Sitting of 17 January 1878

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

Ordered, That a Committee of Privileges be appointed.
OUTLAWRIES BILL.
Bill "for the more effectual preventing Clandestine Outlawries," road the first time; to be read a second time.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Lord Burghley, for the Northern Division of the County of Northampton.
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.
MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTON,in rising to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty in answer to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech, said, that before adverting to those grave questions which had caused Parliament to be summoned by Her Majesty earlier than usual, but not prematurely for the public interests, he wished to glance briefly at one or two domestic measures, and also at those paragraphs relating to the state of our Colonies, mentioned in the Address. The annual programme of measures included in Her Majesty's Speech afforded a standard by which the performances of the Government and of Parliament were judged at the end of the Session; and if by the hearty co-operation of the House the Government were enabled to carry the measures which they had just heard enumerated, the Session now commencing would not prove a barren one. But he might be permitted to say, as an old Member of the House, and one who had been rather a listener than an active participator in its debates, that he trusted that this Session due regard would be had to that economy of time which last Session the House had to regret was not always observed. He hoped, therefore, that the House would support its Leader and also support Mr. Speaker in any measures which might be deemed necessary for the due maintenance of order in that Assembly, and the convenient discharge of the Public Business. The domestic measures proposed were not of a sensational character, such as hon. Gentlemen opposite might possibly desire. There was no Bill for the Disestablishment of the Church—to support which some hon. Members opposite seemed to be endeavouring to induce the Leaders of their Party—unsuccessfully, he was happy to say, as would appear from the speech of the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). During their period of office, Her Majesty's Government had carried many very useful measures of a domestic and sanitary character, which had largely conduced to the welfare of the people, and he rejoiced to see that they were still persevering in that course, and that the Factory Bill, for which there had been no time last Session, was again introduced. That
60
course was in pursuance of the policy which they had steadily followed— namely, to increase the welfare of the working classes. The working classes —not only the artizans in the towns, but the labourers in the agricultural districts—might at the present time thank the Government for several measures which had given them bettor dwellings, purer water, better facilities for the attendance of their children at school, and an extension of the period of their education. He did not intend to allude to those measures which had been mentioned in the Speech as relating to Scotland and Ireland in the presence of hon. Gentlemen who were much better acquainted with those subjects than himself; but he wished to say a few words on two very important matters—namely, the Administration of Counties, and the better prevention of the Cattle Disease, and he felt that he might speak as the Representative of a county, and of a county particularly interested in the prosperity of its cattle. The County Administration Bill had been foreshadowed last year in the able speech of his hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), and it was, therefore, not surprising that the Government had brought the subject before the House. It was not a Party question, and he hoped that it would not be treated as one. At any rate, the state of our local self-government was always interesting to every Englishman, and the man who was successful in the municipal council or at the quarter sessions had some qualification for the Membership of the House. We had been accustomed to look with pride on our representative local institutions as compared, with those of Continental nations; but at the present time he did not think that we could be satisfied with the somewhat chaotic state of our county administration. We had lately accumulated a number of fresh Boards, and new duties were constantly being imposed on the guardians, while the magistrates had less and less responsibility in the administration of county finance. In this country institutions had grown up gradually, not founded on theory, but on the expressed wants of the people; and at the present time the great want in our county administration was for some means of re-constructing and consolidating the various Boards. Many attempts had been made by previous

61
Governments to settle the difficulty, but they had all failed because they had dealt only with the fringe of the question. It was obviously impossible to settle either the management of highways or the valuation of property, or anything else, unless Parliament first of all set-tied what the county authority was to be. The object of the Bill would be to enlist the best men among the magistrates and the representatives of the ratepayers, so that whenever any important point arose it would be referred to the Boards, without in any way destroying the administration of police and justice by the magistrates, but rather uniting them with the representatives of the Boards of Guardians. By this means such measures as he had indicated could be carried out, and perhaps he might add the education of the country also. Such a Bill would require much elaboration and attention from both sides of the House before it could be brought to a successful issue; for it could not be expected to spring fully armed at all points from the head of a Minister, in the same way that Minerva was said to have sprung from the brain of Jupiter. In bringing forward the Bill the Government did not intend to throw any slur on the magistracy of the country, for there was no question that their administration had been, on the whole, most economical; and he was sure that in their body there would be no objection to the infusion of new blood. The new body, in which the experience of the magistrates would be combined with the knowledge of local men, would advantageously counteract the tendency to centralization which our present system seemed to promote, and he would hail with much pleasure any Bill which made the basis of the county administration broader and deeper. The next question was the Bill which would be introduced with respect to the Cattle Disease, and the Report of the Select Committee would have prepared the House for some such measure. It would be remembered that the Committee was a large one, including English, Scotch, and Irish Members; that many witnesses were examined, and its deliberations conducted with much care. He believed that the Report of that Committee recommended that animals should not be imported from countries where cattle plague existed, or through which
62
cattle plague was likely to be conveyed. It had been stated that a loss of 2,000,000 sheep and 500,000 cattle had been the result this year, as compared with previous years, in consequence of agriculturists having been deterred from breeding, owing to the prevalence of disease. This decrease was not only a matter for agriculturists, but for the whole community, which suffered from the loss of produce. The next point brought out very strongly before the Committee was the facility for supplying large towns with dead meat instead of live animals. The evidence was very conclusive on this point, and also as to the willingness of the agriculturists to submit to any measures, however stringent, with regard to the local movement within their own district, provided all animals coming from, foreign countries were slaughtered at the ports. Influential deputations had waited upon the Government urging them to bring in a Bill to carry out the recommendations of that Committee; and without pretending to say what course the Government would take, he felt confident that they would attach due importance to the recommendations, and would bring in a measure which should be satisfactory not only to the agricultural interests, but also to the country at large. There were other questions, such as the amendment of the law mentioned in the Queen's Speech; but upon those questions he would not trouble the House with any remarks. He wished, however, to say a few words on those portions of the Speech which related to our Colonies. A year seldom passed without some portion of our large dominions being subjected to assaults from external foes or internal dissensions. In South Africa, unfortunately, disturbances had arisen in the case of a tribe placed close upon our frontiers. The Galekas were at first repulsed, but after a short time measures bad to be taken to secure the safety of the Colonies. Troops had been sent out, not for warlike operations on a largo scale, such as the Kaffir war, but mainly to re-assure the inhabitants of the colony, and to prevent disturbances from extending to a larger area. Those measures, he was happy to say, had been entirely successful, so far as our latest information went. He thought the House would look with confidence upon the wise administration of Sir Bartle Frere in this

63
matter, whose large experience in India and elsewhere would prevent him from either giving way to panic, on the one hand, or taking measures of extreme severity on the other; and he believed it was owing to the promptitude with which Sir Bartle Frere acted in this matter that the present state of the colony was mainly due. As to India, matters there had taken a more favourable turn since the end of last Session. The Khan of Khelat had demanded some assistance from our Government, and the force sent forward at his request had been successful in quieting the disturbances which had arisen in that quarter, and in reopening the Bolan Pass, through which the stream of merchandize again flowed. The good feeling, too, which had long existed between this country and India must have been strengthened by the generous response which had been made not only by the English people, but by the English race in our Colonies, to the cry for assistance of those who were suffering from the consequences of a dire famine, which would, in his opinion, have resulted in a much greater loss of life but for the facilities which had been afforded by the railways in carrying food at a low rate. The question how best to prevent famines in India was now engaging public opinion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) gave at Manchester some advice on this subject, but his statements were disputed and his arguments refuted by a very able writer in a leading newspaper. He was glad to see that a Commission was to be appointed to go into the whole subject, and he understood that the additional taxation to be imposed on India was to be devoted either to pay off the loans raised for the famine or to carry on new works if found necessary. While dealing with India he wished to touch on one point which showed how closely we were connected with that country. The Indian Government thought it necessary, for fiscal purposes, to propose an equalization of the Salt Duties in India, and he was informed that the probable result would be to afford an opportunity for salt from England being sent there, thus benefiting the Indian people very much, inasmuch as a new trade would be created. The result formerly of the importation of salt into India was that large quantities of jute had been sent
64
back, and now the result of a similar importation would be that wheat would be shipped to this country at a very low price. He came, in the next place, to a subject, in dealing with which he must ask the indulgence of the House, for he felt that every word which any hon. Member might utter with respect to it ought to be deeply weighed. He referred to the Eastern Question, which he had endeavoured to look at in a perfectly impartial manner. He was not one of those who had attended the meetings on either side of that question. He had travelled both in Russia and in Turkey, and he could understand the national aspirations of the former to Constantinople, as the cradle of their civilization, their art, and their religion, and the sympathy which the Russians felt towards the Christian population of Turkey. He also sympathized with the gallant defence the Turks had made on behalf of their country, which they believed to have been unjustly invaded. Her Majesty had stated that, in order that they might become acquainted with the present state of the question, and of the exertions she had made to terminate the war, she had called Parliament together at an earlier period than usual. In treating of the question he would not go further back than the end of last Session, when the House had approved by a very large majority of the policy pursued by Her Majesty's Government up to that time on the subject. That policy, Her Majesty's Government had informed them, had been since strictly carried out. Her Majesty's Government had not departed from the position they took up in May last—namely, a policy of strict neutrality, as long as British interests were not affected. The despatch of Lord Derby of the 6th of May clearly laid down the four points where British interests might be affected—namely, at Constantinople, on the Dardanelles, in Egypt, and in the Persian Gulf. It was satisfactory to find that on none of those points, up to the present time, had any British interest been touched. The assurances of Prince Gortchakoff, in his letter of May 30, had up to the present time remained inviolate; but they could not disguise from themselves that a critical time might be at hand. They saw that the Russian armies were marching forward across the Balkans—were near Adrianople—and that possibly they

65
might threaten some of those points where British interests would be affected. They were willing, as Her Majesty said in Her Speech, to believe that the Russians would strictly carry out their engagements, and they were also bound to assume that the sacred word of an Emperor would not be set at nought by the advance of a conquering army. But, at the same time, Her Majesty said that some unexpected occurrence might arise which might render it necessary for the Government to take some measure of precaution. They could not shut their eyes to the fact that they might find themselves in such a position, and they thanked Her Majesty for announcing her intention to ask the Parliament, if such a contingency should arise, to supply the means of securing her interests, if those interests should be threatened. The House had been called together to express the opinion of the people of the country at this important crisis. He believed that the majority of the people wished for peace. He believed also that the majority of the people had full confidence that Her Majesty's Government would preserve peace as long as British interests were not affected. The people of the country were not unmindful of the interests of England, and were, he believed, pro-pared to support the Government in any stops which they might think necessary for the duo preservation of British interests in the East. Her Majesty had informed them that she had every hope of a peaceful settlement being arrived at. Should it, however, be found necessary to take any steps, the fact should not be construed in any way as showing an intention on the part of this country of going into war. They might be construed simply as showing an intention on the part of this country of seeing that our interests were respected and our neutrality strengthened. That, he believed, was the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) in 1870, at the time of the Franco-German War. At that time the right hon. Gentleman asked for a Vote of Credit of £2,000,000 to raise an additional 20,000 men, and he believed that it was the opinion of the Government at that time that the step in question was taken with a view to strengthen the neutrality of England. Such an opinion was certainly alluded
66
to in the course of the debate; and he assumed, anyhow, that at that time it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to interfere in the Franco-German War. Her Majesty next alluded to the mediation which had been asked for by Turkey. When the other Powers of Europe refused to entertain the proposals for mediation which Turkey made when she found that her gallant armies were no longer able to keep the field or to prevent the passage of the Russian armies across the Balkans, Her Majesty's Government undertook, not to mediate, but to ask Russia whether she would state the terms of peace she would offer to Turkey. The Emperor of Russia answered that appeal by saying that he earnestly desired peace. The Turkish Government acted upon a communication to that effect from Her Majesty's Government, and the result was that at the pre-sent time Russian and Turkish officers, they hoped, were arranging the terms of an armistice upon the field. He had full confidence that Her Majesty's Government would relax no effort in order to obtain peace between the two belligerents, such a peace as would be consistent with the honour of each and with the interests of Europe. An attitude of watchfulness was not necessarily one of weakness. England was, he believed, as strong as she ever was, and, should the occasion arise, as capable as ever of protecting her interests. They trusted that, now that Russia had got so commanding a position in the campaign, she would in her hour of victory deal magnanimously with a gallant and defeated enemy; and that, now that she was in a position to dictate those terms of amelioration of the condition of the Christian subjects of Turkey—the only object, as Prince Gortchakoff said, she had in going to war—she would rest satisfied with that which she had attained. Should Russia, however, transgress those limits which she had herself laid down, he trusted that the people of this country and the Members of that House would unanimously rally round the Throne and support Her Majesty's Government in taking such steps as might be necessary for the protection of British interests and for giving England that power in the Councils of Europe which, from her position, she had a right to demand. Having thanked the House for its in-

67
dulgence, the hon. Member concluded by moving—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, to thank Her Majesty for the Most Gracious Speech which Her Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament:
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for taking this early opportunity of acquainting us with the efforts made by Her Majesty to terminate the War now devastating Eastern Europe and Armenia:
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that, after having unsuccessfully striven to avert that War, Her Majesty, whilst declaring Her Majesty's intention to observe Neutrality so long as the interests of the Empire, as defined by Her Majesty's Government, were not threatened, yet expressed an earnest desire to profit by any opportunity that might present itself for promoting a peaceful settlement of the questions at issue between the belligerent Powers:
"To thank Her Majesty for informing us that the successes obtained by the Russian arms having convinced the Porte of the desirability of bringing hostilities to a close, the Government of the Sultan addressed to the Neutral Powers, parties to the Treaties relating to the Turkish Empire, an appeal for their good offices:
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that, as it did not appear to the majority of those Powers that they could usefully comply with this request, Her Majesty agreed, in response to a separate appeal from the Porte, to inquire of the Emperor of Russia whether His Imperial Majesty would entertain overtures for Peace:
"To thank Her Majesty for informing us that the Emperor expressed, in reply, his earnest desire for Peace, and stated his opinion as to the course to be pursued for its attainment:
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that, through Her Majesty's good offices, communications have taken place between the Governments of Russia and, Turkey, which Her Majesty earnestly trusts may lead to a pacific solution of the points at issue; and that no efforts on Her Majesty's part will be wanting to promote that end:
"To thank Her Majesty for informing us that' hitherto neither belligerent has infringed the conditions on which Her Majesty's Neutrality is founded, and that Her Majesty willingly believes that both parties are desirous to respect them, so far as it may be in their power.
68
That so long as these conditions are not infringed Her Majesty's attitude will continue the same; but that Her Majesty cannot be blind to the fact that, should hostilities be unfortunately prolonged, some unexpected occurrence may render it incumbent on Her Majesty to adopt measures of precaution. That such measures could not be effectually taken without adequate preparation, and that Her Majesty trusts to the liberality of Parliament to supply the means which may be required for that purpose:
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for directing that Papers on these affairs shall be laid before us; and for informing us that Her Majesty's relations with all Foreign Powers continue to be friendly:
"Humbly to join in Her Majesty's expression of thankfulness that the Famine which has ravaged Southern India is nearly at an end; and to thank Her Majesty for informing us of the strenuous and successful exertions made by the Local Governments, and powerfully seconded by the liberal aid of Her Majesty's subjects at home and in the Colonies, to relieve the sufferings of the population; and also for the announcement that an inquiry will be made as to the best measures for dealing with such calamities in the future:
"To thank Her Majesty for informing us that, in consequence of the condition of native affairs in South Africa, Her Majesty has thought it expedient to reinforce the Troops in that part of the Empire; and to join with Her Majesty in trusting that a peaceful and satisfactory settlement of all differences may shortly be obtained:
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for directing the Estimates of the year to be prepared and presented to us without delay:
"Humbly to assure Her Majesty that our careful consideration shall be given to the measures which may be submitted to us, and that we earnestly trust that the blessing of the Almighty may attend and guide our deliberations."
MR. TENNANT,in seconding the Motion, said: Sir, I cannot ask for the indulgence of the House upon the time-honoured plea of never having before addressed it, but I can urge a much stronger plea—the great responsibility attaching, at this most critical juncture of affairs, to the duty that has been entrusted to me, and the consciousness of my inability to discharge it in a befitting manner. I therefore entreat the House to grant me its forbearance in that spirit of generous indulgence which it never

