Frontier British Agents should reside at Herat, and at such other places as might be agreed upon by the contracting Powers; but further on the Treaty says, that unless and until it is otherwise agreed, a Native Agent only should reside at Cabul. With this understanding I think your Lordships will see that my reply to the Duke of Argyll was absolutely correct. I had first to inform him that I could not give him any positive knowledge. The circumstances at the time were difficult and critical in the extreme. Russia was in arms; great irritation prevailed; no one knew whether the war would not spread much further than its original area; and whatever the policy of Her Majesty's Government might be, and whatever duties it might
  58
  be called upon to perform, this, at least, was our duty—not to bias in any way the policy of the country, nor to add to its difficulties and dangers by any imprudent language of our own. It was, therefore, our duty not to say much of that which I say now, and which is said in the Papers before the House. Consequently, I told the Duke of Argyll that I could not give him much positive information, but that I could give him some negative information. The negative information was this—that we had not tried to force an Envoy on the Ameer at Cabul, and that we had not suggested Sir Lewis Pelly as an Envoy at Cabul. Now, I want to know why the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) insinuates that I said anything contrary to the most perfect truth in the reply I made to the Duke of Argyll. The noble Earl who sits on the cross-benches (Earl Grey) talked of my having stated that there had been no change of policy as regards Afghanistan. I must charitably suppose that the noble Earl spoke without having taken the trouble to read the speech to which he referred. There is no such statement in that speech. The noble Earl remarked that I said that our relations with the Ameer had undergone no material change since last year, and that the Ameer's feelings towards the British Government were not more embittered than they had been. Now, if I had said that his feelings were not more embittered towards us than they had been when Lord Mayo met him at Umballa, there might be a considerable doubt as to the accuracy of that statement. His feelings are undoubtedly a matter of some mystery; but I have little doubt that they have gone on deteriorating progressively against us from the time when Sir John Lawrence came to the unfortunate resolution not to take what has been called the honest double-dealing policy with regard to the candidates for the Throne of Afghanistan. I have no doubt they became worse and worse. There was a slight improvement, however, during the Viceroyalty of Lord Mayo; but during the Viceroyalty of Lord Northbrook there were several circumstances which caused them to become worse and worse. There was that unfortunate arbitration at Seistan, with which the Ameer was profoundly dissatisfied; and which only added one to the list of those arbitrations which have not

  59
  precisely produced that perfect good feeling which the devisers of the system hoped for. Then there was an act which reflects great credit on Lord Northbrook, who was then Viceroy, but which much displeased the Ameer. That was Lord Northbrook's interposition to save the son of the Ameer, Yakoob Khan, from suffering the worst results of one of the most atrocious acts of perfidy which even an Afghan Ruler ever committed. What I desired to express, and what was a distinct and a true answer to all the questions of the Duke of Argyll, was, that the policy which led to the Conference of Peshawur had not made any unfavourable difference in the dispositions of the Ameer—his feelings were already as hostile to us as they could well be. I can only go to the official documents. The noble Earl says—what is perfectly true—that I received the despatch of Lord Lytton about a week before I made that answer in the House. Well, what are we take as proof of the Ameer's relations towards us? I will first take the Ameer's own account. I find this in Lord Lytton's despatch—
  "So completely had the whole movement collapsed before we closed the Conference at Peshawur, that the first step taken by the Ameer, immediately after that event, was to send messengers to the authorities and population of Candahar, informing them that the jehad project was abandoned, requesting them to do all in their power to allay the religious excitement he had till then been endeavouring to arouse, and adding that his relations with the British Government were eminently satisfactory."—[Afghanistan, No. 1, p. 171.]
  With that statement in my hands, I could not say in this House that our relations with the Ameer were unsatisfactory. Lord Lytton, in the meanwhile, said—
  "We see no reason to anticipate any act of aggression on the part of the present Ameer;"
  and he added—
  "Our relations with him are still such as we commonly maintain with the Chiefs of neighbouring and friendly countries."—[Ibid.]