69
withholds when personally appealed to. Fortunately, Sir, my labours have been much lightened by the able and exhaustive manner in which my hon. Friend the Mover of the Address has commented on the various topics in Her Majesty's Speech; and the Speech itself, in its moderation and firmness, and in the absence of any startling or sensational announcement, cannot but commend itself to the general approval of the House, and ensure the unanimous adoption of the Address which I have the honour of seconding. I trust, Sir, I am not presuming too much in saying that our thanks are due to Her Majesty's Advisers for having called us specially together earlier than our accustomed time, to take us, as it were, into their councils and their confidence at this grave crisis, when such momentous issues, affecting the honour and welfare of this country, will have to be decided. The fullest information will no doubt be imparted to us, not only as to the views and intentions of the belligerents, but as to the views and intentions of the Government, and the public mind will be disabused of those mischievous insinuations and unscrupulous charges which have been so industriously circulated, either for private ends or Party purposes, but which have not a shadow of foundation, except in the imagination of those who so recklessly invented them. The most complete vindication of the conduct of Her Majesty's Government— if any vindication be needed—will be found in the fact that they have never deviated from those strict lines of conditional neutrality which were laid down at the outset of this most deplorable conflict. Those lines were defined with unmistakable clearness and distinctness by Lord Derby in his admirable despatch of May last, and were recognized and accepted with equal clearness and frankness by Prince Gortchakoff in his reply; and, so far as we know, these conditions have been faithfully observed by both belligerents, and we have no reason for supposing or believing that they will not be observed with equal faithfulness to the end. But, Sir, events have succeeded events at the scene of war so quickly, and disaster has followed upon disaster with such terrible rapidity, and we have had so many surprises, that it is impossible to say what complications a day or an hour may bring forth, or
70
how soon our position may be menaced or our interests imperilled. The time, Sir, has apparently gone by—if we are to believe the public utterances of some of those who set themselves up as the leaders of the people and pioneers of public opinion—for this country to go to war for the sake of upholding the "independence and territorial integrity" of another country, or for maintaining "the balance of European power," or for the "vindication of violated treaties," or upon any other of those historical pleas which in times past were considered as justifying—and, indeed, demanding— an appeal to arms. No doubt, Sir, this is a somewhat low and utilitarian view of the duties and obligations of a great country, but it is the view of the practical age in which we live; and, however deeply some of us may deplore or resent it as derogatory to our position and repugnant to our feelings, yet I think it must be admitted that it is a policy that is at pre-sent in accordance with the general feeling of the country as the one most directly conducive to its material interests. I trust, Sir, what I have just said will not be misunderstood. I should be sorry to say or believe that the tone of this country had fallen so low that it had become indifferent to its honour or regardless of its interests, or that either could be assailed with impunity. We have taken no part in the miserable war, not because we do not sympathize with the Turks, as we should with any weak and brave people fighting for their country and struggling for their existence; but because neither our honour nor our interests have been attacked, and the Turks by their own gross misrule have brought upon themselves their present calamities, and by their own fatal obstinacy have disentitled themselves to our assistance. But, Sir, if Russia in the elation of her triumphant successes, false to her solemn promises, and deaf to our appeals, should drive these wretched people to desperation, take possession of their country, and set Europe at defiance, then there would be a re-action of feeling in this country which would be irresistible, and it would be impossible that we could look idly on and see this monstrous outrage peon and see this out raising our hands to stop it. But, Sir, most devoutly is it to be hoped that

71
no such catastrophe will happen, and that this country will he saved from war, with all its attendant horrors and miseries; and it is most gratifying to hear that no exertions will he spared on the part of Her Majesty's Government to bring about such a result. It is a matter of thankfulness that the fearful scourge which has been ravaging wide districts in Southern India, and carrying off its victims in thousands, has now very nearly exhausted itself, and all fears as to its extension may be dismissed. This felicitous result is due mainly to the energetic action of the Government of India, aided as it was most nobly and liberally by the public munificence of the people of this country and of the Colonies. This practical expression of sympathy with our fellow-subjects in the distant Empire cannot fail to elicit feelings of gratitude on their part, which, far more than any legislative or coercive measures, will tend to cement the union of the two countries upon the permanent basis of loyalty and affection. It is satisfactory to know that measures have been taken to inquire into the causes of these scourges—which must now be looked upon as periodical visitations—with a view of averting or diminishing their intensity; and it is to be hoped that some effective and speedy measures may be the result. It is gratifying to hoar that in our Colonial possessions there is, with one exception, universal peace, and, we might almost say, universal satisfaction—in itself affording the most conclusive proof that the friendly and conciliatory policy of recent years has not been without its good results. The outbreak in South Africa among the Kaffir tribes has for some time worn a threatening aspect; but the prompt and bold action taken by the Cape Government, aided by the military reinforcements despatched from this country, will no doubt ere long restore peace, and prevent a repetition of such disturbances. Such events as these demonstrate how desirable, and indeed essential, is united action amongst the colonists themselves, and what a potent weapon of defence would be the system of Confederation which was shadowed forth in the Act of last Session, and which, it is hoped, as its benefits become more fully realized, will be more extensively adopted. It is re-assuring to find that though foreign
72
affairs will necessarily absorb so largo a portion of the time of the Session, domestic legislation will not be altogether neglected. The list of measures is, how-ever, neither formidable nor sensational, but several of them are of great practial importance, and will, I trust, become law during the present Session. This, however, will necessarily depend to a great extent upon the mode in which the Business of the House is conducted, and I hope I shall not appeal in vain to hon. Members opposite in asking them to abstain from a repetition of any of those embarrassing scenes which characterized the closing days of last Session. Those tactics, though perfectly legitimate in exceptional cases for checking hasty legislation and upholding the rights of minorities against a dominant majority —of which I am myself as strong an advocate as anyone—become altogether inexcusable when systematically resorted to as an obstruction to all legislation. The proposal for constituting a representative Governing Body for counties is one which cannot fail to be received with interest by all ranks and classes of society. The inhabitants of the largo towns in the manufacturing districts are proud of their municipal corporations and of the self-governing privileges which they enjoy, and which they exorcise so well and value so highly, and they will undoubtedly view with sympathy and approbation any measure which may have the effect of binding together county interests, and of conferring upon the rural districts some of those advantages which can only be secured by an administrative system founded on a comprehensive basis, and extending over a wide area. By this measure, too, the county ratepayer will have a direct voice in the expenditure of his money, and a great anomaly in the administration of our county finance will be removed, and representation and taxation will accompany each other. The proposed measure regulating the importation of cattle will no doubt be the well-considered result of the deliberation of the Committee of last Session, and will be directed to the prevention and removal of disease, so that the number and health of our home-bred animals may be maintained—a matter of essential importance to the producer as well as the consumer of meat. Care will, no doubt, be required to see that in effecting these

73
most desirable objects we shall not by imposing too stringent regulations so restrict our supply from other sources as to raise instead of cheapen the cost of one of our most important articles of food, and thus frustrate one of the main objects of the measure. I am glad, Sir, to see that the consolidation and amendment of the Factory Acts is to be one of the Government measures. At present there are no fewer than 15 Acts of Parliament regulating manufacturing labour generally, besides several special Acts affecting particular trades and occupations; and, as may well be imagined, the provisions in these various Acts are not only of ten-times conflicting, but in some cases unintelligible. Their consolidation into one general Act will be a great boon both to employers and employed, and 'the Amendments will, I trust, remove the anomalies and inequalities which exist under the old Acts, and which wore rendered still more unequal and unjust by the Act of 1874. By that Act the textile industries were placed in a most invidious and unequal position as compared with other trades; and in common justice and fairness, all trades and manufactures whore the same class of labour is employed should be placed upon precisely the same footing. From my recollection of the Bill of last year I cannot but feel some misgivings as to whether this measure will accomplish all I have ventured to express, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will, I hope, forgive mo when I say that if it does not, I shall feel bound to repeat the Notice of Motion which stood in my name for many dreary months, while this Bill was languishing a painful existence last Session. It may appear somewhat incongruous and mistimed to be introducing measures of this sort imposing further restrictions upon trade at a time when trade is suffering under an almost unprecedented depression, and is so hardly pressed in the race of competition. It will not, however, handicap us more heavily in the race—it will simply equalize our weights. The restoration of peace will, no doubt, tend to the restoration of commercial confidence, and give a stimulus generally to trade; but we must look deeper and further for permanent improvement, and nothing short of our being able to compete, and successfully compete, with foreign nations at home and abroad will
74
bring about that result. At present nearly every civilized nation is our rival in manufactures. America, Germany, France, Russia, Belgium, Italy, and Spain are each and all competing with us, many of them not only supplying their home demands, but sending their surplus productions into our markets, where they are admitted free and unrestricted; while, at the same time, our goods are subjected to a heavy import duty in their markets, amounting in some cases to actual prohibition. Now, Sir, I am no advocate for a return to Protection—indeed, he would be a bold man who would come forward in these days and avow himself a Protectionist— nor do I see how a system of what is called reciprocity could be practically carried out, and we must look for remedies in other directions. One great country—America—seems to be already awakening from her suicidal policy of late years, and no efforts should be spared in inducing other countries to follow her example. Our Commercial Treaties with most of the European Governments are either just expired, or just on the point of expiring, and the position in which they now stand is anything but satisfactory. In Austria and Hungary, and it is to be feared also in France, specific duties will in all probability take the place of an ad valorem tariff. Switzerland, where—if in any country—the policy of free trade is supposed to be in favour, has largely augmented her import duties. Spain, in a spirit of retaliation at our refusal to modify the duties on her wines, has imposed a highly-protective tariff against us, as compared with Germany, Switzerland, and other favoured nations; while Italy—whose Treaty has just expired— has agreed to a renewal for a few months, and may, and most probably will, again revert to those specific duties which tell so adversely against us. These, Sir, are heavy disadvantages to contend against, and especially as all our foreign competitors have longer working hours and are living at a less cost than we are. Still, notwithstanding these drawbacks, it is most satisfactory to know that our manufacturers continue to hold their own. The Board of Trade Returns for the past year show that the exports of all our main staple manufactures are in excess of the previous year, and the receipts on our railways from mer-

75
chandise and mineral traffic also show an increase; so that neither abroad nor at home have we been doing loss business. This is so far re-assuring, as showing that trade itself is not leaving the country, though it may be, and no doubt has been, carried on with little or no profit—a condition of things which could not of course continue for any length of time; for capital is very sensitive, and if unremunerative would soon be withdrawn, and a readjustment, therefore, between capital and labour would seem essential. The interests of the two are identical, and cannot be separated, and by their combined operation, supplemented by the application of greater art and skill, the cost of production can no doubt be still further reduced; and we can compete, even with all our present disadvantages, at a living profit until the arrival of better times. The struggle, however, in the meantime, will be hard and severe; but I have every confidence that we shall come out of the ordeal successfully, and enter upon another course of uninterrupted prosperity, and continue to be, as we always have been, the chief manufacturers of the world. It is satisfactory to see that both Ireland and Scotland are this Session to have full justice done to them in the way of special legislation. Each country is to have two separate measures of its own, as well as its share in the general measures affecting the whole Kingdom, and if one-tenth of the Bills of which we have had Notice this evening become law, Ireland will, at all events, have no reason to complain; and I cannot doubt but that the House will gladly devote the requisite time and attention to them. All these measures have, I understand, been the subject of discussion for years past amongst those most conversant with the subjects, and who have specially interested themselves in them; and the Bills to be introduced will, I believe, be the results of those discussions, and will embody, as far as can be gathered, the general concurrence of opinion upon them. I do not feel competent to enter into any details, and can only express the hope that the Bills, when introduced, will be such as to commend themselves to hon. Members representing the constituencies specially interested; and they may rest assured that if they can agree among
76
themselves as to what is best to be done, they will meet not only with no factious opposition, but with cordial support from English Members on either side of the House. I believe, Sir, I have now touched upon all the points in the Speech which seem to require special reference, and I will not trouble the House further—indeed, I feel that I have already trespassed too long, and am most grateful for the forbearance that has been shown to me. In conclusion, Sir, I hope I shall be excused if I venture to entreat the House to enter upon the deliberation of the momentous issues which will soon absorb our attention, to the exclusion of all other questions, in a calm and dispassionate spirit, throwing aside all political jealousies and Party differences, remembering that when our national honour and interests are concerned we should have but one voice and one will. Let us, on the one hand, keep steadily in view the position we have to maintain, and the great and varied interests we have at stake, and which, if menaced or assailed, it is our bounden duty to protect. On the other hand, let us not be too sensitive to assume indignities where none are intended, or conjure up interests which have no substantial existence. This country can afford, without compromising its dignity, to take a high stand and a broad view, and to err on the side of peace rather than war. Neither belligerent has yet infringed our conditions of neutrality, nor have any assurances been yet broken. Let us believe they will continue to be respected until we know that they will not, and let us magnanimously abstain from any act which might be taken as expressive of defiance or provocation, and might lead to the very consequences which we should all deplore, and are so anxious to avert. Should it, however, unfortunately be otherwise, and should it appear that Russia has designs and intentions at variance with the assurances of her Representative and the solemn protestations of her Emperor, and should hostile intervention on our part be rendered necessary, I cannot for one moment doubt but that we should give a loyal and united support to Her Majesty in the course which it would be her duty to take, unless this country be willing—as I trust she never will be — to sacrifice her honour and

77
her interests, and forfeit her high and proud position among the nations of the world.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, &c."[Seep. 67.]
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, there are many subjects which are referred to in Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech which at any other time and under any other circumstances would, no doubt, excite the most lively interest in this House, and perhaps would, even at this early period, lead to considerable discussion. But I think that the public attention and the attention of hon. Members of this House is so almost exclusively concentrated upon one important subject that it would be almost vain for mo to endeavour to enlist the attention of hon. Members in regard to any of those minor subjects which are mentioned in the Royal Speech until the House has had an opportunity of hearing those explanations which Her Majesty's Government are naturally anxious, and have to make with reference to the war between Russia and Turkey, and which we are all impatient to hear at the earliest moment. I think that the hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded the Address—a task which I am sure those who sit near mo will agree has been performed with all, and more than all, the usual ability — will feel that although well qualified to speak on the various subjects referred to in the Speech, they have failed to enlist attention on any subject but the one which now occupies the attention of all classes of our fellow-countrymen. Therefore, without any apology, I shall defer to some convenient opportunity any observations which I think it necessary to make on the other topics mentioned in Her Majesty's Speech. I can assure the House that I felt no surprise, and it is far from my intention to make any complaint of the summoning of Parliament at an earlier period than usual. I think it was perfectly natural that Her Majesty's Advisers should desire to have the assistance and support of Parliament in the circumstances in which they found themselves. I feel that on more than one occasion it has been the misfortune of Her Majesty's Government to have had their policy misrepresented and misunderstood — misrepresented and misunderstood, I think, not by their pro-
78
fessed opponents, but by some who call themselves their supporters and friends. These gentlemen have on various occasions found a meaning and have placed an interpretation on the actions of the Government which, when explanations were given, it was found they were not susceptible of. I need only refer to such points as the despatch of the Fleet some time ago to Bosika Bay, as to which, as we all know, a totally erroneous intention was for long attached to the country. And, again, the other day when it was announced that Her Majesty's Government had communicated to the Government of Russia the desire of the Government of Turkey to treat for peace, there were some who seemed to wish to attach to that announcement the inference that Her Majesty's Government had in some way or other made itself a party to that demand, and had intervened in some manner or other with Russia in favour of Turkey. But that there is no foundation for these commentaries on the action of the Government we know from the authority of a Member of the Cabinet, Lord Carnarvon, who, speaking not long ago to a deputation in terms which have never been disowned, said that the action which the Government had taken did not even partake of the character of mediation, far loss did it partake of the character of intervention. Well, such mistakes and such misrepresentations, whether they are intentional or not, are less likely to occur, or, at all events, are more speedily corrected when Parliament is sitting than when it is not. In that case, questions are asked in the House, explanations are obtained, and misapprehensions, which, whatever they may be, are calculated to do great damage to the country, are removed from the public mind. Neverthless, the fact that Parliament had been called together three weeks before the usual time did undoubtedly create considerable uneasiness and anxiety. The mind of the country was quiet with regard to this matter. When Parliament was prorogued no exciting debate had recently occurred upon foreign affairs. Parliament had acquiesced, and I think the country had acquiesced—perhaps not with any great satisfaction—but, at all events, had acquiesced in the policy which had been adopted by Her Majesty's Government. During the autumn