  That is exactly the position which it was the ambition of Lord Lawrence, and, subsequently, of Lord Northbrook, to maintain. What was my own official estimate some three months later of the state of things? I said we had been engaged in negotiations, the object of which was not to maintain our
  60
  relations with the Ameer unchanged, but to make them more friendly than they had been. He refused our advances, and when I spoke in the House I knew that those advances had been refused. My statement, therefore, was in all its parts strictly in accordance with the facts. We have now before us not the original Address, but an Amendment to it; and the noble Earl has based his Amendment on statements implying that the Prerogative of the Crown has been used to encroach on the privileges of Parliament. It is saying, in a more distinct form, what was again and again intimated by the noble Earl who opened on that side, and what has been stated by Mr. Gladstone at Greenwich. It is the charge included in that curious phrase "personal government," of which we have heard so much of late. I always believed—and every one else believed—that when this phrase was constantly reiterated it meant some return to the days of Charles I., and some overthrow of the Constitution established in 1688. But now it appears from Mr. Gladstone that he never meant that. He says the phrase is awkward perhaps, but it is one to which they are well accustomed, and that it applies, not to Her Majesty, but to Her Majesty's Ministers. Well, personal government of some kind you must have. Somebody must do the work of government. If it is not done by the responsible Ministers, it must be done by the permanent officials; or, if not done by the latter, it must be done by the Chief Clerks—and if not by the Chief Clerks by the Assistant Clerks. I suppose that what the noble Earl who has moved this Amendment really referred to is the idea that it is the duty of the Crown, before it exercises the Prerogative of making peace or war, to consult Parliament. Great efforts have been made to persuade the country that we have done something essentially un-Constitutional in what we have done in this respect. The assertion has been repeated again and again without proof, till—as such assertions get to be accepted by sheer repetition—there are some people who believe it. I think there are some people who believe that in concluding the Anglo-Turkish Convention without the knowledge of Parliament we did something without precedent. But some ingenious person in the House of Commons, to try

  61
  the matter, moved for a Return of all the Treaties which were laid on the Table of the House before they were ratified, and not one could be produced. The truth is, that some of the most important and most recent engagements in our history have been concluded by the Ministers of the Crown without any reference to, or knowledge of, Parliament. I will only state two, and they will be sufficient. Few more important things have been done in our generation than the sacrifice of that right of search for which our forefathers fought. I do not say whether it was right or wrong; I only say that few more important things have been done. Yet that was done—the Declaration of Paris was accepted and signed—without any intimation to Parliament of what was going to be done; and so complete was the absence of any official form about it, that I believe that now no records can be discovered of the instructions given for signing it or of the object with which it was concluded. Again, take the Tripartite Treaty of 1856, which bound us to fight for every inch of Turkish soil if we were challenged to do so either by France or Austria. It was a Treaty most large in its engagements, and most precise in its language. That is in the same condition. No intimation was given to Parliament before it was signed, and you find no record of the motives which induced the Ministers to conclude it. In fact, you will hardly find any Treaty of an important political character which was not concluded under similar conditions as far as the ignorance of Parliament was concerned. Well, the case is the same with regard to declarations of war. I have in my hand a long list of successive declarations of war since 1815, and I am unable to discover that any considerable number of them—I doubt whether any of them except the Crimean War—was communicated to Parliament before it was undertaken. Allow me to give three or four recent precedents to the House—I mean precedents within the lifetime of Lord Palmerston, who was not a Tory, and who was a very considerable authority on Constitutional practice. The Afghan War was declared by Lord Auckland in October, 1838, with the consent and the full authority of the Home Government; and the first time it was communicated to Parliament was in the Queen's
  62
  Speech on the 5th of February, 1839. Then there is the war in Syria—a very considerable and important operation. On the 15th of July, 1840, while Parliament was still sitting, the Government concluded a Treaty with the other three Powers, to the exclusion of Franco, without either consulting Parliament beforehand or informing them of it afterwards. The result of that Treaty was the military operations in the Levant which took place in the winter, and Parliament was not called together until January, 1841, when the whole thing was over. Take, again, the case of the Persian War—a case as nearly on all fours with the present one as can be. Persia, like Afghanistan, is an Oriental country, and about equal to it in power, and the interests that were concerned were in the same manner partly European and partly Asiatic. But the Persian War was determined on by the Government at home during the Recess of 1856–7; the assembling of Parliament was not hastened in the least degree, and Parliament was informed of the war for the first time in 1857. I think the noble Earl on the cross benches (Earl Grey) protested against it then as he does now, and there were protests of the same kind made in the other House; and what was Lord Palmerston's reply? He said that in the case of an expedition against Persia—a remote country, and one not likely to entail on us any considerable efforts—considering that in the ordinary course Parliament would speedily assemble, to call it specially together under those circumstanees would only be a burlesque on our Constitutional forms.
  EARL GREYwas understood to say, that Lord Palmerston admitted the principle that Parliament ought to be informed as soon as possible when war was to be made; but contended that the Persian War had been one of so little importance that to summon Parliament specially at an inconvenient season on account of its occurrence would have been a burlesque.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is perfectly true that he said that whenever this country becomes involved with one of the great Powers of Europe or with the United States of America—not before, but when we become so involved—it is the duty of the Government to call Parliament together and ask it for the

  63
  means of carrying the struggle on. But in the case of a collision with such a Power as Afghanistan—a remote country, and one which is not likely to entail upon us any considerable efforts—it would be, according to Lord Palmerston's words, only a burlesque of Constitutional forms to call Parliament together when it was commenced. Therefore, the criticism of Lord Palmerston—if he were here—would be, not that we have exaggerated the Prerogative of the Crown or disparaged the privileges of Parliament, but that in our excessive tenderness for Parliament, and to avoid the slightest appearance of treating it with disrespect, we are actually burlesquing Constitutional forms. There is another case—that of the Abyssinian War. On July 25, 1867, the then Foreign Secretary declared to Parliament that the Government had not decided on sending an expeditionary force. In the following August an expeditionary force against King Theodore was decided on; but the fact was not communicated to Parliament until the Prorogation, when there was no opportunity of debate; and the intention of going to war was never communicated to Parliament until the war was entirely over. The Expedition left Bombay in September, and the fact was not officially communicated to Parliament until the Queen's Speech of the 19th November. I am not here to deny that you will find on these occasions men of the type of the noble Earl on the cross benches (Earl Grey) who then raised objections. It is very probable that that was so; but what I say is, that in all those instances, whatever the objections were, be they small or large, they did not represent the dominant feeling of Parliament; that Parliament is in the last resort the supreme determiner of its own privileges; and that Parliament has always admitted precisely that use of the Prerogative—or rather a much more extensive use than that which we have had recourse to on the present occasion. There is only one other remark that I will venture to make. It is on a matter of a personal character, in reply to some observations which have been made on the personal characteristics of Lord Lytton. I heard with regret the observations made by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville). I admit that it is the Prerogative and the duty of Parliament to scrutinize
  64
  and, if necessary, condemn the action of the servants of the Crown. On the other hand, every generous mind will feel that men in situations of extreme responsibility, and who have the greatest difficulties to contend with, ought not at the same time to have the painful feeling that they are being treated ungenerously. If the noble Earl had been content merely to condemn the measures which have been taken by Lord Lytton, of course the answer was ready—those measures were either before or afterwards approved by his official superiors, and on them the whole Parliamentary responsibility must fall. But when the noble Earl goes so far as to ridicule him because, as the noble Earl puts it, he made a speech in the presence of his own Envoy, and employed a shorthand writer to take it down—or, as I should rather put it, he followed the usual course after such an interview and corrected the Memorandum of what had been said during its progress—I think the noble Earl trespasses beyond the line which ought to be observed in criticising absent public servants. I can only say that on our part we cannot accept, in the slightest degree, the shadow of the censure which has proceeded from the noble Earl. We have the greatest cause to be indebted to Lord Lytton for the devotion with which he has given himself to the great task that he has undertaken, and for the high qualities that he has displayed. I do not know what Lord Lytton's precise nationality is; but he has combined the imagination of a poet with the shrewdness of a Scotchman. He has a singular combination of qualities. The remarkable eloquence which he shows in all his speeches and despatches might give you the impression that he was a man whose gifts were purely those of imagination, if you had not followed him through the details of his official career and been enabled to satisfy yourself that in industry, caution, and sound, hard discretion he has not been exceeded by any Viceroy who has preceded him.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My Lords, I rise to address your Lordships on this occasion because it appears to me that I am called upon to give evidence on two points, on both of which I am obliged to give it against Her Majesty's Government. The noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Cranbrook), in an-

  65
  swering the speech of my noble Friend behind me, gave, as far as I could follow him, a very able account of my actions and of the motives that actuated me in dealing with the Ameer when I was Viceroy of India. It appears to me, however, with all due deference to the noble Viscount, that I am the only person who can state to your Lordships and to the country exactly what I did when I was Governor General of India. The question at issue between us is a very simple one. I have never made any charge against the noble Viscount of having endeavoured wilfully to misrepresent my conduct in this matter; but I am bound to say that the words used by the noble Viscount in his despatch of the 18th of November last, give the people of this country an entirely inaccurate impression of what really happened at the time. That inaccurate impression has not only been expressed in the daily organs of the Press, but it has also been expressed tonight by the noble Lord the Seconder of the Address. In paragraphs 8 and 9 of the noble Viscount's despatch, he says that—
  "Shere Ali, actuated by his fears on this score, sent a special Envoy to Simla in the summer of that year (1873), charged with the duty of expressing them to the Government of India."
  And in paragraph 9, he says—
  "Finding that the object of the Ameer was to ascertain definitely how far he might rely on the help of the British Government if his territories were threatened by Russia, Lord Northbrook's Government was prepared to assure him that, under certain conditions, the Government of India would assist him to repel unprovoked aggression. But Her Majesty's Government at home did not share his Highness's apprehension, and the Viceroy ultimately informed the Ameer that the discussion of the question would be best postponed to a more convenient season."—[Afghanistan, No. 1, p. 262.]
  No person who reads those paragraphs could come to any other conclusion than that I wished to give certain assurances to the Ameer which I was prevented from giving by the Home Government, and that I was therefore compelled to tell the Ameer that the discussion of the matter had better be postponed to a future time; and from another paragraph of the noble Viscount's despatch it has been naturally inferred that H or Majesty's present Government in 1876 gave assurances to the Ameer
  66
  which Her Majesty's late Government in 1873 had refused to give him. As regards the first part of the question, I am, as I said before, the only person who can give evidence with respect to it. The fact is, that having asked to be allowed to give to the Ameer certain assurances, and having received a reply by telegraph from the Home Government in answer to my inquiry, I felt that their telegram justified me in giving the Ameer the precise assurances I desired to give him, and which I actually did give him through his Prime Minister, an authenticated copy of those assurances being forwarded to him personally. So far, therefore, from the despatch of the noble Viscount giving an accurate impression of what occurred, it gives an impression totally at variance with the facts of the case. As the noble Viscount has gone into this question at such length, and as the Duke of Argyll is unable to be in his place to-night to explain his own conduct, I asked him to allow me to make use of any private letters relating to this subject which might have passed between us; and, with his permission, I will read to the House a paragraph from a private letter I wrote to him two days after I received his telegram permitting me to give the assurance I desired to give to the Ameer, and before I had the interview with his Prime Minister. The words I used in the letter I wrote to the Duke of Argyll were these—"Your telegram of the 26th will enable me to give him sufficiently distinct assurances." This letter, therefore, entirely boars out my impression of what occurred at that time. While I entirely acquit the noble Viscount of any deliberate intention to misrepresent the matter, I cannot help thinking that it is extremely unfortunate that he did not take more pains to master the facts of the case. If he had taken common pains to do so, he would never have allowed the paragraphs in his despatch to which I have referred to stand. The noble Viscount would have found my view of the case supported by the despatch of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury), of the 28th of February, 1876, who, in page 158 of the Papers, in referring to this question, says—
  "In the year 1873, Lord Northbrook gave to the Envoy of the Ameer the personal assurance

  67
  that, in the event of any aggression upon the territories of His Highness which the British Government had failed to avert by negotiation, that Government would be prepared 'to assure the Ameer that they will afford him assistance in the shape of arms and money, and will also, in case of necessity, assist him with troops.'"