79
the attention of the country was no doubt kept on the stretch by the various events which occurred in the progress of the war; and the advocates of the Turks and the friends of the Russians fought their battles in speeches and in the newspapers with almost as much animosity as the combatants themselves; but the public in general was contented with taking a lively interest in that progress, and was satisfied with our position in regard to those events. A speech which was eagerly expected was made in the autumn at the Guildhall banquet by the Prime Minister which excited no alarm in the mind of the country. Lord Beaconsfield, whose opinions are tolerably well-known, contented himself upon that occasion with an expression of sympathy with the Turks; but he did not in the least load the country to suppose that we were in danger of being dragged into the war. No doubt when, shortly afterwards, the Turks suffered great disaster, their partizans in this country became greatly excited and redoubled all the efforts which they had used more or less during the whole progress of the war in order, if possible, to induce this country to take some action in the war. Some excitement was, perhaps, caused by the acts of the Turkish party; but it was very quickly dissipated by a speech which was made by Lord Derby at the Foreign Office in reply to a deputation. That speech materially re-assured and tranquillized the public mind, and once more entirely dissipated the idea that there was any intention on the part of the Government to allow this country to be dragged into war. Suddenly, however, it was announced that Parliament would be summoned to meet earlier than usual; but what was unfortunate about this announcement was, that it was not possible that Parliament could be summoned immediately, but only after the lapse of a month. During that month I think it may be said the mind of the country was greatly agitated, and time has been given for rumours to be spread abroad as to the intentions of the Government—rumours which it was impossible in every case for the Government to contradict. Every artifice was used by those who, for one reason or another, desire this country to depart from her neutrality, and to excite the passions of the people, their anxiety, and their
80
fears, as the case might be, so as to induce the Government to depart from their position of strict neutrality. Her Majesty's Government cannot but be aware that the trade and industrial interests of the country have suffered from the anxiety perhaps inevitable from that delay. In some places where a revival of trade had commenced it was immediately checked by the announcement of Parliament meeting so early that it might be in the contemplation of the Government to propose to Parliament the adoption of a particular course. Trade, I have been informed, has been greatly paralyzed by the agitation that has since prevailed; and it appears to me that some further explanation from Her Majesty's Government as to the early meeting of Parliament other than that contained in Her Majesty's Speech is required from them. It is announced very naturally that one of the reasons for this early mooting of Parliament is that Her Majesty might have the advice and assistance of Parliament on the pre-sent state of public affairs; but that is not the only reason, for we are informed that it is in order that we should be made acquainted with the efforts that have been adopted to terminate the war that is now devastating Eastern Europe and Armenia. The announcement of the early meeting of Parliament was made on the 18th December, and the only attempt in the direction of negotiations of which we have any knowledge before that date was the unsuccessful Circular that was sent to the neutral Powers generally, upon which no result took place, and the only effort of Her Majesty's Government to restore peace of which we are at present aware was communicated to the public through the Press when Her Majesty's Government undertook, at the desire of the Sultan, to convey to Russia the desire of Turkey to make peace — namely, on the 29th December—10 days after the announcement that Parliament would meet. We ought, therefore, to have some explanation from Her Majesty's Government. What were the efforts which they made, or were making, which induced them on the 19th December to resolve to call Parliament together? It is not my intention to make any observations whatever on those negotiations, seeing that the Papers have been promised to us; and from the cautious terms in which

81
they are referred to in Her Majesty's Speech, it appears to mo that every care has been taken to prevent this country from incurring any responsibility to the Porte in respect to these negotiations. We shall no doubt see, when the Papers have been presented, how far this object—which the Government evidently had in view—has been accomplished. In connection with this, it will be a point of great interest to know whether the Government of Turkey made this application to Her Majesty's Government of their own motion, or whether it was on the advice of Her Majesty's Government that the Turks applied to us to communicate with Russia on their behalf. Well, ever since the 19th of December but one subject has occupied the public mind, whether in the Press, in private conversation, or at public meetings—namely, as to what would be the nature of the communication which was to be made to Parliament on its assembling? And when I refer to the public meetings which have boon held in the country, I cannot help calling the attention of the House to the almost complete unanimity and at the same time to the moderation of language by which those meetings have been marked. It will not, I think, be asserted on either side of the House that those meetings have been of a Party, or, at least, of an exclusively Party character. They have been summoned, and, I believe, attended by gentlemen who belong to both sides of politics; and from many Conservative quarters of the country expressions have been heard not loss strong in favour of the maintenance of our neutrality than those which came from anyone sitting on this side. And the speech which we have had this evening from the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Tennant), the Representative of a great commercial constituency, has borne testimony as emphatic as any that could be borne by any hon. Gentleman behind mo that the prevailing fooling of those whom he represents is strongly in favour of the maintenance of the present attitude of the Government—a policy of neutrality. As I have said, the question which everyone is asking is—What is the nature of the communication which is to be made to us by Her Majesty's Government? It has been partly answered to-night in the Speech which has boon read from the Chair. But the
82
House, if I mistake not, still awaits with considerable anxiety the fuller explanation which it will be in the power of Her Majesty's responsible Advisers to give, and which will, no doubt, be given to this House. Much still depends upon what Her Majesty's Government will say. It will be in their power to clear up much that still remains of anxiety and uneasiness; it will be in their power to hasten the progress of negotiations, and, perhaps, the restoration of peace. On the other hand, it will be in their power to convert what is now merely anxiety into something like alarm; to convert what is now suspicion into active hostility; to divide the people of this country as they never yet have been divided; to check every hope of the revival of trade and industry in England; to put an end to every prospect of an improved revenue; to give to a great portion of the people of this country, perhaps to a majority of the people, increased burdens with the prospect of insufficient employment, and therefore of insufficient moans of subsistence. A great and deep responsibility will attend the words which Ministers will be able to utter to-night, and I hope they are aware—I have no doubt they are aware —of the responsibility which rests on them. I will not pretend for a moment to say that I expect the statement they can make will be one which it will be satisfactory to themselves to make, or, indeed, to any of us to listen to. They will have to tell of negotiations which are going on, or are about to begin, between Russia and Turkey, of the terms of which we are ignorant, and the basis of which has not yet been communicated to us. I cannot conceive that for men who, not two years ago, boasted and made it their pride that they had been the means of rejecting the Berlin Memorandum because it contained the words, "the other ulterior measures," which might be applied to Turkey; I cannot conceive that men who thought they had become the masters of the situation because by their refusal to assent to that document they had pre-vented even the possibility of its presentation to the Porte—I cannot, I say, imagine that statesmen who took that view of the affairs of the East will come with any very cheerful countenance before Parliament to relate that negotiations are going on between Turkey and

83
Russia affecting the future condition, perhaps the very existence, of Turkey, on terms and on a basis of which they know nothing whatever. Certainly, if they have taught themselves to look with satisfaction on such a state of things as that, I must say they have greatly altered since the time of the rejection of the Berlin Memorandum. No doubt it may be said that the terms of peace now being discussed will require the assent of the Great Powers, and we shall hear what the opinions of the Government are on that point. But it is not very easy to see, if the terms which are now being agreed to by Turkey are not satisfactory to the Government, by what right the Government intend to insist on Turkey carrying on the war in order to obtain terms more satisfactory to them; or how, if they possess that right, they can call on her to carry on the war for the purpose of obtaining terms for the only thing they profess to care about—namely, exclusively British interests. However that may be, I assume that there is no danger of our being led into war, or even into an approach to war, to vindicate any claim which we are likely to make to assert our right to take a share in these negotiations; because, as we understand, it is on the recommendation of Her Majesty's Government itself that the Porte has been induced to enter into separate negotiations with Russia. To a certain extent statesmen take particular views upon this matter, and there are probably some who look on this state of things as a humiliation to this country. Now, I have no desire to see my country humiliated. I am not prepared to admit that this state of things—although it may be, as I have said, mortifying to a certain extent to the statesmen who have taken a particular view of the Eastern Question—is humiliating to this country. We might have had a share in these negotiations that are now going on. We might have had a share in them in various ways. We might have had a share in them as allies of Turkey; we might have had a share in them as allies of Russia; or we might have had a share of them as benevolent and friendly neutrals, as the Germans have been. But we deliberately decided—our Government has deliberately decided—that it would stand in none of these positions. An overwhelming public opinion refused to be the allies of Turkey.
84
The Government, in accordance with a very large public opinion, also declined to be the ally of Russia; and the Government felt compelled at the outbreak of the war to express to Russia their sense of the misconduct of which she had been guilty. It was not likely, therefore that they could stand in the position of a neutral friendly to Russia, which had been assumed by Germany and Austria. I say, then, that the position we have assumed is one which we have assumed by our own choice—which we have deliberately assumed in a great measure in deference to our own conscientious convictions. I, therefore, am not able to say that there is any humiliation to this country necessarily involved in our temporary exclusion from the settlement of this quarrel in which we deliberately resolved to take no part. The paragraph in Her Majesty's Speech which, will be most scanned in the country, and which will cause the greatest concern, is that in which Her Majesty refers to the conditions of her neutrality, to the manner in which those conditions may be infringed, and to the prospect of their infringement. I am not surprised that Her Majesty should inform Parliament that, so long as those conditions are not infringed, her attitude will be the same. I am not surprised at the announcement, after the conditions of neutrality were laid down at the commencement of the war, that Her Majesty's Government will be bound in honour, if not bound in policy also, not to depart one jot from those conditions. I am not surprised, therefore, that it should be declared that, as long as the conditions publicly announced by both belligerents are respected, our policy of neutrality should not be departed from. But, it seems, something has happened or is expected which was not anticipated in August last; something which may render it necessary to make preparations; something which was not imagined at the outbreak of the war or when Parliament separated. There appears to be some obscurity which is not altogether cleared up by the efforts of the Mover and Seconder—some obscurity which, I am sure, any Member of Her Majesty's Government who speaks in the course of this debate will be able to clear up. It is not clear in this paragraph whether an appeal to Parliament is to be made immediately, or whether it is an appeal

85
which is contingent on the continuation of the war; in other words, whether the Vote Her Majesty's Government are going to ask for is to be simply without reference to anything going on, or 'is contingent on the long continuance of the war. What I gather by the language of the paragraph, and also partially, and to a certain extent, from the whole Address, although the language of the Mover of the Address gave me an opposite conclusion, is that the intention is to ask for an immediate grant. Sir, it appears to me that there are grave objections to this course. What is the one reason that is alleged? What are the facts as stated in Her Majesty's Speech, and how do they stand now as compared with the facts put before us in August last? Her Majesty informs us that—
"Neither of the belligerents has infringed the conditions on which my neutrality is founded, and I willingly believe that both parties are desirous to respect them, so far as it may be in their power. So long as these conditions are not infringed my attitude will continue the same. But I cannot conceal from myself that, should hostilities be unfortunately prolonged, some unexpected occurrence may render it incumbent on me to adopt measures of precaution"
So far we stand in a more favourable position now than we were in last August, when we had no knowledge whether the conditions of our neutrality would be observed, and whether such observance was the desire of the belligerents themselves. Now we have obtained satisfactory evidence on both points. Is there any other circumstance which is less favourable now than it was then, when war was only just commencing? Why, at that time the war had only just begun, and it was impossible to tell what its course would be. Now, as we are informed, negotiations have been commenced which may lead to a peaceful settlement. Here, again, we stand in a very much more favourable position than we did last August. Then Parliament was about to separate for many months; now Parliament has just met for the Session. Her Majesty informs us that neither of the belligerents have infringed the terms of the neutrality. She believes, further, that both of the parties are desirous of peace. Thus far, we stand in no different light than we did before. The fair inference,
86
therefore, from every fact in this comparison would be that there is less reason to suppose that we are likely to be called upon now to interfere in do-fence of our interests than we were last autumn. Every fact points to the conclusion that preparation is less required now than last autumn; but Her Majesty's Government appears to have come to a directly opposite conclusion. Whereas they were satisfied to prorogue Parliament last August without making any preparations, they are now not satisfied to summon Parliament without informing us at once of their intention to prepare for measures of precaution. There is but one reason that they give for this intention; but I ask the House whether that reason will bear investigation. It is alleged that hostilities may be prolonged, and that they may load to some unexpected occurrence, which may render it incumbent to adopt measures of precaution. Well, I ask whether that is a reason at all; whether it is one fit to be addressed to a reasoning deliberative Assembly, and would inquire of the Government what are the circumstances on which they found their anticipation of unexpected occurrences which they ought not to have found out before the end of last Session? Her Majesty's Government seem by their present course to condemn themselves for want of foresight last year. Was it not more likely that something unexpected would take place when Parliament was about to separate than now? [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER dissented.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer shakos his head; he seems to know what the unexpected occurrence really is, and that it is extremely likely to take place. If there is sufficient justification for the measure which is suggested, it appears to me to have been a grave mistake of the Government not to have made their preparations before this. I may be told that the Turkish Government have abandoned all hope—if they ever possessed it—that they are to be assisted by the intervention of this country. I believe they had that hope, and that, as drowning men catch at straws, the one hope of the Turkish Government throughout this war has been that, sooner or later, they would be aided by the intervention of England. Why, Sir, what will be the effect in Constantinople when this recommendation of Her Majesty's Govern-

87
ment is read? When it is known that Her Majesty's Government speaks of unexpected occurrences and preparation for measures of precaution—which, I suppose, means military preparations, if it means anything at all—is it not likely that the Turks will interpret it as the signal for one more desperate effort to put off the signature of a disastrous peace, an effort which will prolong, at all events, the suspense and indecision of England, and which may possibly bring about the unexpected occurrence which is to be the cause of our taking part in this affair? It appears to me that this measure is either disingenuous to England, or cruel to Turkey. Either you intend to verify the old French proverb, best imprévu qui arrive toujours, or you know what this unexpected occurrence is and intend that it should occur. But, in any case, it is cruel to Turkey to tempt her on for another struggle by hopes which you must know are inevitably destined to be disappointed. You know perfectly well that the Russian Government will respect your conditions of neutrality. You know that the task they have in hand is not so easy as to make them desirous of having another enemy on their back, and that every one of your conditions will be respected unless you make it impossible. You will, therefore, have no opportunity of quarrelling with Russia; and, therefore, under such circumstances, if you administer the slightest encouragement to the Turks, it is not kindness but cruelty, and it is not an act of friendship for England to induce them to defer the opportunity of peace. It is for their interest as well as for the interest of this country that the war should be concluded as quickly as possible. If it were not detaining the House I would ask what are the conditions with reference to which you dread that some "unexpected occurrence" may render measures of precaution necessary? I do not suppose the House has forgotten the definition of British interests which was made last May, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer divided them into those which we should have to maintain solely, and those with reference to which we might act in concert with other nations. Now, I think it would be impossible for anyone to say that those interests, which are wholly and purely British, and the protection of which therefore devolves upon
88
Britain only, have been or can be within any human probability affected. If any interests can be interfered with it is those which, as was pointed out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is the duty of England, in concert with the rest of Europe, to protect. He said—
"There are many other matters which are of interest to Europe generally; and I think we may feel confident that those nations which have closer interests than ourselves in these matters will take care at the time they think best and most convenient to protect their interests."—[3 Hansard, cexxxiv. 947–8.]
I see no reason, as he further said, why we should put ourselves forward alone to fight for those interests. Now, I would ask whether anything has occurred to render the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government loss confident than they were that they may rely upon the assistance of the other Powers for the protection of those interests in which they are interested equally with this country? Have they so mismanaged matters that when the Papers are presented we are to find we are isolated so completely that we shall have to stand alone now in the defence of those interests of the world for the defence of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said last May we could count on the assistance of the whole of Europe to protect. I hope I may be wrong; but when I read the paragraph in the Queen's Speech to which I am especially referring, I could not help thinking that it was the work of men who were not altogether satisfied with the position which they had taken up. I cannot but fear that there are some who had a hand in the preparation of this paragraph who do not distinctly understand the compact which was made between the Government and the nation, and in what the conditions of our neutrality really consisted. The conditions were clearly understood by the country, and it seems to me that some one has had a hand in the preparation of this paragraph who wished that these conditions had been somewhat different to what they were. I hope the House will not forgot when they come to consider these matters that the interference of England in those troubles—however limited the scope of her intervention may be—will probably be the end to any hope of the localization of the war. What, I would ask, has been the great dread which has been hanging