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: Go on. Head the next paragraph.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I will do so if the noble Viscount wishes me to do so. The despatch goes on—
  "The terms of this declaration, however, although sufficient to justify reproaches on the part of Shere Ali if, in the contingency to which it referred, he should be left unsupported by the British Government, were unfortunately too ambiguous to secure confidence or inspire gratitude on the part of His Highness. The Ameer, in fact, appears to have remained under a resentful impression that his Envoy had been trifled with, and his attitude towards the Government of India has ever since been characterized by ambiguity and reserve."
  That is an argument to which I will advert immediately. At present I am dealing merely with the facts of the case; and I think that if the noble Viscount had consulted these Papers carefully he never would have introduced these paragraphs into his despatch. If anyone will read the 12th paragraph of Lord Lytton's despatch of the 10th of May, 1877, in page 162, it will be seen that the account of the noble Viscount does not accurately state the case. There is also the statement in the Conferences between the Prime Minister of the Ameer and Sir Lewis Pelly, which gives a completely accurate account of the transactions of 1873. The Prime Minister says that the assurances at his first interview were not sufficient, but that afterwards further assurances were given; and if the noble Viscount desires any further evidence, there is the language of Lord Lytton in his letter of the 15th of March, 1877, to the Prime Minister, in which the assurances I had given in 1873 were withdrawn; all notice of which has been omitted by the noble Viscount. Therefore, I say that even from the Papers themselves the noble Viscount ought to have formed a more accurate judgment of the transaction, and have avoided writing a paragraph which has led to such misapprehension on the part of the public. But that is not all. The noble Viscount has now upon his Council three distinguished
  68
  statesmen who were Members of my Council in 1873, or afterwards—Sir Henry Norman, Sir Barron Ellis, and Sir William Muir—all of whom were cognizant of these transactions; and yet will it be believed that the noble Viscount has not taken the common precaution of asking them whether he was right in his facts before publishing those paragraphs, and that the first thing that they knew about his despatch was seeing it in the newspapers? If he had taken that precaution, the noble Viscount would not have found himself in the difficult position in which he is now placed. Exception has also been taken by the noble Earl behind me (Earl Granville) to the 16th paragraph of the despatch, which refers to the close of the Sir Lewis Pelly's negotiations, and I cannot look upon the explanation of the noble Viscount as to the accuracy of that paragragh as satisfactory. In the 18th paragraph, moreover, the noble Viscount describes the position of the Government after the close of the negotiations as one of "vigilant reserve." The real position was that on the 15th of March, 1877, the Viceroy had informed the Ameer that all the assurances of protection he had received from Lord Lawrence, Lord Mayo, and myself, were repudiated, and that the only engagement by which the British Government were bound was the Treaty of 1855, under which no assurance of protection was given him. I do not think anyone would draw any such inference as this from the account given in the despatch of these transactions. Giving the noble Viscount every credit for a desire not to misrepresent the facts of the case in his despatch, I must say that anyone who reads his conclusions and then carefully examines the Papers will be very much surprised. There is another point in the noble Viscount's speech to which I must allude, although it is one on which I have no personal knowledge. The noble Viscount in his despatch leaves it to be inferred that Her Majesty's present Government have given to the Ameer, or rather offered to the Ameer, the assurances which His Highness required from me and which I was not able to give him. The noble Viscount spoke in a condemnatory sense of the safeguards and cautions attached to the assurances offered to Shere Ali in 1873.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: I must deny having expressed the sentiment which, the noble Earl imputes to me.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: Then, I wish the noble Viscount would not use language which is liable to misconstruction. His words about "vague" assurances certainly seemed to imply that those assurances were not of a kind which ought to have been given at the time. Now, I wish to point out to your Lordships that the offers made to the Ameer by Her Majesty's present Government were guarded far more strictly than chose of the Government of 1873. These Papers contain the draft Treaty which Sir Lewis Pelly was authorised to conclude with the Ameer. My assurances to the Ameer in 1873 were that the British Government, under certain circumstances, would afford him assistance in the shape of arms and money and also, in case of necessity, assist him with troops. The safeguards were these—that he should abstain from aggression and should unreservedly accept the advice of the British Government in regard to his external relations. Now, turning to the draft Treaty which Sir Lewis Pelly was authorized to conclude with the Ameer, which is given at page 190 of the Papers, what do I find? There is an assurance of protection, no doubt, in the second Article; but it is qualified in the third and fourth Articles in precisely the same way as the assurance of protection offered to the Ameer by the Government of 1873. The qualification is that His Highness should "refrain from all provocation of aggression on or interference with the States and territories beyond his present Frontier," and that "he should conduct his relations with Foreign States in harmony with the policy of the British Government." It appears that the Viceroy was not quite satisfied with these conditions; and on looking to the aide mémoire "for subsidiary secret and explanatory agreement," at page 191, you will find that it was understood, in regard to Article 2, that the Ameer should "bind himself to abstain from discussion of political, international, or State matters with, any Foreign Government," communicating unreservedly to the British Government all communications on such subjects received by him. I wish to show that if there is any distinction between the terms offered to the Ameer by the Viceroy under in-
  70
  structions from the Home Government, and the terms which were proposed in 1873, the terms proposed by Her Majesty's present Government were more strict than those offered in 1873. I have thought it right to mention this, because there is great misapprehension on the subject. It has been said in several of the newspapers, and notably by The Pall Mall Gazette, that the conduct of the late Government towards Shere Ali was the whole cause of the present war. Shere Ali, said The Pall Mall Gazette, wanted to throw himself into the arms of England, and made a proposal which Lord Northbrook was willing to accept, but which Mr. Gladstone's Government declined; and out of that proposal has grown the Afghan War. Knowing the truth of this matter, as I do, I cannot, in common fairness and justice to the Government under which I was then serving, refrain from explaining what the real facts of the case are; and I venture to say I should have taken the same course if these circumstances had occurred when the Party opposite was in Office, and while I was serving under the Earl of Beaconsfield. I think the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) has very much underrated the importance of the observations of the noble Earl beside me (Earl Granville) upon the debate which occurred in this House on the 15th of June last year. I do not think anything which amounts to concealing from your Lordships facts which are known by Ministers can be considered to be a "small personal question unworthy of discussion." It so happened that I took very great interest in the debate in question, and the account which the noble Marquess has given of it is not one which I feel disposed to accept. My noble Friend (the Duke of Argyll) certainly did put some Questions on particular points to the noble Marquess; but he did not confine his speech to that. If he had done so, I might have accepted the explanation now given by the noble Marquess. My noble Friend discussed the policy pursued by successive Viceroys towards Afghanistan, remarking that the views of the last three Viceroys were that we should maintain an amicable and watchful attitude towards the Ameer, without entangling ourselves in permanent engagements. There can be only one interpretation of what occurred. The

  71
  Duke of Argyll wished to receive, not only an answer to a particular Question, but a general assurance from the noble Marquess that he had not departed from the line of policy indicated. I remember hearing the noble Marquess state that affairs maintained a peaceful aspect, and that there was "no reason for any apprehension of any change of policy or disturbance in our Indian Empire." But the noble Marquess, in now quoting that passage, omitted to quote the words "in our Indian Empire." I assert on my own authority, having been personally in the House and having listened with the greatest care to what fell from the noble Marquess, that I believed and accepted those words to mean that there had been no material change in our relations with Afghanistan. That is not all, because I addressed your Lordships, and I gave the noble Marquess an opportunity, of which he might have taken advantage, of explaining the misconception under which I laboured, and of stating to your Lordships precisely the state of affairs as they existed at that time. As the matter is important, I must trouble your Lordships with the few words I used on that occasion. I said—
  "The policy we have pursued with regard to the Ameer has been to show him that we desired to assist him with our advice whenever he requires it, and not to press upon him the presence of British officers in his territories, unless he really desires that they should go there, and will give them a welcome."
  I said—
  "That if that policy is deliberately adhered to now, as it has been for many years. … whatever suspicions may be entertained by the Ameer … will disappear, and that the Ameer will soon see that his suspicions have no foundation, and will look upon us … as his best friends, and as those to whom, in certain circumstances, he will have to apply for assistance."
  I added—
  "It is with great satisfaction, therefore, that I have heard the assurance of the noble Marquess that the policy I have referred to Her Majesty's Government will continue to pursue."—[3 Hansard, ccxxxiv. 1843.]
  I therefore stated in the presence of your Lordships the interpretation I put on the words of the noble Marquess; and I further said—
  "I am satisfied that he has given us that assurance in perfect good faith, and that we may trust him to resist any attempt to put it aside."
  If it had not have been for that assurance, as I understood it, most un-
  72
  doubtedly I should have brought the question before your Lordships. I will not say what the effect of the debate might have been; but, at any rate, before the war had been entered into, this House and the country would have known what the policy of the Government was, and would have been able to express an opinion as to whether that policy was right or wrong, and whether we were to drift into the war in which we are now engaged. As I have said before, this is not simply a personal question. In dealing with distant countries great confidence must be placed in Her Majesty's Government, and great discretion must be used by those who differ from them. On such questions a Minister is required to be more careful than in dealing even with European questions. I have said what the assurances given were, and I have now to state what were the circumstances at the time they were given. So far from Her Majesty's Government not having desired to enter into any definitive Treaty engagement, an endeavour had been made to negotiate a Treaty with the Ameer; and so far from there having been no change in our relations with the Ameer, on the 15th of March, 1877, the assurances that had been given to the Ameer—of protection in the event of attack or of internal disturbance—by Lord Lawrence, Lord Mayo, and myself, had been withdrawn under the instructions of the British Government, any expectation of support from us had been repudiated, and he had been told that we were under no engagement except that of the Treaty of 1855, under which there was no obligation on our part except to refrain from interference, and to leave the Ameer entirely to himself. I was perfectly astounded by the condition of things revealed by the despatch addressed to the noble Marquess by the Viceroy on the 10th of May, 1877, which must have been in the hands of the noble Marquess at the time he gave the assurances in the House of Lords in June, 1877, of which I have spoken. It is with deep regret I am obliged to say this: it would not be right, the Question having been put, and the answer having been given, if I did not give my deliberate testimony that the statement then made by the noble Marquess gave me a completely incorrect impression of what

  73