89
over Europe over since the outbreak of these troubles? It did not arise simply from a consideration of the horrors of a war between Russia and Turkey, dreadful as they might be. It was not dread of the re-distribution of territory in Asia, however important that re-distribution might be to us or to other European States. It was felt and feared that the violent reopening of this Eastern Question would lead to the disturbance of the peace of Europe, and the re-opening of other questions. It is that apprehension that has never been absent from the minds of European statesmen since the events of 1870. Are the relations between Germany and Franco, between Austria and Italy, so settled that they can look without apprehension on the prospect of any extension of the area of the struggle? Surely it would be the very height of madness if, at such a moment as this— as was said at the outbreak of the war of 1870 by the present Prime Minister —when vast ambitions are abroad— and we have reason to believe they still are abroad—that the influence of this country, which is one of the most powerful influences for the preservation of what remains to be secured of peace, should be lessened by our being drawn into any participation in this struggle. I hope the House will consider questions such as those, and that it will not be tempted by the apparent insignificance of the demonstration which it may be invited to make to ignore its importance. I am aware that the House is not anxious at this moment to listen to an expression of the views either of myself or of my Colleagues on the Eastern Question, and that what it desires to hear is the declaration on the subject of the Ministers of the Crown. I have, I am afraid, stood too long between it and the gratification of that natural wish, and it only remains for me to thank hon. Members for the patience with which they have listened to the few observations which I have felt it my duty to make on the present occasion.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am sure, Sir, that the House entirely concurs in the view taken by the noble Lord at the outset of his remarks, that it would not be in accordance with its desire that we should enter into any general discussion of the miscellaneous topics which are mentioned in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech. I
90
wish, I may add, with the noble Lord, to tender my thanks, and the thanks of the Whole House, to my hon. Friends the Mover and Seconder of the Address for the manner in which they have discharged their task, and for the interesting and valuable observations which they have made on other portions of the Royal Speech, while I, following the example of the noble Lord, confine myself to the earlier parts of that Speech. Now, Sir, the noble Lord asks what is the explanation of the step taken by the Government in calling Parliament together at a somewhat earlier period, and under the circumstances in which it has been called together. Now, upon that point I am reluctant to trouble the House with minute comparisons of dates. At the same time, as the noble Lord has thought it necessary to raise the question, and as, perhaps, I shall be best consulting the wishes of the House by going rather more minutely than I otherwise should have gone into particulars, I will venture to trespass upon their indulgence. The circumstances in which Parliament was prorogued, so far as relates to foreign affairs, were these —The war had commenced, and had so far proceeded that both parties to it were engaged in one of the most severe struggles that can be conceived. The policy of Her Majesty's Government had been declared in a most emphatic manner. It had been declared clearly in Parliament, and also in despatches addressed to foreign Powers which have been laid on the Table of the House. Our foreign policy was a policy of strict neutrality in the struggle going on between Russia and Turkey; but it was a policy guarded by declarations of the Government that there wore certain interests of our own which it was necessary for us to respect, and which we were especially bound and determined to defend, and that the declaration of our neutrality must be considered as subject to the duty which we recognized of protecting those interests. That policy had been discussed in Parliament, and it had been accepted—I may go further, and say affirmed—by a very large majority, and not only by a largo majority of this House, but, I believe, by the general consent of a very largo majority of the people of this country. From that position—which we laid down for ourselves, and which was so affirmed

91
and accepted—from that moment to the present we have never shrunk or varied. I admit it has been a position which was a difficult one to maintain, because of the very great excitement which would naturally prevail upon one side and upon the other, and because that excitement which would not unnaturally lead persons to take strong views in favour of Russia or Turkey, would naturally lead some on the part of this country to further the views that Russia had undertaken to promote, or others go forward in defence of our ancient ally the Porte. That excitement in the circumstances naturally led to all sorts of constructions being put on every act and word of the Government, which, even though they had no significance whatever in the slightest degree inconsistent with the policy which they had laid down, were, as the noble Lord has very fairly reminded the House, twisted and distorted and misrepresented, so as to give them a totally different colour from that which they ought to bear. So far I go with the noble Lord; but I must beg leave to differ from one observation which he made when he said that these misrepresentations did not originate with the political opponents, but were generally to be found emanating from the political friends and supporters of the Government. Well, Sir, I do not wish to say anything on behalf of certain indiscreet friends and supporters. They may from time to time have put an improper construction upon our acts and words; but I must take leave to say that the construction which has been put not only upon individual acts, but upon the whole course of our policy from first to last by the associates and Colleagues of the noble Lord, and by his friends, has done tenfold more mischief than any indiscreet remarks or comments of any political friends and supporters of ours. It has not been a question as to whether the sailing of a particular vessel to a particular place at a particular time did or did not mean this, that, or the other. What we complain of is, that from beginning to end we have had it continually urged upon the country by the adherents of the Party opposite, and by their friends throughout the country, that whatever the Government might say, however plausible their language might be, however sound the doctrine they laid down,
92
the country was not to believe them; the tone they assumed was a convenient cloak, but it was a cloak and nothing more, to conceal the secret desire and fixed intention of the Government to carry the country into a war for Turkey. Now, I do not say—far be it from me to say—that the noble Lord, or any of those who sit upon the bench opposite, or who take an active part in politics, thus misrepresented the conduct and intentions of Her Majesty's Government; but I do say that such misrepresentations have been continued from the time those difficulties commenced, and that they have done the greatest possible mischief. The noble Lord speaks of the possibility of Turkey having been misled by certain conduct of ours. I say that those misrepresentations that have been placed upon our acts by friends and supporters of the noble Lord, and the construction that has been placed by them upon our policy—that sooner or later we should go to war for Turkey—these have been the cause of misleading the Turks. For what would the Turks—what would anybody—naturally say? They would say —"We learn that certain language has been used by English Ministers, and if we were to draw our own conclusion from that language, it would be that they are resolved to remain neutral; but we learn from men of authority in England, from men who speak from the heart of affairs in England, and who are naturally regarded as knowing what the language of English statesmen means— that Her Majesty's Government mean to go to war." I will not venture to say how many times it has been asserted that we were going to war to support Turkey; but these, I say, were the misrepresentations which misled Turkey. I must apologize to the House for a digression into which I was led, because I had undertaken to show what was the position when Parliament was prorogued, how it differs from the present position of affairs, and why it was that we took the step of calling Parliament together, to ask the advice of Parliament upon the matters which have recently occurred. The noble Lord contrasted the position of affairs with their position now, and he asks how it is that—the change which has occurred being rather in favour of the conditions you laid down, and you having after several month's experience no reason by your

93
own acknowledgment to complain of the readiness of either party to respect those conditions—you think it necessary to take measures of precaution or to review the position of the country now any more than you did at the time Parliament was prorogued? Well, I wish to point out to the noble Lord the very material alteration which has come about in the circumstances of the country and in those of the belligerents. Let me remind the House of the purposes for which Russia went to war. She went to war after the failure of the London Protocol and of the efforts made to bring about a peaceful settlement of the questions relating to the government of the Turkish Provinces, for the purpose of giving effect to those points which the Powers of Europe jointly recommended and endeavoured to induce Turkey to accept; and in the Circular issued by Prince Gortchakoff he declared the necessity of going to war with Turkey to effect that which the European Cabinets had sought to obtain. That was the object and intention with which Russia went to war, and it was perfectly obvious that such an object was certain to be pursued and might have been obtained without in any way violating or infringing the interests which we expressed ourselves bound and determined to protect. Therefore, while the struggle was going on, and the Porte maintaining its position that it would not allow its sovereign rights to be interfered with, and no other questions than those relating to the government of the Turkish Provinces seemed to be or likely to be involved, there was no ground for interference. Well, it was, of course, the object of Her Majesty's Government to take every possible opportunity of bringing about a cessation of hostilities; but it was perfectly clear that any attempt in that direction while the struggle was going on with equal fortunes was hopeless, and would lead to no good result. But after the lapse of a certain time, and when we came to the month of December, matters had changed very materially. Russia obtained such considerable successes, and the Porte was so beaten that she was no longer able to maintain the attitude which she formerly did, and which was the cause of the war. The Porte was forced to confess that Russia was too strong for her, and applied to the Powers to endeavour to obtain a cessation of
94
hostilities for her. That step having been taken, it became obvious that the position the question had reached was about to be changed, and that if Russia stated she was content after her victories in Europe and Asia to accept—I do not say the precise terms, but particular terms, somewhat similar to those she had demanded prior to entering upon the war, no question could arise as to the course which those Powers must take who had supported the view she had taken in common with them—namely, that certain alterations were required in the administration of the Turkish Provinces. On the other hand, it was possible that Russia might develop new views and wishes, and it was necessary and important, if so, to know what those new views and wishes were, in order to see whether they in any way affected the position of this country in relation to the struggle. The noble Lord asks what were the circumstances which induced us to call Parliament together. They were these—Plevna fell on the 10th of December. On the 12th December the Porte addressed a Circular to all the Powers of Europe. The effect of that Circular was not encouraging to the Porte. No Power seemed to think it would be possible to do anything or was inclined to do anything. Therefore Her Majesty's Government, on the 24th December, made a communication to the Porte to this effect—that Her Majesty's Government had delayed replying to the Circular of the Porte, dated the 12th instant, until they could become acquainted with the views of the Governments to which it was severally addressed. It soon became evident that there was little prospect of its being agreed to, and the refusal of the German Government rendered it impracticable. Her Majesty's Government, nevertheless, felt that they would not be justified in abstaining from making an effort to initiate negotiations for peace, and they go on to say that they ask His Excellency whether the Porte wished England to mediate. That was the Circular addressed by our Foreign Office to our Ambassador at Constantinople; but on the same day a letter was written at Constantinople, replying to the Turkish Ambassador in London, requesting that a communication might be made to England, asking on the part of the Porte for the media-

95
tion of the Government of Her Britannic Majesty. Her Majesty's Government thought it was utterly out of the question to think of attempting mediation; but they informed the Porte that they were ready to make the communication to His Imperial Majesty the Czar, suggested in the despatch to which I have referred; and, the Porte assenting, that communication was accordingly made. The Correspondence from which I have briefly quoted is very short, and will be in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow; and I think it will be most satisfactory to refrain from further reference to it until hon. Members have had an opportunity of considering it. I have had, however, in consequence of the Questions put by the noble Lord, to refer to it briefly as I have. "Then," says the noble Lord, "if what you have stated is accurate, and the summons which has called Parliament together was determined upon on the 18th of December, how had it reference to the proceedings of the 24th of the same month?" I think we should not be quite so minute as all that in the criticism of dates. From the moment that the Porte issued that Circular to the Powers, and addressed it, among others, to Her Majesty's Government, it became clear to the Government that we were approaching a new state of things, in which it might be possible for us in some way to facilitate the closing of this disastrous and terrible war. We thought this, although we did not think that the appeal of the Porte was put in the most proper form for its acceptance to be agreed upon. Her Majesty's Government thought that, as they were approaching a now state of things, it would be of great importance to have as soon as conveniently might be the assistance and advice of Parliament, in order that in anything they might do they might have the means of making their statement in the most formal and Constitutional manner, and, in any steps they might think it necessary to take, that they might be supported by the authority and assistance of Parliament. I may say, further, that there did not appear to be any possibility of calling Parliament conveniently together at an earlier date than which was selected. I am aware, as the noble Lord has pointed out, that the month which elapsed between the notice and the actual meeting of Parliament was to some extent agi-
96
tated by questions as to the policy of Her Majesty's Government in calling it together, and as to the recommendations they might have to make; but, on the other hand, I do not think that the stop taken was one of a very alarming character. It was perfectly obvious that a great change had come over the fortunes of the struggle between Russia and Turkey, and it was equally clear that events might happen which would require the attention of Her Majesty's Government; but I think it must be admitted that we did not call Parliament together in a violent manner, as if we were going to recommend extraordinary measures and ask for the assistance of Parliament in their and our support. On this as on former occasions we acted upon the principle that we were anxious to maintain our position of neutrality; but, at the same time, to watch over the interests of this country. If it had not been for the persistent way in which suspicions have been raised against and doubts cast upon the Government, none of this uneasiness would have come about; and I do hope and trust that, whatever may be the view taken by Parliament of the position which we thought we ought to take and actually have taken, that we shall get out of the region of hesitating doubts into which we have drifted. I do not wish to enter into quarrels with or make complaints about these matters; but I do wish to point out to the House that it is really a serious question of public interest whether such a state of things should go on, and whether it is not more worthy of all persons interested in the welfare of the country that they should give credit to their Ministers, whoever they may be, for sincerity in what they do. The noble Lord has taken the pre-sent occasion to throw out a few taunts —if they wore taunts—which I cannot regard as having even the merit of novelty. We heard a great deal of the Berlin Memorandum of last year. We have heard these things from time to time; it is, in fact, the staple and stock argument of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I confess I have never been able to see what the particular sin committed by the Government in the matter of the Berlin Memorondum was. The only sin of which I can conceive us to have been guilty was in having a judgment of our own and speaking our own opinions. I

97
do not know whether it was a wise thing to do, but I am quite sure it is not a humiliating thing. I am certain there has been nothing in the conduct of Her Majesty's Government from first to last —and certainly not in the mode in which we dealt with the Berlin Memorandum —that could in any sense be called a conduct humiliating to this country. I venture to say when they mention what they are fond of talking about—the humiliation of this country—[Opposition cheers] —I am very glad to hear that cheer—I am never in the habit of talking of the humiliation of this country— and I solemnly protest against such language, because it does no good—that there is no more certain way of making other persons think you humiliated. Further, I think with regard to our sup-posed great apprehensions as to danger to this country that we often make the danger ourselves by expressing apprehensions at times when no one can see grounds for them except ourselves. I am surprised, I own, when I hear about the "foreign friend argument." My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) may remember on some other measure that Lord Salisbury objected to the argument of the "foreign friend," and "what foreigners would think of us." I think that the same caution should be observed in this case. We ought not to be always running about and talking of what foreigners would say—it is quite painful. I do not myself see why we should allow foreigners always to be dragged in. But if they are, it seems to me that if we are satisfied with our position, and with the results of what we are doing, we may afford very well to pass by what foreigners think with something of contempt. Sir, the position of England is by no moans one of humiliation. The position of England is by no means one of isolation. It is a very favourite phrase that is current among hon. Gentlemen opposite that England, by the conduct of Her Majesty's Government, has been placed in a position of isolation. I see no position of isolation at all. I am quite unable to recognize anything in our position that differs at all from that of other neutral Powers in respect of isolation. We have not joined either of the belligerents; neither has Austria; neither has France; neither has Italy. We do not hear about
98
the isolation of those countries. But, Sir, we have taken upon ourselves to act and to speak for ourselves when we have thought it wise, right, and necessary to act; and as long as Her Majesty's present Advisers are entrusted with the conduct of affairs they mean to take that course continually. If we find it is necessary for us to speak we shall speak; we are not anxious to place ourselves in a different position from other nations; we are not anxious to separate ourselves from the European concert, and we have proved that we have not. Isolation of England for rejecting the Berlin Memorandum! Well, clearly hon. Gentlemen must have got that Berlin Memorandum so largely on the brain that they can see nothing of what has happened since. Granting, however, for a moment that we isolated ourselves on that occasion, which is now two years ago, do they forget our communications with the other Powers in reference to the Servian War, and do they forget that we not only took the initiative, but were the Power which most of all conduced to the stopping of that war in concert with others. But beyond that, what do you say to the Conference? I think the actual proposal of the Conference came from us; at all events we were foremost in promoting it, and took an active part in the deliberations of that Conference. It has been said that there are some men who are never so much alone as when they are in a crowd; and, perhaps, the hon. Gentlemen to whom I allude think that a nation or a Government is never so much isolated as when engaged in a Conference with other nations or Governments. But anyone who knows the proceedings of the Conference and the part England took in it will see that England was in no position of isolation; we separated ourselves in no way from the other Powers, and they showed no desire to separate themselves from us. I will say nothing as to the London Protocol, but simply close this branch of my remarks with the observation that since Russia went to war we have occupied a position precisely similar to that of all the other Powers which took no part in the war. The language which has been used by the other Powers has been very similar to that used by ourselves. Of course there are differences in regard to each and every Power, but I am thankful to say the language that

99
has been used by other Powers is very similar to the language used by us. I observe that the Austrian Government, for instance, have explicitly declared their neutrality to be conditional, but they reserved to themselves "full liberty of action for the protection of Austrian interests." That is exactly the position of England. And when we know that the other Powers hold similar views we cannot accept the isolation view held in regard to England. Now, let me say a word with regard to the humiliation, and with regard to a separating of this country from all participation in Eastern affairs. We, of course, have always held the same views which the noble Lord has referred to and quoted just now from the French proverb. We have always held that there are a great many interests in this matter which are the interests of the whole of Europe, or of other Powers of Europe besides ourselves; and that there are other interests which are more peculiarly our own. We have watched more particularly over those interests which we have felt to be more peculiarly our own, and we may say that the respect which has been paid to the declaration of England with regard to those interests which are more peculiarly her own is a respect which we need not view with anything like dissatisfaction. I refer especially to the case of Egypt, and it is a very striking case. If this Government put the question of Egypt in the forefront of the interests which it was necessary should be respected, and although Egypt as a portion of the Turkish Empire has been supplying assistance to her Suzerain, still out of respect to that declaration of England Russia has recognized her honourable obligation not to interfere with Egypt on that account. I entirely accept from the noble Lord that which he said some little time ago, when he said he could not question that as long as those interests were respected Her Majesty would retain the attitude which she had taken: because, having declared her intention to take that posisition, it would not be consistent with her honour to depart from it. I say that when we talk of the honour of England, having deliberately taken up the position which we have done that having announced it in the face of all the world, we are bound in honour to maintain it, and not to depart from our obligations.
100
But now what are we to say with regard to the unexpected occurrences which the noble Lord is so amusing about? I suppose that the language of the Queen's Speech is always considered to be a fair subject for criticism, and no doubt the noble Lord may be justified in his remarks with regard to the peculiarity which he finds in some of the expressions of the present one; but I think everybody must see what is the real meaning and what is the obvious intention of the paragraph to which he alludes. We cannot say what may be the conduct of Russia at this moment. When hon. Members see the Papers now upon the Table they will find that they do not carry the whole matter down to a conclusion, for the simple reason that the whole matter is not yet at an end. They bring us down to this point—that after the British Government had, at the request of Turkey, made an inquiry of the Emperor of Russia as to whether he was ready to state his terms of peace, the answer given was to the effect that the course that must be taken was that the Porte must address itself to the Imperial Commanders-in-Chief in Europe and Asia, who would state the conditions on which an armistice would be granted. That reply was made by the Russian Government as far back as the 29th of December. Subsequently negotiations took place, and the result was that we advised the Porte to open communications with the Russian commanders, to whom we wore informed instructions had been given. The Porte, after a time, took that step, and on the 9th of January, which was some 11 days later, they informed our Ambassador that on making an application to the Russian commanders they found that the conditions spoken of had not been received by them. This circumstance caused considerable delay, and naturally created some surprise. However, inquiry was made, and the explanation that was given by the Russian Government on the 11th of January in answer to Lord Augustus Loftus's inquiry was that the necessary instructions were sent about a week previously by the Minister of War to the Imperial Commanders-in-Chief in Europe and Asia by messenger, being of too serious importance to be communicated by telegraph, and that these messengers might take eight or ten or possibly 15 days in performing this journey. The

101
result has been that some delay has taken place, not on the part of the Porte in making the application, but on the part of the Russian generals in communicating the terms of peace. According to information which only reached me some half-an-hour or an hour before I came down to the House, the two Turkish Envoys who have been deputed for the purpose of treating with the Russian commanders are still on their way, and it does not seem probable, from the circumstances mentioned, that they will succeed in reaching the headquarters for another day or two. Under these circumstances, it is obvious that these Papers will only show how these negotiations have been opened, and to what point they have been advanced. The transaction is not a complete transaction. We do not at the present moment know what the Russian demands or conditions may be, and, of course, until we know what they are, we have no proposals to make in the matter; because it would be obviously improper to assume that an answer will not be given such as we have reason to assume will be given. If the proposals that are made by the Russian commanders are of a character which will be satisfactory both to the Porte and to the other Powers of Europe, cadit quœstio, nothing can be more satisfactory. But it must be borne in mind that any arrangement, or any terms of peace that may be made, can only be made with the consent and assent of the other European Powers, if the peace is one which in any way varies or affects the arrangements made between those Powers. Therefore our position is one of considerable delicacy and anxiety. We trust, and we are ready to believe, that the proposals that will be made by the Russians will be in accordance with the declarations which they made before the beginning of the war; but it is impossible to say what may be the effect which these hostilities and this long struggle may have had upon the position and views of the Russians. It is, therefore, necessary that we should maintain an attitude of watchfulness and reserve until we see and know what it is they are prepared to demand. The answer cannot be very much longer unknown to us, and when we know it, we shall see more clearly where we are. In answer to the Question of the noble Lord, I may
102
say that at the present time we make no immediate proposals; but we think it right to warn and to remind the House that it may very well become our duty to put ourselves into a position to take the measures of precaution that may become necessary. I speak frankly. It is necessary that we should speak frankly. We have no wish to excite false hopes, on the one side, nor to give offence on the other. We maintain the views which we have always taken on this matter. We desire to see a fair, proper, and reasonable settlement of the government of that great country—the Christian Provinces of Turkey. We have done what we could by reason, persuasion, and argument to bring about an amelioration of that government. We have gone further than that, and have told the Porte that if it refused to adopt our advice and that of the other European Powers, we could not take up arms to defend and save it from the consequences of its own folly. It is perfectly true that we had entered into Treaty arrangements, among which was one binding upon us and upon the other Powers, under certain circumstances, to defend Turkey from attack; but the position in which that country has placed itself has been this—that she has refused and resisted all the recommendations that were made by those Powers, and therefore those Powers, finding themselves unable to induce it to adopt them, are, of course, in a very different position from that which they previously occupied. The position of the Eastern Question is, and has long been, not in our time only, but for generations past, one which has interested not one or two countries only, but the greater part of Europe. That question is as difficult now as it has been at any previous time. It will require the greatest firmness, the greatest caution, and the greatest prudence in dealing with it and in endeavouring to settle it. We are as well aware as you are of the horrors of war. We are as anxious as you can possibly be to save this country, or to save any other portion of Europe, from the horrors of war. We are anxious to do whatever we reasonably and possibly can to put an end to the fearful war that has been going on, and which has certainly led to so many horrible and fearful sufferings. But we must take care lest, in our anxiety to

103
avoid those evils, we run into greater ones. We must beware lest we allow the question to get into such a position as to lead to the result which the noble Lord referred to—that of the possibility of a much wider and greater scope being given to the war. We believe that now is the time when, by proper action and influence, we may hope to localize the war and bring it to a conclusion. We are earnestly desirous to accomplish that end. We have no secret intentions to play the country false, or our Allies false, or Turkey false. We have no desire to adopt any other policy than that which we have declared. It is a policy which, as I have said, has been already approved, and which, I believe, the country is prepared to approve still. It is one which I admit, and which I call upon you to admit, is one of difficulty and delicacy to follow; but it is not one which we shall be able to follow with success unless we have the avowed support and confidence of Parliament and of the country. If we are to be continually weakened in every step we take, and in every declaration we make, by insinuations, and, indeed, by something more than insinuations, that we are playing false, and do not mean what we say, no one can answer for the consequences. I repeat that we cannot undertake to carry on affairs of this kind unless we are properly and honestly supported. I venture to say that this is a question involving the interests of this country and of Europe. I say that the interests of Europe are not disassociated from those of this country in this matter —are not separate from, and are certainly not opposed to them. We are not desirous of prosecuting a selfish policy, nor of obtaining advantages for ourselves at the expense of others. We desire to promote that which has been the great object and boast of England. We desire to promote the cause of freedom, of liberty, and of peace, upon the largest and the highest scale. When you talk of the possible effacement of England, I say that not only can England herself not afford to be effaced, but that Europe cannot afford that she should be effaced, because England represents in the European system that which is the most important and the noblest element in the system; and I venture to say that if England be true to herself, it will not only be to the advantage and
104
blessing of her own country, but of the whole of Europe and the world.
MR. GLADSTONE: Directing my eyes for a moment, to the clock, I perceive we have passed what I may call "the hour of expectation," and that we have reached what I may term "the hour of despair." Under these circumstances, I do not know that the promise of brevity is of great importance, or will be very welcome to the House; but I can, after the speech of my right hon. Friend, promise great brevity, and with every expectation of keeping that promise. I must say I hardly know how to express my thankfulness for the debate we have had to-night. I, with many others, had found the passage in the gracious Speech which contains the pith of the Eastern Question an enigma that it was hardly possible to solve; but I own I read it, I reluctantly read it— it was reluctantly read by almost all my Friends, and it has apparently been also read by the Mover and Seconder of the Address—as implying that, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, the time had come when they felt it to be their duty to make to Parliament a proposal for an increase in the military establishment of the country with a view to the present state of the Eastern Question. That was the construction which, so far as I knew, was generally put within political circles upon that passage of the Speech. Unless I am much misinformed, that construction has been put upon it elsewhere—namely, in that portion of London which is most sensitive to the influence of political rumour and anticipation of the immediate future. And my noble Friend evidently, in the speech he made, spoke under the apprehension that that was the only interpretation that could be placed upon the Speech. Now, Sir, I am very desirous not to hold my right hon. Friend to any words that he has used; but to make sure that I perfectly understand him, I will say now that I understand him to have used these words—"Until Ave know the Russian demands and conditions we have no proposals to make." Lot my right hon. Friend confirm the accuracy of the report that I make of that portion of his speech. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER assented.] If that is so, I only wish to say that there are many points of great importance that have been raised, or cursorily

105
referred to in the course of the present evening, which I think it would be idle at the present time to go into. For instance, the Mover of the Address, in his able and interesting speech, referred to proceedings in 1870. That reference assisted to mislead me into a belief that a proposal was about to be made, and in that case it would have been my duty, with reference to the proceedings in 1870, of which I possess the authentic record, to contend, and I think I could demonstrate, that they would have afforded no justification whatever for such a proposal. There was another point. I will not follow my right hon. Friend into the historical portion of his speech, which I must say I did think rather un-historical; but in his view Her Majesty's Government is naturally the best of all possible Governments, and its acts have been throughout the best of all possible acts. I leave him in possession of the field, and will not enter on any subject of contention such as that. But he appeared in one part of his speech to intimate or suggest a doctrine which, perhaps, he did not mean broadly to convey, and which I should be sorry if he were to be misunderstood as broadly conveying. He spoke of the demands that Russia had made at the commencement of the war, and said it was material for us to know whether any further demands wore to be made. I think many would infer from the language of my right hon. Friend—but, I hope, will untruly infer—that he intended to lay down this doctrine—that Russia was bound, having obtained great success in warlike operations, to limit her demands to the demands to the terms for which she was originally willing to keep the peace. This is a point which it is not necessary to discuss at length at present. Such a doctrine as that is totally untenable. It is contradicted by the proceedings of every Power. Germany, in 1870, had to begin a war simply be-cause she was not willing to give a pledge binding her discretion in the future with respect to a Spanish marriage; but when she succeeded in the war, she was not satisfied with requiring France to withdraw the demand for that pledge. We, in 1854, commenced war against Russia because the Emperor of Russia would not accede to certain very moderate terms we endeavoured to impose upon him; but as the war advanced
106
we were not willing to keep the peace on the same terms, but gradually increased the conditions as we made our successes, according to what appeared to be the necessity of the case and the just demands arising out of the military situation. I am almost safe in the assumption that my right hon. Friend did not mean to say that it is possible to hold Russia generally to the terms of the London Protocol or the propositions of the Conference at Constantinople. It is perfectly clear that we are to have no proposal until the Government know what are the Russian demands and conditions, and until they know whether these demands and conditions are such as they may think require action upon their part. Then my right hon. Friend thought it right to warn the House in case a necessity of coming to Parliament to ask for additional means should arise. I will make no complaint as to that. It is a frank and ingenuous proceeding. He has immensely relieved our minds by giving us explicit assurances that the case has not yet arrived; and to that warning I do not think I can give a more frank reply, or better show a corresponding spirit than I do in saying that we take it as it is given; that we shall reserve—I, for myself, for I am not entitled to speak for others, shall reserve the case to be judged upon its merits when it occurs. I confess I have a firm, the very strongest, opinion that the circumstances of our own position would not justify an increase of our military strength—that it would be in a high degree dangerous and injurious, and would have been in glaring contradiction to the expressed wishes of the country. I may hero interpolate a word to say that my right hon. Friend complains—and I do not wonder from his point of view that he does complain—of the manner in which misrepresentation and Party action have entered into the course of discussion on the present question. I hope he will feel, at any rate, that during the last month that has not boon the case. I can assure him for myself I have resolutely refused many and many a demand, supported by every possible argument, that I should undertake to point out the dangers of our position, and be myself the instrument in eliciting by argument and by appearance the declarations and the views of the people of England on

107
the subject of our neutrality. I have steadily declined to do any such thing, because I have said—"Let us, if possible, have a national declaration." My right hon. Friend says he feels he could not go forward without the general support of Parliament and the country. I agree with my right hon. Friend in the strongest manner, and I think a difference of Party—a great contest in this House, notwithstanding your large majority, of which, of course, you are justified in boasting—a difference of Party in this House on a question of foreign policy, of peace or war, or an increase of military establishments connected with the contingency of peace or war, is a public evil of the gravest character, and one never to be encountered except for the sake of averting some other and yet much greater evil—namely, the dragging of this country into war—perhaps of Europe into war—for a cause not sanctified by justice. I think I need not trouble the House any further on that matter. My right hon. Friend warns us in a friendly spirit, and in the same friendly spirit we warn him, that the question will be a very serious one indeed, if, upon any circumstances resembling the present circumstances, so far as we know them, a demand of this kind is made. In the meantime we accept with the utmost thankfulness his frank declaration. I have never known an instance when the speech of a Minister added so much—and added so much that is satisfactory—to the Speech delivered from the Throne. And, as it is the custom by form of ceremony to call the Speech from the Throne a gracious Speech, I am also thankful for the gracious speech delivered from that Bench. I thank my right hon. Friend for the relief he has given, not to our minds only, but to the mind of the country. I willingly, indeed, suppress and reserve all the criticism I might have been tempted to make on the Speech from the Throne had it been construed in a different sense. And while I admit that my right hon. Friend has naturally and justly reserved for himself perfect liberty of action, I sincerely hope, for all our sakes, that the contingency to which he has pointed in making that reservation is a contingency that never may arise.
LORD ROBERT MONTAGU*: Sir, the Seconder of the Address conjured us to
108
"throw aside Party differences, and have but one voice" on the Eastern Question. Such a result is certainly much to be desired, if only that one voice should be in the right direction; but it is not easy to be attained in a Representative Assembly of a people which has lately been distracted by public meetings and torn by agitation. Of the existence of agitation for the last few months, and of the meetings which were held to fan it and to give it expression, there can be no doubt. Concerning the causes of that agitation, which I think are three, it is well worth our while to inquire. The first cause is that the Government failed to lead public opinion. The people remained in doubt until their anxiety became unendurable. They yearned for information, and longed for the Government to give them some clue as to the just conclusion to which they should arrive. It is the duty of a Government to govern, or lead the public mind; and not a voice of undoubted and uncontradicted authority was heard. Therefore, the people, after waiting for some time in suspense, took the matter into their own hands, and judged for themselves as best they were able; each man going astray, as his feelings or his interests misled him. The second cause of the agitation was the unceasing contradictions of Ministers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke in Devonshire, and said that he saw a piece of blue sky in the political horizon, and that peace between Turkey and Russia was imminent. Three or four days afterwards, Lord Salisbury spoke at Bradford, and said that no blue sky was visible, but that all the political atmosphere was as dark, melancholy, and dreary as the atmosphere of that manufacturing town. Then the Postmaster General went to Ipswich, and contradicted both of his Colleagues, pinning his political faith to Lord Ponsonby and the future victories of the Turks. Next, we had the Secretary of State for War in Edinburgh; and the only positive statement he made was that England would never allow a separate peace to be concluded between the combatants. Yet the news of this day is that Lord Derby has written a despatch to the Porte to bid them to conclude, at once, such a separate peace as the Secretary of State for War then deprecated. The same contradictions and vacillations were to be observed in the

109
proposal to send troops to Gallipoli, to which the noble Marquess on this side (the Marquess of Hartington) has just alluded. It was on a Friday, the 20th of July, I think, that the news came of the Russians having crossed the Balkans. Orders were at once sent to our military and naval stations, commanding troopships to be at once prepared, and troops to the unmber of 10,000 men to be assembled for instant embarkation. Yet before the succeeding Monday these orders were three times countermanded and throe times re-enacted. Three times the dockyard labourers were bidden to work overtime, and three times they were forbidden. Then, on the Monday, came the Ministerial Statement, that the intention was only to "send 3,000 men, in order to raise the garrisons of Malta and Gibraltar to their proper complement." The same contradiction was observable in the refusal to sign the Berlin Memorandum, to which the noble Marquess has also adverted. Yet I differ from him in his estimate of that act. I think that the Government were right in refusing, and wrong in everything else that they did. They refused to sign, because they refused to interfere with the sovereignty and independence of the Porte. Why, then, did they agree to the mission of the Consuls, which was an illegal interference with the independence of the Porte? Why did they consent to the illegal interference of the Andrassy Note? On that occasion, January 18th, Lord Derby wrote a despatch to the Porte, promising, in the names of England and of Russia, that if the Sultan would sign that note, nothing more should be asked of him, and pledging the faith of England in that case to support the Turks and defend the independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire. Then the Conference was another illegal interference. There, again, another contradiction arose; for every one of the bases of the Conference— which were propounded by Lord Derby and agreed to by all the Powers—bases upon which alone the Porte would consent to a Conference—every one of these was violated in the Conference itself. The Protocol of London, again, was a most illegal interference with the independence of the Porte, and a contradiction of our policy. By means of the Conference and Protocol, we endorsed the casus belli of Russia, and made her the
110
mandatory of Europe for the defence of the Christians in those parts, and taught all Christian sects to look to her as their sole champion. These acts were, then, in flagrant contradiction with the refusal to sign the Berlin Memorandum. Then we have had further contradictions from the Chancellor of the Exchequer this evening. He said—"We are not in isolation;" yet the Prime Minister said, on August 1st, 1876, that we were isolated, and why? "Because," he said, "were-fused to interfere with the independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire." Was that isolation marked last November 9th at the Guildhall? It is usual on such occasions for all the Ambassadors to attend, yet on that occasion only one Ambassador was to be found—the Ottoman Ambassador. "But," the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, "we are not more isolated than the other neutral Powers," and he specially mentioned Austria. Has he, then, forgotten all about the Triple Alliance, in which the three Empires are bound closely together in one unholy conspiracy, Austria being one of them? I believe I might have said a Quadruple Alliance, for it is said that Italy is another. I have now mentioned two of the causes of agitation— the Government did not lead, and the Government confused the public mind by their contradictions. The third cause has been the numerous appeals to the people to hold meetings, in order to guide the Executive and overawe Parliament. These appeals were invitations to the constituencies, who have no knowledge of the details, and no qualifications of previous political training, sufficient for arriving at a just judgment. This course of action was, in fact, a revolutionary attempt to transfer the executive power from the Sovereign to the people. In order to show that I am not exaggerating, I will quote one passage from the manifesto advising those meetings, which was issued by the "National Federation of Liberal Associations." It says—
"It is for the country to use the interval before the meeting of Parliament to make its voice heard, and its will understood. The House of Commons needs this guidance from its constituents…Parliament requires to be clearly informed as to the opinion of the country, in order that, so instructed and guided, it may save England from a policy which may lead to war."
This manifesto is signed "J. Chamber-