  the real facts of the case were. I am not going now to enter into the general policy of the war; but I must say I do not think the noble Duke behind me (the Duke of Somerset) was quite fair in his remarks about the noble Lord a late Governor General (Lord Lawrence) for having joined the Afghan Committee. If my noble Friend had done such a thing in the sense of supporting the Afghans against the British Government, no language would be too strong to be used in the circumstances. But as matters stand, I am surprised at the noble Duke's condemnation of my noble Friend. He has an opinion that the war is right. Very good; but my noble Friend thinks it is unjust and impolitic—an opinion in which I myself am very much disposed to concur with him. The noble Duke says that my noble Friend is not patriotic; but he would appear not to be patriotic, simply because he differs from the noble Duke, and expresses the earnest opinions which he holds. Few men in this country have given such proofs as my noble Friend has done of patriotism, of vigour, of honour, and of a desire at any risk to maintain the British Empire in India; and yet, because he does not happen to agree with the noble Duke, he is to be spoken of in such terms. It is repugnant to all my feelings of justice and to every sentiment of propriety that a man of such distinguished services should be so spoken of in this House. My noble Friend has a perfect right to express his opinions on the causes of this war, and to say whether he thinks it just or unjust. It is fortunate that we have men like him in the country, who know something of our former relations with Afghanistan, and who can correct statements which have been made, and despatches which have been published, by the knowledge which they possess. One thing more. With regard to the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl (Earl Grey), I hope it will not be pressed to a division. Unfortunately, this discussion has assumed a somewhat personal character. Nobody more regrets that circumstance than I do; but from that very fact, if the Amendment were to be pressed, your Lordships would be asked to vote upon a proposition which you have not yet had an opportunity of fully and completely discussing. At the same time, I
  74
  must confess that I concur entirely with that part of the argument of the noble Earl which rests upon the Act of 1858. I hold that it is not right for any Administration carrying on war outside India to apply the Revenues of that country towards the expense of such war with-out the previous consent of Parliament. In this case there was plenty of time before the declaration of war for the Government to have summoned Parliament and explained their policy; therefore, that would have been a proper and a Constitutional course, because there can be no doubt that the Prerogative of the Crown is limited by Act of Parliament, and, although it is the Prerogative of the Crown to declare war, at the same time the clauses of the Act of 1858 prescribe the course that should be followed under the circumstances. It has been a matter of extreme regret to me to be placed to some extent in collision with the noble Marquess and the noble Viscount opposite. I have endeavoured since I returned from India to abstain from making unnecessarily any observations on Indian affairs. I can say with perfect sincerity that, both in and out of Parliament, I have endeavoured to look at Indian affairs entirely apart from Party politics; and I should not hesitate for a moment to express my opinion as strongly with regard to anything done by those on my own side of the House as with regard, to the conduct of noble Lords opposite.
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: Although, my Lords, I cannot support the noble Earl who moved the Amendment, I still agree with him that there are occasions when Amendments to the Address are desirable, expedient, and politic. I think I may speak with some authority on the subject, for probably I am the only Member of this House who has, in his time, moved an Amendment to the Address—with what success I care not to recollect—but, at the same time, a fooling of duty, such as that which has animated the noble Earl, actuated me, and I am quite prepared to say that, under similar circumstances, I should deem it my duty to take a similar course. What, then, was the state in which we found ourselves some 25 years ago, advocating a cause with deep and warm convictions, but one which, perhaps, was not supported by a majority of the House, to which we appealed, or

  75
  the nation? The Recess had passed. We had all of us made a good manyspeeches—in which, probably, we had used language not much more measured than we have lately become accustomed to; many of us had written letters—though not so many, perhaps, as some individuals have done in more modern times; and, under these circumstances, being also—if I may recall the circumstance without offence—members of a society of great activity and organization—more active certainly than the Afghan Committee—having agitated the country for a considerable time by the sincere expression of our opinion, we did think that when Parliament met we were bound to take the opinion of that great Assembly on the question which we had so long described as of the highest importance and of the most urgent interest. The noble Earl (Earl Grey) has taken that step to-day; but the noble Earl (Earl Granville), in his recognized position of Leader of the Opposition in this House, has taken an entirely different course. He has declared that to-night we are not to enter into the question of policy which so deeply interests the country, and which, if we are to judge from the speeches, organization, and conduct of noble Lords opposite and their friends in the country, so deeply excites and agitates them. We are not to-night to enter into the merits of that policy, but confine ourselves to what the noble Earl who last spoke (the Earl of Northbrook) so admirably described as descending into the personalities of the question. But, although the Leader of the Opposition told us that we were not to-night to enter upon the question of policy, he still felt it consistent with his duty to denounce the war into which we have entered as an unjust and impolitic war. He has still felt it consistent with his duty to hold up to depreciation and ridicule the Viceroy of the Queen, who is at this moment incurring the greatest responsibility, and on the devotion of whose intelligence more, perhaps, depends than on that of any other individual in the country. He has even felt it consistent with his views to intimate that Her Majesty's Ministers are, at this moment, neglecting their highest duty, and that they are not supporting those gallant men whose heroic exploits have just reached us, and that we have not
  76