111
lain, President." I believe he is the hon. Member for Birmingham. Much has been said, both this evening and during the Recess, about "British interests," as if the defence of these was our only policy. If so, we have drifted away from both of the lines of policy so clearly laid down a little more than a year ago. Two policies were then promulgated, which were contradictory, and both intelligible. The first was enunciated by Mr. Disraeli at the Guildhall, on November 9, 1876, and the other was proclaimed at St. James's Hall on December 8 of the same year. The first was, that we are bound in honour to fulfil our engagements and stand by our rights, and observe treaties; so that, as a necessary corollary, we were called upon to defend the independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire, which we guaranteed in the Treaties of 1856. This policy seems to have had, at first, the support and adherence of the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), for, on August 1, 1876, after stating that the war had been brought about by the Russian Revolutionary Committees, he concluded in these words—
"I am not ashamed to say that I desire the maintenance of the territorial integrity of the Turkish Empire. I do not see how, if that is broken up, we can avoid very serious difficulties and dangers."
The second and contradictory line of policy was that we should not fulfil our engagements and not support treaties, but should join Russia, and send our Fleet to the Dardanelles—contrary to treaty stipulations — and prevent the passage of Turkish armies into Bulgaria. This was a policy of coercion on Turkey. Its friends gave it the euphemious title of "insisting that Turkey should fulfil her promises." What? insist on Turkey fulfilling her verbal promises, while we violate our written engagements! Its enemies called this policy the "bag-and-baggage policy." Again, its friends defended it by saying that it was Canning's policy—namely, "joining Russia in order to control her and hold her back." In other words, being a friend to Russia in order to betray her! This policy was formulated by the right hon. Member for Greenwich, last May, in five Resolutions, which were repudiated by the Liberal Party, because, they said, as Lord Salisbury carried moral pressure to the extremest limit,
112
every step further, such as this was, must mean war. Thus, the Liberal Party gave up the second intelligible policy as untenable, and fell into the policy of peace; while the Conservative Party, on the same day, gave up the first policy, and stood up for "British interests." Thus, the two intelligible lines of policy — the south pole and the north pole of policy, were insensibly or senselessly abandoned. The one Party said that their aim had merely been the amelioration of the condition of the Christian Provinces. The other Party pointed to Layard's despatch, and to Forbos's article in The Nineteenth Century, to prove that the condition of the Christians had been excellent until the Russians invaded the country, and was now deplorable. They further said that the condition of the Christians can be ameliorated only in peace, and that the Constitution was a great step towards it. Then the other Party retorted on the Government—"You signed the Andrassy Note; you were represented at the Conference; you appended Lord Derby's name to the Protocol, thus endorsing a casus belli for Russia, and making her the mandatory of Europe in fighting Turkey; therefore, while pretending to be Russia's adversary, you have been playing Russia's game." Those were the two intelligible poles of policy; and they have both been abandoned; while the two Parties appear to have coalesced on "conditional peace," and "British interests;" or peace on condition that British interests should not be attacked.
If you take your stand on British interests, you should, at all events, be careful to enumerate them all; for, if some of them drop out, as they did in that declaration by the Home Secretary, and that by Lord Derby in May last, then they are sure to be disregarded whenever the peace shall be concluded. One interest which has not been enumerated is our commercial interest. By a Return presented to the House last year, and called "Import Duties on British Goods (Foreign Countries)," I find that the import duty on all British goods into Turkey—with the exception of that on coals, which is 20 per cent ad valorem, and on linseed oil, which is 14 per cent —is only 7⅕ per cent ad valorem; while the import duties on British goods brought to Russian territory run as high

113
as 90 per cent ad valorem; the average being 32·32 per cent. That is, Turkey encourages our trade, while the duties in Russia are nearly prohibitive. Is it not, then, very much our interest to maintain the territorial integrity of Turkey, and keep every part of it from coming under Russian domination? Another interest which has not been enumerated is our interest in preventing the aggrandizement of Russia; in preventing any Turkish Provinces from being absorbed by Russia. That this is our interest cannot be doubted, for it was for this that we expended so much blood and treasure in the Crimean War. In 1854 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) said—
"I apprehend that what we think to secure by the war is not the settlement of any question regarding the internal government of Turkey, as this will be a work for many years; but there is the danger of the absorption of the Turks by Russia, which will bring upon us greater evils than those which already exist. This we are called upon to resist by every means in our power."
In December, 1877, a letter of the right hon. Gentleman, dated December 11, was published in The Times, in which he reiterates that statement, adding—
"The immediate object of the war in 1854 was to repel the aggression of Russia upon Turkey. … The war aimed at repressing a violation of law."
The aggrandizement of Prussia in 1866 now costs Austria about £20,000,000 a-year, and Austria remains her slave. The aggrandizement of Germany in 1871 now costs France about the same sum, and France is the slave of Germany through fear; and do you think that the aggrandizement of Russia will cost you nothing? If Russia should become master of the Black Sea, or dominant in Armenia, extending her influence perhaps as far as Antioch, she will threaten Syria, and Egypt, and your Suez Canal. The very fear of such a thing, the possibility that she may some day make one of her wonted aggressions in that direction, would compel you to maintain, not a few soldiers, as you do now, but a large army such as can be obtained by conscription alone; and this army must be ready to repel an aggression at any moment. We live in an island, and have no borders but salt water; therefore, we have no tradition,
114
much less a personal experience, of what is meant by having an aggressive Power hovering on our frontier. We know nothing of the relations of hostile States which are in contact; and therefore it is that we are heedless. There is another British interest which has not been enumerated. There is such a thing as being held in consideration by other States. For, unless a State is so held— unless it is respected—its wants and wishes are sure to be disregarded by all the Powers of Europe. This applies most particularly to India. Mr. Layard, in his despatch of May 30, has taken another ground, by which he shows the danger of any annexation by Russia in Armenia. I will confine myself to the ground of our being held in consideration by other States. We have a small army in India, by which we hold in check many millions of alien races. We hold down a vastly superior number because they respect and fear us. One of our generals commanded in Kars, in 1856; and when Kars was taken, the Native races thought that Russia must be very strong, and we must be very weak. The Persians at once began to intrigue against us; and the Affghans plotted; and, in 1857, we had the Indian Rebellion. It was not without reason, then, that Russia sent word to Shere Ali, last November, as soon as Kars was taken. For it is foolish to assume that there is no solidarity in Islam. On the contrary; every effect, whether of irritation or contempt, which is produced on the Mussulmen in Turkey, is sure to be found also in the Mussulmen of India. We have heard lately of the great subscriptions which poured in from our Indian Mahommedans, and their addresses to the Sultan, which Lord Salisbury did his best to repress; that was a result of solidarity. This solidarity was, moreover, proved in the Eastern Papers, xviii. of 1855; for Lord Stratford—as shown by a despatch of January—threatened the Sultan that, unless he would accede to our views, the Mussulmen of India should be maltreated. As this solidarity exists, it becomes more than ever important, in view of our hold in India, that we should be held in respect and consideration; for if we irritate the Turks, we prepare for ourselves hatred in Hindostan; and if the Turks learn to despise us, we shall be held in contempt

115
throughout India. For this reason, I suppose—I mean to lessen the consideration in which we are held—Russia and Prussia have lately subjected us to snubs and insults. For example, the Ruski Mir had this:—
"The interests of England, which had hitherto embraced the whole of Turkey, both in Europe and Asia, have suddenly collapsed, and are now concentrated only in one point— Constantinople. Kara, Erzeroum, Trebizond, the Euphrates Valley, and the famous 'Road to India'—all lately the representatives of British interests—became of no importance to England directly the Russian arms triumphed in Armenia."
The German Press branded us as "a fish-blooded people," and treated us with "unmitigated contempt," saying that "Gortchakoff treated Turkey as a sick man, while Bismarck regards England as a sick old woman." Again, it informs us that the Czar "will not allow England to take an active part in the eventual restoration of peace."
The Chancellor of the Exchequer this evening has strongly deprecated the assertion that "the country is not in earnest." I ask you whether you are in earnest, even when British interests are involved — I speak not of moral interests, such as a name for honour, a desire to be just and fulfil our engagements, and so forth; but I speak of defending our material interests, and I ask you, are we in earnest? It seems to me that our interests have been vague and flitting, like ignes fatui. When did we first hear of British interests? The big bow-wowing began when Russia was forced to retreat, and when the Postmaster General said, on the faith of Lord Ponsonby's assertion, that the Turks were strong, and the Russians were weak, and that the Turks would be a match for the Russians. Well, in November, Kars was taken. We immediately heard that "Kars is of no consequence." In December, Erzeroum was invested; at once your British interest gentlemen exclaimed —"What does it matter? even if the Russians get Trebizond, it will make no real difference to us. After all, what interest have we in Armenia." Plevna fell, and the gallant Osman was taken prisoner. Then the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) went to Bradford, and asked—"What could it possibly matter to us even if Constantinople were occupied? Let the Russian or Greeks
116
get Constantinople, so much the better." Then some excited or timorous gentry in London proposed to throw open the Dardanelles to ships of war. "By all means," said the right hon. Gentleman, "provided they do not ask us to throw open the Thames." Thus we performed a sort of strategical movement with our British interests. As the Russians advanced, our interests executed a masterly retreat. We may think that we are in earnest; but will either Europe or Asia imagine that we are in earnest? We folded our arms while Turkey fought for our interests; and when Turkey got the worst of it, and our interests went down, one by one, we folded our arms and said—"What does it matter? "The net result of all this is, that we have made an enemy of Russia without weakening her, and raised the hopes of Turkey and then deferred them, and made her heart-sick; while our disregard of Treaties and engagements has averted from us every ally in Europe and Asia. But why do we talk of British interests, instead of asserting British rights? Why hanker after material interests, instead of taking our stand upon Treaties, which make or, at least, define our rights? Let me ask you, are our interests and rights co-extensive? If so, why prefer the names of interest and expediency? And why be ashamed to speak of right, and justice, and law? Do you say they are not co-extensive? Are our rights larger than our interests, and will you fight for the latter only? Then you are prepared, in a craven manner, to yield some of our rights, and without our consent. Or are our interests larger and more extensive than our rights? Then you intend to fight for interests where we have no right. So it follows that you are either weak and cowardly, or dishonest and criminal. Our rights are determined by the Treaties of 1856 and 1871, so far as the Eastern Question is concerned. Are they binding, or are they not? If so, you are bound to fight for the independence and integrity of Turkey. If not, then why do you now take your stand on those Treaties, and say that you will not recognize any separate peace which infringes those Treaties? Until now you have shunted and disregarded those Treaties—since November 9th, 1876, that is—and you have let Turkey fight your battles while

117
you have folded your arms. Now, when Turkey is beaten and wants to make peace, you say—"Oh, no; please to observe the Treaties which we signed. Please not to 'enlarge your terms'"— as the right hon. Member for Greenwich suggested —"but observe the faith of Treaties." Is not that pitiful, mean, disgraceful, dastardly, and despicable? England has hitherto opposed lawlessness. When Napoleon I. set law aside, we fought him for 20 years, through a great war, against all Europe combined; and we freed Egypt and Spain from French legions, and Europe from thraldom. When Nicholas wished to override Europe we fought him. On that occasion the Queen—according to Vol. III. of the Life of the Prince Consort, by Theodore Martin — wrote these noble words to the King of Prussia—
"The Great Powers have been, since the Peace of 1815, the guarantors of Treaties, the guardians of civilization, the champions of right, the ultimate arbitrators of nations. If Prussia renounces the obligations of her place among the Great Powers, and if her example should find imitators, European civilization is abandoned as a plaything to the winds."
Alas! since that time, in 1859, we disregarded law, and justice, and Treaties; and again in 1866 and in 1870; and the Triple Aliance is the result. Lately we winked at the Revolutionary Slav Committees, and did not call on Austria, under the Treaty of April, 1856, to stop the war; which she could easily have done, by sending a corps d'armée to the Carpathians, which would have forced the Russians to retreat. And then we did all the illegal acts which I have already mentioned. What is now the state of Europe? Count Andrassy said, the other day, to the Commission of Hungarian Deputies, that "Treaties, in these days, are of no value, except in so far as supported by material force." Prince Gortchakoff's official paper, the other day, argued that he might make a separate peace with Turkey, setting aside the Treaties of 1856 and 1871, because that the Treaties of Vienna and other Treaties had repeatedly been set aside without the consent of the contracting parties. That is, because wrong has been done, therefore it should become the general rule. Lord Derby, I am sorry to say, uttered much the same opinion on February 8th and on April 19th, last year. From this disregard of
118
Treaties and law, there results a great instability in the relations of the Great Powers, while there is no security at all —as Hanover has found out—for the smaller and weaker States. If it were not for this disregard of Treaties, the Triple Alliance against us could not now exist. You talk of your policy being peace! But how can you make peace without a Treaty? and how can a peace be lasting if Treaties are not observed? If we had taken our stand upon Treaties from the first there would have been no war; not a shot would have been fired, nor a sword would have been drawn in Europe; otherwise, why was it necessary for the Russians to entangle us first in the missions of the Consuls, then in the Andrassy Note, then in the Conference, and then in the Protocol? If she could have done it, she would have acted without regarding us. But she could not do so without the necessity for the Marquess of Salisbury to go to Constantinople to menace and bluster, while the Earl of Derby staid at-home and folded his arms and sighed. Perhaps you will say to me that you have feared all along that Germany would pounce upon France and Holland as soon as our hands should be full in war; and you will tell me that Germany induced the poor French voters to elect a Radical Ministry through fear that if they elected a "Clerical" or Conservative Government, Bismarck would march his armies into France, as he felt sure that such a Ministry would ally itself with Austria and France and put down Russia at the -Carpathians, and break up Germany in Poland. If you tell me this, I will say that this reveals Bismarck's fear; and his fear is your policy. The true policy for this country was that announced by the Prime Minister in November, 1876 —to observe your engagements and support your Treaties. Do you fear war? Fear isolation more, and the shame which will cling to you and lessen your consideration in Europe. You have been cajoled, bamboozled, outwitted in diplomacy; be not now scared by the hobgoblin of Germany and bugbear of Russia. For 20 years you carried on a war against all Europe and America, and gloriously withstood their whole power. But there were men in England in those days. In 1848 the Russians helped to put down the Hungarian rising; and Bern, Dembinski, Kossuth, and Casimir Batthyany