  reinforced them as was required. This, my Lords, is a strange vein to indulge in when we are asked not to enter upon the merits of this question. If that insinuation against the Government be founded on fact, we should be unworthy of the seats we hold. Is it to be said that those soldiers, who have given so good an account of the enemy, have not been adequately supported? Is the country to be informed on the first opportunity that they are hardly equal to the exertions they have been called upon to make? Not more complimentary to the troops than to Her Majesty's Government. I cannot but feel that the country tomorrow will be greatly disappointed in reading this debate. To-morrow the country will not be considering what one ex-Minister may have written, or what a present Minister may have quoted. It may, under ordinary circumstances, be a legitimate mode of passing our time that we should compare notes on such subjects, and if any misrepresentations have been made as to the conduct or expression of individuals our utmost efforts on both sides should be given to rectify them; but is it right that hour after hour should be wasted, at a time when the country wants our opinion on one of the greatest issues ever submitted to the consideration of Parliament, in order to ascertain whether Secretary This misquoted the despatch of Governor General That? Hours have been passed in a discussion leading to such a mystification that, excepting the principal actors in the scene, I defy any human being to understand what the whole controversy is about. To whatever monstrous proportions you may exaggerate this discussion, it is nothing after all but an official squabble; while the real issue is the most important that can be presented for our consideration. See the unjust effect produced upon the House—By this singular process of debating, we are not to discuss to-night the policy to discuss which Parliament has been summoned. But though we are not to discuss it, the Leader of the Opposition has given his opinion on the great issue. He tells you we are engaged in an unjust and impolitic war. But what is this? It is mere assumption. If the war is unjust and impolitic, prove it. Bring forward your reasons and your arguments. Assail our policy, and give us the proofs on which your opinions are

  77
  founded. Do this and we will meet you, and the House and the country will decide. That is the legitimate and Constitutional manner which the noble Earl (Earl Grey) has adopted in moving his Amendment. But to-night we have been for hours listening in the House of Lords whilst a number of influential men have risen and denounced as unjust and impolitic what they refrain from attacking openly and frankly. It would be vain at this hour to enter into such a discussion. The noble Earl opposite has, with consummate dexterity, prevented any expression of opinion by Parliament on this all-engrossing subject to-night. It is postponed to some day when there may be a long and adjourned debate; instead of now animating the spirit of the country, and explaining why they are called upon to make great sacrifices and encouraging that patriotic spirit which has been sneered at, But which I trust there are some in this House who appreciate. A week may yet elapse, at a time very critical to this country, before the opinion of Parliament can be taken. I cannot refrain from expressing my entire disapprobation of this course of proceeding. I admit its dexterity; but I think that there are times when Parliamentary manœuvring, a very happy quality when great interests are not at stake, may be misplaced. There are one or two points on which I should not have touched on this occasion, but for some remarks which the noble Earl called upon me to notice. He has a habit, when I do not notice every remark he makes, most amiably to remind me of it, and I must notice what he tells us about the Treaty of Berlin. The noble Earl, who has already decided, without discussion, the question of this war, expresses great doubts about the statement in the gracious Speech from the Throne, that Her Majesty has every reason to believe the Treaty of Berlin will be successfully carried into effect; and he asks us, like a counsel cross-examining a doubtful witness—"But is this the real opinion of the Ministry?" If it had not been, is it to be supposed that we should have recommended Her Majesty to use such language, and ourselves have come down to support such a Speech from the Throne? Why, my Lords, in that case our conduct would have been not only infamous, but absurd. I may, in fact, say that it would have
  78
  been akin to what has been charged against my noble Friend the Secretary of State for India (Viscount Cranbrook), of garbling in a despatch an epitome of important State Papers which he knew would necessarily be made known within 48 hours of the publication of his own despatch. My Lords, the language which Her Majesty has been advised to use in the gracious Speech from the Throne has been entirely warranted by circumstances. We do look upon the Berlin Treaty as certain to be carried completely and successfully into effect. But the noble Earl says—"It is not merely the Treaty of Berlin. There are other Treaties; there is the Convention with Turkey. Why not insert a paragraph in the Queen's Speech to inform Parliament what is being done to effect the reform of the Ottoman Empire?" Why, the Treaty of Berlin, like other Treaties, provides a certain specified time during which its arrangements may be properly carried into effect, and a moiety of the period has not yet elapsed. Probably of all the arrangements connected with the Treaty of Berlin, the arrangements with respect to Turkey are the most important. But the noble Earl is under a great error in supposing that nothing has been done. Unceasing labour has been bestowed upon the subject; and nothing but the great ability of those who fortunately are in the employment of Her Majesty abroad, their perseverance, and untiring devotion to their task could have effected the considerable results already accomplished. My Lords, I look forward to the Convention respecting Turkey and Cyprus as one likely to prove most advantageous, not merely for this country, but for the world in general; I look forward with confidence to the regeneration of Asia Minor. When the noble Earl turns round and ridicules the occupation of Cyprus and the objects for which we undertook that occupation, I will tell him that it is not easy in language to describe the advantages of that position; and when the noble Earl assumes that the Island is wanting in many qualities which were announced, and that its acquisition is a blunder, I can assure him that the conditions for which we agreed to occupy that Island have been entirely fulfilled. I repeat without the slightest fear, after commu-

  79
  nication with my Colleagues who have recently visited it, that it will be, as I have formerly said, most important as "a place of arms," as affording a capacious harbour for our Navy, and unlimited convenience for the quartering of Her Majesty's Forces. It has entirely fulfilled our expectations, and I believe will soon be recognized as one of the most important and influential positions under the dominion of Her Majesty. My Lords, I regret very much that there has been n feeling among certain of your Lordships that there has been an omission in the gracious Speech from the Throne, inasmuch as there was no allusion to the prevalent distress in the country consequent on the badness of trade. That was through no inadvertence, no neglect. Noble Lords opposite will, I am sure, agree with me in one thing—that there are no persons so interested in the prosperity of the country as Her Majesty's Ministers, whoever they may be. But it is a questionable course to allude publicly to the distress of the country when it is not peculiar to the country itself; when you are not yourselves prepared with any remedial measures; and when, if you express your real opinions, you may give rise to hopes and miscalculations which afterwards may be disappointed and defeated, and which you must deplore. That is the reason that has governed us in this case. What is the real state of affairs at present? The distress in this country is great; but there are circumstances which alleviate it in the low price of provisions. Still, that distress cannot be denied; and yet it must be borne in mind that it is a commercial distress, which is shared by every other country. It has been occasioned by the same causes which occasion the distress of other countries. Her Majesty's Government are not prepared—I do not suppose any Government would be prepared—with any measures which would attempt to alleviate the extensive distress which now prevails. But if we are pressed upon the subject, it is, I trust, justifiable, though I speak with the utmost diffidence, to say that the opinion of Her Majesty's Government is that the worst part of the distress has been experienced. We believe, from all that reaches us, that there are indications, not in this country only but in other countries, of a re-action. We believe
  80
  that not only in this country, but in other countries where the industry peculiarly affects our own, where the course of commerce exercises a particular influence on the industry of England, there are symptoms of amelioration and general amendment which must in time—and perhaps sooner than the country is prepared for—bring about those advantageous results which, after periods of suffering, we have before experienced. But in a Speech from the Throne addressed to Parliament assembled for a specific purpose, upon which the attention of Parliament ought to be concentrated, it did not appear to us advisable to introduce the subject, though we hope that before the year is passed we shall every day find ourselves in a better position with respect to the employment of the people, the employment of capital, and the enterprize of individuals. I will not dwell on the words of the President of the United States, though words from such an authority and such a quarter cannot be treated with too much consideration. But the enterprize of America generally precedes that of Europe, as the industry of England precedes that of the rest of Europe; and I look forward with confidence that the industry and enterprize of America will be productive of beneficial results upon this country. I should not like to sit down without thanking the noble Earl who moved the Address for the speech which he made this evening. I am sure the House listened to it with much interest. It would well have preceded a debate which, unfortunately, we are not to have. But it will be a satisfaction to my noble Friend to remember that it has been his lot, which is not the lot of all of us, to have in his time addressed both Houses, and to have succeeded in interesting both. I do not wonder at the interest which has been shown in the affairs of India by my noble Friend who seconded the Address. I believe there is no portion of Her Majesty's subjects who have profited more by our Indian Empire than the Irish; and, what is more, our Indian Empire is, perhaps, more indebted to them for the great talent and energy which they have shown in its administration than any portion of Her Majesty's subjects. Well, my Lords, in conclusion, we are told that on Monday we are to deal with this great question which now excites public attention, and

  81
  that we are to come to a decision upon it. We have received intelligence to-day which no man, on whatever side he sits, can read without pride and admiration. Whatever may be the results of that brilliant victory—and I should hope that the result will be speedy and satisfactory—there can be but one opinion among us as to the admirable qualities by which that victory has been accomplished. Her Majesty's Ministers, my Lords, have another sort of encounter hanging over us. I know not what may be its result. The decision may differ from what might be calculated upon in ordinary times. Whatever that result may be individually, I am prepared to meet it, as, I am sure, are my Colleagues. Whatever the result, it will be, I hope, equal to the occasion. That the House of Lords will decide that they will maintain the Empire, and that they will not in any way sanction that policy which mistakes timidity for wisdom;—that is what I most earnestly hope, and that is what I believe the people of England expect.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, may I be permitted to reply very briefly to some of the criticisms which have boon made? The noble Duke has complained of my being illogical in condemning a war which I consider unjust, unnecessary, and impolitic, and yet being ready to vote the Supplies for it. He is quite right—it is illogical; but when once our soldiers are before the enemy, and the honour of the country is engaged, however illogical it may be, I will not consont to deprive our army of the necessary support, however desirous I may be that the war should be brought to a speedy termination, honourable to ourselves, and just to the foe. The noble Duke complains that a disapprobation of the war will encourage the Ameer. But Parliament has been do-barred from any previous knowledge of the policy which has caused this war; and now when it has broken out, if we may not discuss this policy, lest it should encourage a semi-barbarian on the other side of the world, there cannot be much use in calling Parliament together at all. But if I am willing to kiss the rod of an old political and personal friend like the noble Duke, I am not prepared to do the same for the rod of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury). It is much too full of buds. The noble
  82
  Marquess has read me a severe lecture for indulging in personalities. I admit that there is no greater authority in either House of Parliament than the noble Marquess on the subject of personalities; but as the House has been misled on a most important measure and policy which has boon maturing for two years, I think it is not mere personality to ask for some explanation of what has occurred. The noble Earl (the Earl of Beaconsfield), who is himself not wanting in authority on a question of Parliamentary manœuvring, has given me a severe lecture for the manœuvring I have done to-day. Well, I have only made a complaint which I thought I was entitled to make, and asked certain questions which have not been answered. I had consulted the convenience of the House in not beginning a skirmishing discussion on the merits of a question which must be thoroughly discussed, and on which the House will be asked to give an opinion on the early opportunity which has been promised by the noble Viscount. In conclusion, I appeal to my noble Friend on the cross benches to withdraw the Amendment, which cannot be disconnected entirely from the general subject which is to be discussed on Monday.
  EARL GREYsaid, he would not press his Amendment to a division; but he wished the Question to be put.
  Question put, Whether the said words shall be there inserted? Resolved in the negative.
  Then the original Motion was agreed to.
  Ordered that the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

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