119
escaped into Turkey. Their extradition was demanded on the ground of high treason; Turkey refused to violate the rights of asylum. Whereupon Austria and Russia declared war upon Turkey. England and Prance merely sent their fleets to the Dardanelles, without moving a soldier or horse; and Austria and Russia instantly withdrew their demands and made peace. "But now there is a triple league or conspiracy," you say? Austria has her reckoning to pay to Russia for keeping France from helping her in 1866, when Prussia attacked her; and France has her reckoning to pay to Russia for keeping back Austria's help in 1870, when Prussia attacked her. Both Austria and France suffer under the same slavery of fear; they are slaves that wait on Russia and Germany; and you feel the same slavery, as you fear that Prussia will pounce on Holland and Belgium and Denmark. Fear not; take your stand on Treaties; and all the small States will be with you, as Treaties are their only security; and France and Austria will be with you. Count Beust proposed it, last June, to you. I was greatly struck by manifestos in the official paper of Austria, the Fremden-blatt, of November and December. The first was in these words—
"No second peace of Adrianople …. Europe, and especially Austria, will never permit it. …. All parties of all nationalities of the Austrian-Hungarian monarchy are ready to make the greatest efforts and the greatest sacrifices in order to prevent a separate peace which, in placing Turkey in complete dependence on Russia, would damage our most vital interests."
In December I read—
"We are told that the Cabinet of Vienna recently applied to the Cabinet of London asking its aid in maintaining the rights of the Powers; but that these overtures met with nothing but apathy on the part of England. We are willing to believe this, especially after Lord Derby's speech.…. We should be most unjust to wards Austria were we to place her inaction on a par with that of England. Austria is in a most difficult position; and external and internal obstacles, almost insurmountable, hinder her from adopting an energetic policy. She is en tangled in the alliance of the three Emperors. …. As for England, she is entirely free to act; she boasts that she is ten times as rich and powerful as when alone she fought against the universal monarchy of Napoleon, and that if she wished—but it is precisely the will which fails her. …..…It is not the will which fails Austria, but the liberty; but England effaces herself voluntarily, annihilates herself with a sanctimonious and satisfied air."
120
Russia and Germany may be strong in soldiers, but financially and socially they are very weak; and in these directions you have an enormous advantage We are the only Power which has not systematically trampled upon Treaties. Russia and Germany asked us to join their conspiracy, and take Egypt for our share. We refused to do so. Let us not then fall between two stools. We have abjured injustice; let us take our stand upon right, and not lie prostrate and commit our secret sins in seclusion. We shall only alienate all allies by our selfishness, and acquire contempt by our weakness. In this spring-tide of your fancied security, I tell you that an ebb of troubles is near. A voice of warning and of sorrow I raise, although I stand alone. My words, I see, are unheeded, and their sense does not reach your minds; but these words will be preserved, and will be remembered when you have been softened by misfortunes and rendered docile by despair.
MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, now that the debate upon that portion of the Address which referred to foreign affairs had, apparently with the general consent of the House, come to a conclusion, perhaps he might be allowed to call the attention of the House to some matters of great importance nearer home, and to beg leave of the House to amend the Answer to Her Majesty's Gracious Speech by the addition of the following paragraph—
"That we humbly represent to Your Majesty that, while we are glad to observe that the questions of the Grand Jury Laws and Intermediate Education in Ireland are to be brought before Parliament, and while we await information on the nature and scope of the proposals which may be submitted, we humbly assure Your Majesty that we shall regard it as the duty of Parliament, on the earliest opportunity in the present condition of public affairs, to consider, in a wise and conciliatory spirit, the national demands which the Irish people have repeatedly raised."
There were many hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House who might not agree with the political views of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Butt); but he was sure they would be sorry to learn that his health, long tried by intellectual labour, had rendered it impossible for him to appear in the House, and to deal with this matter himself. There was no man now living who had gone through more brainwork than his hon.

121
and learned Friend. He had known his habits for many years, and he knew that he was to be found at his desk at 7 o'clock in the morning and was engaged in intellectual labour the whole of the day, and that he placed his services at the disposal of almost everyone who asked for them. There was not a single branch of English literature which he had not touched and adorned. He had not only written an excellent novel, as in this respect resembling the Prime Minister; but he had edited classical works and written the best history of Italy of modern times, besides many works on political economy and other subjects outside of his profession. Therefore it was not to be wondered at that the hon. and learned Member should now be somewhat jaded in health, and he trusted the House would accept his assurance that it was with great diffidence that he accepted the duty of moving that Amendment. In 1874, after the General Election, which was the first election under the Ballot, a number of Irish Members were returned under the name of the Home Rule Party, and they had remained a united Party up to the present time. On the occasion of the Speech from the Throne in that year the hon. and learned Member for Limerick moved an Amendment to the Address in much the same terms as those in which he had now moved. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) made a very fair statement on that occasion, and asked why, if they complained of so many things in the government of Ireland, they did not ask the House in a practical way to remedy those grievances by bringing in Bills dealing with them. In pursuance of that, a settled policy of the kind had been undertaken under the leadership of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick, and the Irish Members had, at any rate, now freed themselves from the stigma that they would not say what they wanted. They had introduced Session after Session a series of Bills clearly setting forth what were the wants of Ireland. They had stated that the laws and privileges of the three countries were not the same, and they claimed for Ireland equal rights and privileges with England and Scotland. They had introduced a Bill to assimilate the franchise of the two countries, a Bill to improve the registration of votes, and a
122
Bill to repeal an Act which did not exist in England—the Convention Act. There were other Bills introduced, some of them merely designed to assimilate the laws of the three countries. They had been told in 1874 that Parliament was quite ready to remedy any inequality, and they were continually told that Ireland had the same laws and privileges as England, but that she wanted a great deal more. English and Scotch Members, however, did not appreciate their position. To take the right of voting. In the towns of Liverpool or Manchester there were a greater number of Parliamentary voters than in all the towns, cities, and boroughs in the whole of Ireland put together. In Ireland there were only 60,000 entitled to the franchise in the boroughs. In Ireland only one out of 20 had the vote, whilst in England one out of every eight had it. Dublin, with its 267,000 inhabitants, had only 12,000 voters, while Leeds, with its 260,000, returned 48,000 voters. Limerick, with its 50,000 inhabitants, had only 1,947 electors, while Gateshead, a town with only 48,000 inhabitants, had upwards of 11,000 voters. Parliament had been asked to redress these things, but they had repeatedly refused. Then as to the municipal franchise. Cork had 100,000 inhabitants, and only 2,000 were entitled to the municipal franchise, while Swansea, with only 80,000, had 12,500 voters. Limerick, with 50,000 inhabitants, had only 1,100 persons entitled to the municipal franchise, but Gateshead, with its 48,000 persons, had 10,000 interested in municipal voting. Leeds again, with 260,000 inhabitants, had 52,000, but Dublin, with 267,000, had only 5,284 voters on the municipal roll. There were many other similar cases of disparity. He now, therefore, solemnly asked the House whether the Irish people could be contented with that state of things? They had been told that a General Election might soon take place, and he would ask if Parliament was going to send them back for election under the present franchise? Would a refusal to amend it be a message of conciliation or of justice? The registration of voters in Ireland again seemed to be managed for the express purpose of preventing people having votes who were entitled to them. Then there was the question of education. Irish education was a bête noir in that

123
House. They had asked for a reasonable University education for the great masses of the Irish people. No less than 54 of the Irish Representatives as against 14 were in favour of the Bill of last year, and the Government rejected it, and no proposal was made to meet them. They were now offered what they did not at the moment press for—namely, intermediate education — although it was quite true that intermediate education was in a miserable state—but it was proffered to them in this way just in order that the demand of the Irish people might as usual be shirked. The tactics of the English Government were traditional and always the same—to trail a red herring across the scent—if the Irish ask for University culture, offer them grammar schools; if they ask for a share of middle-class educational endowments, talk to them of Universities and common schools. With respect to the other measures which were introduced by Irish Members, he should not say more than this — that they were totally misunderstood in the House of Commons, and especially on the question of all others which touched the Irish' people—namely, the question of the right to manage their own local affairs. He had often been astonished at the misrepresentation of this question. It had been declared that what they were asking for was a total separation of Ireland from England, as much so as the separation of France and Ger-many. They asked for no such thing. They asked for nothing more than the right to manage the internal affairs of Ireland, in an Irish Assembly or Parliament which should deal exclusively with Irish local affairs. England, under the Home Rule proposal, would have the control of the Army and Navy just as now. She would have as many soldiers and as many ships around the coasts as she had now. The Irish Parliament would have nothing to do with foreign affairs or with the affairs of the Kingdom as a United Empire. They would be debated in the House of Commons, and all that their proposals would effect would be to relieve the House of a great mass of local internal legislation, with which it was totally incompetent to deal, and the Irish Parliament would really be able to pass measures which would do something for the miserable internal resources of the country. Parliament had
124
given this power to Canada; it existed still more fully in Jersey and Guernsey, and it was universal throughout the States of America. Their demand for the introduction of State Legislatures as they existed in America was worthy of a more accurate and careful study than it had received from the House of Commons. With what cheers had every Minister been received who had opposed these proposals, often upon most futile and preposterous grounds. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) thought he had completely snuffed out the Home Rule proposal when he said that such a thing would require a written Constitution, and there never had been a written Constitution in England. A written Constitution existed in every other Constitutional country in the world, and all that would be required would be a written Constitution in so far as it referred to the particular business to be transacted by the local Legislatures. That was no answer, and yet the right hon. Gentleman's statement was received with cheers as though it were conclusive. There was, indeed, a lamentable ignorance of Irish affairs. Nobody ever thought of going to Ireland to study its condition, yet everyone thought they knew how to deal with it. When an Eastern Question arose, hon. Gentlemen took flight to study the question on the spot. But how many had gone over to Ireland? It seemed almost incredible that the responsible Ministers of the Crown had never cared to go to the country which had given them so much trouble. He would promise them if they went they would be well received. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) had favoured them with his presence last autumn. Although that right hon. Gentleman had said many bitter things about the religion of Roman Catholics, no single word had been uttered against him whilst in Ireland. The Irish people were generous as well as brave, and their gratitude for the benefits he had conferred upon them alone was remembered when he was their guest. The right hon. Gentleman found a people with monuments of a Christian civilization more ancient than were to be found in any other country of Europe, and he must have realized when standing under the solemn shade of those monuments a

125
strong reason why the Irish people were so patriotic. If the House of Commons could understand the fervour of the patriotism of the Irish people they would do justice to them and to their religion. He now turned to another matter. The Government had lately done something which for the life of him he could not understand. Would they explain why the military prisoners had been set free at a time when no one was asking them to confer that boon, and after all hope had been given up that the Government would yield to the entreaties of the Irish nation? It was an instance of the hideous inopportuneness of all their conduct. When 138 Irish and English Members asked the Government to release these unfortunate men they were refused with scorn and contumely, and in words of anger and insult. They would have thanked Her Majesty for the concession had the prisoners then been amnestied; but now they knew that the release was due to a little cloud in the East. If he might be allowed to apply the words of an historic letter he would say—"The boon you gave had it been early had been kind; but it has been delayed until we are indifferent and cannot enjoy it, for we know that it has been extorted by your fears, and that it has not sprung from your love. To one unhappy man, moreover, it has come too late—disease did its work in your dungeons. The common vanquisher of disease has set the captive spirit free." The conviction was universal in Ireland that the prisoners would never have been released if it had not been for the Russian War, and under that conviction gratitude would be out of place. He trusted, however, that by the adoption of the paragraph he had suggested as an addition to the Address, the House would send a message of conciliation to Ireland. Let the House remember the words, and endorse the sentiments of Sir Robert Peel, who, in proposing the Maynooth Grant in 1845, when trouble with America was in the air, said—
"On the far horizon of the West there arises a cloud—a cloud, small indeed, but threatening future storms.
"When I made the declaration to a Foreign Power that if our rights were invaded we were determined and prepared to maintain them, I confess that when I did make that declaration I did recollect with satisfaction and consolation that the day before I had sent a message of peace to Ireland."
126
He moved the Amendment pledging the House to endeavour to understand and weigh the just and reasonable complaints of the Irish people and their claims to equal laws and privileges.
MR.M.BROOKSseconded the Amendment. He expressed the hope that the spirit of sanctified justice which the right hon. Member for Greenwich had alluded to, would prevail in order to allay the wide spread and deep-seated dissatisfaction now prevalent in Ireland.
Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the following paragraph:—
"We humbly represent to Your Majesty that, while we are glad to observe that the questions of the Grand Jury Laws and Intermediate Education in Ireland are to be brought before Parliament, and while we await information on the nature and scope of the proposals which may be submitted, we humbly assure your Majesty that we shall regard it as the duty of Parliament, on the earliest opportunity in the present condition of public affairs, to consider, in a wise and conciliatory spirit, the national demands which the Irish people have repeatedly raised."—(Mr. Henry.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member for Gal-way (Mr. Mitchell Henry) in the complaint that the Government had not shown sufficient interest in the great and national demands of Ireland, judging their intentions from the expressions in the Queen's Speech. He wished to call attention to an act of the Government with which his name had been associated —he referred to the partial amnesty of the Fenian or political prisoners. He was not at all displeased at the response to one expression of opinion put forward by the hon. Member for Galway from the other side of the House. When he expressed the view that it was owing to the imminence of war that the Fenians had been liberated he was mot with "No, no," from the Opposition benches. He was delighted to find that the motives which actuated Her Majesty's Government were of a very different character, and he trusted the Government would show they had not been influenced by fear, and that if there should be no war they would complete the good work by opening the prison doors to the other political prisoners. Reference might be

127
possibly made as to the manner in which the liberated prisoners had been received in Ireland. He wished to say, however, that the accounts which appeared in The Times and other London newspapers were characterized by their inaccuracy— he would not say untruthfulness. Despite the authority of the correspondent of that paper, it was not true that the public-houses of Dublin had contributed largely to the throng of people, and he (Mr. O'Connor Power) could say their reception' was most cordial. Indeed, generally speaking, The Times correspondent was remarkable for his inaccuracy, and could not, even by accident, stumble upon the truth. He (Mr. O'Connor Power) complained of the cruel and unjust treatment to which these prisoners had been subjected, and last Session, when the Prisons Bill came up to the House, he brought forward the subject, and on that occasion he read some of the letters written by the prisoners, which had been got out of the prison in spite of the prison authorities. In the case of Colour-Serjeant M'Carthy, who had died since his release, a very Conservative jury had declared that his death had been accelerated by the treatment he had received in prison. He had been acquainted with M'Carthy, but had he not known when he met him on Kingston quay that he was 44 years of ago, he should certainly have supposed that he was 74. He never saw such a wreck of what was once a fine specimen of a man. If M'Carthy had been a man of weak constitution to begin with, there would have been no surprise that 12 years' penal servitude should have told so marvellously upon his health. The treatment he had received was inhuman and wholly unnecessary for the repression of any sort of political crimes. Although the doctor had recommended that M'Carthy should be removed to an invalid prison, that recommendation had been overruled by the directors. As long as the present system lasted men would be treated harshly. He wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any inquiry had been made on the point of M'Carthy's treatment? If the Government had become acquainted with these facts, did they not also become acquainted with the fact that they had now other men in prison who were subject to the same treatment? He
128
trusted that the matter would be taken up in earnest. He had seen the other prisoners —Davitt, O'Brien, and Chambers, who were all young men when they went into prison 10 years ago, but now they were completely broken in health. A system that could reduce men to such a condition in so short a time was totally indefensible, and the House would not consent to the continuance of such a system. There was to be a Commission of Inquiry into the condition of convict prisons; he hoped the Commissioners would have full powers of inquiry into all the modes of punishment in convict prisons, and especially that to which political prisoners were subject. He had given Notice of his intention on an early day to move for the repeal of those parts of the Prison Felony Act which allowed the infliction of harsh punishments on political offenders. That Act was introduced in the interests of humanity. There had been of late frequent controversies as to what really constituted a political prisoner, and he again invited the Government to consider the question. They had set at liberty several prisoners, but there yet remained some eight men more whose cases deserved attention. Two of those were connected with the attack upon the police-van in Manchester, when Police-serjeant Brett was killed. This occurrence he had on a previous occasion in that House de-scribed as an accident, and he repeated the statement. The shot which killed the policeman was fired merely for the purpose of breaking a lock in order to the release of certain prisoners who were seated in a prison-van. It had been frightfully vindicated by the sacrifice of three lives upon the public scaffold, and it was quite time that those men who had nothing whatever to do with it should be released. Another of the political prisoners was the man convicted of having fired at Talbot, one of the greatest scoundrels Ireland ever produced—a wretch who in the employ of the Government went about the country swearing in young men as members of the Fenian Confederacy, and then informing against them to his employers at Dublin Castle, and prosecuting them for the very crime into which he had himself led them. There was another prisoner also charged with firing at an informer. This, too, was a political offence which with the others

129
ought to be now amnestied, when it would not be in the power of anyone to question the motives of the Government in taking that course. Furthermore, he hoped, in conclusion, that when the liberation had taken place, the Government would consider the whole subject of prison discipline, more especially as it affected political prisoners. He had no hesitation in saying that if the House of Commons wished to disperse the disaffection in Irish hearts they must certainly change their policy.
MR. MACCARTHYentreated the House in this troublesome time and at this exceptional Session, not to refuse to Ireland the message proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry). The late Lord Macaulay, speaking from that front bench, had characterized the dealings of this House with Ireland as one long series of disastrous blunders. The lanluage was strong; but he supposed that most hon. Members would admit its substantial accuracy. ["Hear, hear!"] He was glad that they had the candour so honourable to English gentlemen of acknowledging past errors; but he would remind them that they had also a faculty, not quite so charming, of forgiving themselves those errors and proceeding to new legislation with as serene a confidence as if they never committed an error at all. They insisted on managing Irish affairs; they generally made a mess of them, and they blamed Ireland for the result. Under their management every Irish interest—material, intellectual, and moral—had suffered. Take the agricultural interest, the chief material interest of the country. Of 20,000,000 acres of Irish arable land more than two-thirds were not tilled at all, but allowed to drift into pasture. A million of cultivable acres was not even in pasture—it was absolutely waste. De Lavergore, the first agriculturist in Europe, estimated that it would require an expenditure of £100,000,000 to put the Irish soil into the same condition as the soil of Franco or Belgium. Until a late period the landlord, as the great Edmund Burke said, virtually told the Irish peasant that he should improve and confiscate his improvement for the good of the landlords. In latter times this law had been amended; but in proof that such confiscation was still possible, let them look to the slopes of the Galtees. There, by
130
labours and privations so severe that their recital moved to tears many who heard it, the peasants had created little spots of culture on the bleak hill side, and under the law as it now stood such property was inequitably—nay, to use the famous words of the late Prime Minister, "feloniously confiscated." Turn now to the manufacturing interests. That had peculiar claims on the House, because in the evil days of old the House had destroyed the manufactures of Ireland. That destruction had not been affected accidentally—it had been done deliberately. It was not done by Administrators only—it was done by the Legislature. It had not been done for a brief period, but persistently year after year, Act after Act, for dreary centuries of insolent outrage and cruel wrong. Of course, everyone regretted this; but what had been done to repair the ruin so created? Nothing whatever. The woollen trade, which was destroyed, was never revived. In nearly every Continental country, as the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (the Earl of Derby) lately pointed out, the State had endowed and superintended a system of technical instruction, and to this instruction his Lordship attributed the growing superiority of Continental manufacturing. In Germany there was a complete system from the village schools to the Polytechnical University. Nothing of that sort had been done for Ireland. Technical instruction was almost unknown. Turn to the education of the country, and they must admit that under their management it had drifted into the most lamentable condition. Elementary education was defective in principle and unsatisfactory to all concerned. As to intermediate education, the Crown Commissioners reported that out of a population of 5,500,000 there wore only 17,000 youths who enjoyed it in any degree whatever, and the Commissioners characterized it as a reproach and shame not only to Ireland but to the Empire. As to University education, it was still in the condition characterized by the late Prime Minister, as miserably and scandalously bad. But underlying these and a hundred other grievances and blunders, there was the primal one of denying to Ireland the reasonable control over its own affairs, which was the first condition and prime essential of civil liberty. Give

131
to Ireland, as Sir George Grey advised, a State Legislature and a State Executive, and secure thereby the residence of its ablest men in the country; open a fair field, as Ministers, legislators, and orators, to its best and wisest men, affording from the same source occupation to Irish architects, sculptors, and painters; secure a resident aristocracy of worth, talent, and wisdom, and it would, at the same time, restore the wealth, the trade, and the commerce of Ireland. Dumb Ireland would then speak again; half-inanimate Ireland would again awaken to a national life and breathe the breath of hope and freedom, whilst accustoming the Irish to the management of their own affairs, they would be educated in that political knowledge which would enable them to put an end to the ills which afflicted them, the causes and the cure of which none could know as well as themselves. MR. O'CLERY drew attention to what he considered a grave omission in the Speech from the Throne. There was no reference to the desirability of inviting Irishmen at this critical time to take part in the defence of their country in the same way as Englishmen and Scotchmen were permitted to do so—in other words, to enlist the services of Irishmen in Volunteer corps. The right to bear arms in the defence of one's country was recognized by nearly every country in the world, and indeed in many countries it was a duty rigidly enforced. The public papers told how since the Russo-Turkish war the Volunteer corps in England had increased with the probability of war, and also the efficiency of the Volunteers had increased. All this time, however, there was no reference to Ireland, although Ireland was a factor in the question which could not be ignored. It had come to be understood among foreign nations that the weak point in the armour of Great Britain was Ireland, yet there was no attempt to repair that weakness. It seemed to him that Ireland must appear much the same to England that Poland was to Russia. Poland was Russia's weak point, and Austria had the power of checking Russia and striking a sword at her heart by inciting an insurrection in Poland through Gallicia. He knew it would be denied by the Government that Ireland was a weak point, and that Irishmen could be trusted as they were
132
trusted before in the wars of Napoleon the First. If that were so, he asked again why not permit Irishmen to form themselves into Volunteer corps to bear arms as citizens were allowed in England? It might be said that Ireland could not be trusted because of the religious differences among the people and the animosities sometimes rising to the height of passion. But to that he replied that in three Provinces nothing like a riot ever rose out of a religious difference, and in Ulster, he was glad to say, the spirit of faction was fast disappearing. If this was really a reason, then, the Government might deny right to boar arms to those districts whore rioting might be expected. The history of Hungary afforded an instructive lesson. In 1849 the Hungarian Parliament and Crown were destroyed with armed force by Austria, and the national forces, the Honveds, were disbanded after the struggle. The present Government, although they were entering upon the fifth year of their power, could not point to a single Act or Amendment affecting the people of Ireland during their tenure of power. How, therefore, could those who represent the interests of the people of Ireland let this occasion pass without drawing the attention of English and Scotch Members to the failure to complete the promises to Ireland? If they wished to conciliate the people of Ireland and put an end to the agitation for a Parliament in Ireland, should not their course be to try and take away every grievance? Allusion had been made to the question of the land. At the present moment there was more agricultural distress than there ever had been before the war with Russia. After the crushing disaster of Sadowa, one of the first acts of Austria was to restore to the Honveds their right to bear arms. Such a message to Ireland would be conciliation of the greatest, safest, and best kind, in the face of events that might occur.
MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, that he was sorry there was no response from the opposite Benches, even though an adverse one. When the present Government came into power with their large majority they had a fine opportunity for conciliating Ireland, and many thought they would make use of it. For the first two Sessions, therefore, Irish Members took little part in the discus-

133
sions of the House. In 1876, however, The Times called attention to an ingenious device by which Irish Members contrived to bring in so many Bills that none could be brought in by Scotch and but few by English Members. The House would be surprised to hear that the Government opposed all those Bills, every one of which except two merely asked the House to give Ireland the same laws which existed in England. Let the House observe the different way in which matters affecting Ireland and England were dealt with in the Speech from the Throne. While in the case of England it was said that a Bill would be laid before the House upon the subject of County Government, in the case of Ireland all that was said was that attention would be invited to the subject of Intermediate Education and the Grand Jury Laws. The people of Ireland wanted a Catholic University, but all that the Government offered to them was a scheme of Intermediate Education. Not a single movement had been made by the Government since 1876 in the direction of assimilating the franchise in the two countries. There were more ejectments upon notices to quit than at any former period. The Government were supporting the exactions from the peasantry, against whom there never was in the memory of man a single crime laid to their charge. He did not know whether his hon. Friend would go to a division upon this Amendment, but he thought a very strong case had been made out why there should be a division on this Address. There was a total absence of everything they had asked for in Ireland. He hoped it would go to the people of Ireland that they did not come over hero to hear platitudes about the war, but to do their duty. If there was any real intention on the part of the Government to redress the grievances of Ireland and to remove the causes which led directly to political agitation, they would have brought forward, at the earliest possible moment, measures similar in their character to those which, when introduced by Representatives of Irish constituencies, had only been rejected by comparatively small majorities. He hoped that besides calling attention, as was promised in the Queen's Speech, to the subjects he had referred to, measures would be introduced with the bonâ fide intention of removing the well-
134
founded causes of complaint which existed in Ireland on both those questions.
MAJOR O'GORMAN: Sir, eight or ten Irish Members have spoken, but not a single Member of the Government has had the ordinary decency to rise and reply in defence of their conduct. I beg to move that the Debate be adjourned till Monday next.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."— (Major O'Gorman.)
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, I am perfectly prepared, as a matter of course, to reply to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Galway. I am simply waiting for the proper time to rise. I noticed that there were several hon. Members anxious to address the House, and the hon. and gallant Member is aware that it is usual for the Representatives of the Government to rise at the conclusion of the debate. Under these circumstances, I hope the hon. and gallant Member will allow the debate to proceed.
MR. REDMONDsaid, that the way in which the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had been treated would be received in Ireland in a way which he would not characterize. Her demands were listened to, but thought no more about. The important question they had been discussing was ignored altogether not only by the Members of the Government but by English and Scotch Representatives, not one of whom had risen to address the House in reference to it. The Irish people would deeply feel the conduct of the House in declining to discuss Irish questions. The principal demand of the Irish people was that they should be allowed the management of their own affairs in their own House of Commons in Dublin; and, after what had occurred on the present occasion, they would not trust their affairs in the hands of that House. During the last 100 years no step had ever been taken to ameliorate the condition of Ireland, except when England was placed in a dangerous position. Even now it had assumed a most extraordinary character. Last Session they asked them to grant an amnesty to the remaining Irish political prisoners. This request, made

135
with moderation, was refused with insult; but some three months later some of them had been released. Why was the request granted in that manner? One of them, in appearance quite an old man, though 10 years his (Mr. Redmond's) junior, was so broken down and emaciated by disease that if they could have seen him, they could have felt nothing but kindness and the desire to mitigate his affliction—yet he, to the very last hour of his imprisonment, was subjected to all the horrors of hard labour and the other punishments of penal servitude. He had since died, and he asked them whether they thought the spectacle such a man presented to the Irish people of English justice and English clemency was one that was likely to cherish feelings of affection for England? We had been talking lately a great deal of the unjust acts of people abroad, but the ill-treatment which this man had received was most disgraceful. He would say that if it were thought that the demands which were comprised in the Amendment of his hon. Friend would be satisfied with any tinkering of measures they would be deceived. Some people said that Home Rulers asked too much; but they said so in ignorance. A vast number of the Irish people, let him tell the House, said the Home Rulers asked for too little. And they said the Home Rulers did not ask it in the right way. They said that the grievances of Ireland would never be remedied by Constitutional agitation. He himself was opposed to desperate courses; but he could assure the House, however they might think the demands he had alluded to were exaggerated, that the day would never come when the people of Ireland would retire from them. He contended that the Home Rulers were the only Constitutional Party in the Kingdom, and he hoped that they would not in Ireland have further trouble, but that justice would be granted without civil tumult, bloodshed, or rebellion.
MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, I rise to say a few words in answer to a subject referred to by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry). I was not in the House when the hon. Member made an allusion to the release of the Fenian convicts. I understand that he said they were released on account of the political situation of Europe at the present moment.
MR. MITCHELL HENRY: I said that was the impression current in every cottage in Ireland.
MR. ASSHETON CROSS: That is practically the same thing. The impression is published by a Member of this House,
MR. MITCHELL HENRY: I share in it myself.
MR. ASSHETON CROSS: It is for that reason I have to state why the men were liberated. The hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) will remember that when the matter was brought forward two years ago, the Prime Minister, who was then in the House of Commons, alluded simply to the case of Michael Davitt, and said that although we did not see our way to letting him out, as we were asked, there were circumstances which induced the Government to take a more favourable view of the case than they had done before. Davitt's fellow-prisoner had served a period of seven years, and Davitt's own sentence was 14 years, in consequence of something that transpired at his trial, to which I will not allude. I think the Prime Minister stated that the case of Davitt would be considered by the Government in duo time. But when the hon. Member brought forward his Motion last year I had the honour of communicating with him on the subject, and I stated that the Government had taken this case fairly into consideration and that he would find before long that Davitt would be released. The fact was his fellow-prisoner on a shorter sentence had been already released, and the Government thought two Sessions ago that Davitt would have had a fair commutation of his sentence if he were released at the end of two years more than his fellow-prisoner. That was the conclusion to which the Government came, and when the time came round I signed the order for his release, and in consequence of the pledge which had been given more than a year and a-half ago. This statement must dispose, in the mind of any candid person, of the view now mentioned by the hon. Member. It then became a question for the consideration of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War whether, Davitt having been released, the other prisoners under his Department, should not also be let out, and they were let out. That

137
is the whole history of the proceedings which have been referred to. I will now say further, that no hon. Member from Ireland can regret more than I do the death of the man after his release, or sympathize more with his friends. I am told that an inquest has been held, and that the jury came to the conclusion that he had suffered from ill-treatment. I think that before the jury come to that conclusion, it would have been wiser on their part if they had examined someone from the prison as to the treatment he had received, I am bound to say, too, that before the House discusses the subject further, they should endeavour to ascertain the facts of the ease as far as they can. As soon as I hoard of the death I sent for the Director of Convict Prisons, who told me that the man did undoubtedly suffer from heart disease, and had been treated for it by the surgeon of the prison. He further told mo he had been treated leniently on account of his disease. There are two sides to every question, and I only ask the House, before it proceeds to discuss the subject, to wait and see whether it cannot be placed before it in a somewhat different light. The first thing to*be done was to order that certain inquiries should be made as to the whole of the facts of the case, and when the Report comes before me I shall be very happy to lay it before the House for its consideration. But I do not want the House to rest on any ex parte statement of mine or on any ex parte inquiry. The House knows that in consequence of a promise which I gave last Session a Commission has been appointed to inquire into the convict prisons and into the working of the Penal Servitude Acts generally, and I can assure the hon. Member for Mayo that the terms of that Commission are wide enough to admit of the fullest inquiry. Now that we have a number of Gentlemen appointed for that distinct purpose, with ample power to make every investigation, I think the wiser course to pursue will be to let them proceed with their duties. That is the fairest possible way in which we can get at the truth of this matter, and I trust that the Irish Members will see that there is no desire on the part of the Government to conceal any of the facts, but, on the contrary, a desire to bring them into daylight. I may add that, knowing the kind hearted ness not only of
138
the Director of Convict Prisons, but of the Governor of that particular prison, I have no doubt when the facts are before the House, it will come to a calm and deliberate judgment on them; but I would rather deprecate the further discussion of this question at present, considering that it is to be the subject of an Inquiry. With regard to the Motion of Adjournment made by the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford (Major O'Gorman), I hope the House will consent to go on with the debate tonight. I can assure hon. Members from Ireland that there is no wish on the part of the Government, nor, I believe, on the part of anyone else, to treat them with the slightest discourtesy. Put they must remember that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland has the power of speaking only once, and, as a great number of Irish Members rose to address the House, it was only in accordance with the usual practice for the Minister having special charge of a particular Department to wait to hear what others may have to say on a subject connected with that Department; otherwise he would not have the opportunity of answering their remarks, and might also be accused of seeking to close the discussion prematurely. I hope, therefore, that the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford will withdraw his Motion.
MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, the feeling of the Irish Members was not that personal discourtesy had boon shown to them, but that the House seemed to have entered into a conspiracy of silence on matters of legislation affecting Ireland. Irish Members on that (the Opposition) side had been allowed, or rather compelled, to rise one after another because no notice was taken of their speeches, though hon. Gentlemen were perfectly ready to vote against them. There were hon. Gentlemen opposite, one of whom had held office, and he thought they ought to have something to say on the matter. He hoped, therefore, that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Waterford would persevere with his Motion.
MR. PLUNKETsaid, that after the appeal that had been made to him he could no longer remain silent, although he felt that he would get little credit for doing so, because it would be said that unless he had been bullied into it he

139
would not have spoken. It was not in the nature of his countrymen or Ms personal nature to shrink from speaking when thus challenged, nor was it from any want of courtesy to Irish Members that he had not risen earlier. His only reluctance in thrusting himself on the attention of the House was because it had been his unfortunate duty to speak on all these subjects at least 20 times during the last four years, and as he could not add anything in the way of novelty to the debate, he did not think it would add either to the interest or the hilarity of their proceedings by repeating again the same arguments. He had often heard hon. Gentlemen denounced for contradicting the statements of speakers on the other side; but that was the first time when, even in an Irish debate, hon. Gentlemen had been found fault with because they had not contradicted the speakers on the other side. It reminded him of an incident he heard of the other day—which occurred in the course of the civil war which had been raging in the vitals of what was called, absurdly enough, the Irish Party — though he was glad to say there had been an armistice, if bases of peace had not actually been agreed on. One of the more moderate Members of the Party opposite, considering that he had been offended by an hon. Gentleman who had won for himself the now historical and illustrious name of an Obstructionist, wished to obtain that satisfaction which alone could set at rest the indignant feelings of a patriot in Ireland. He addressed him in these words—"Sir, if you are not prepared to withdraw what you have said, just step over the Channel with me to Belgium and try if you can obstruct a bullet." Well, he was unable to obstruct a bullet, and he declined altogether to attempt it. The war which had for some time raged in the ranks of the Home Rule Party had, he understood, been temporarily assuaged, and one of the conditions of the armistice was, that there should be an Amendment moved on the Address, although no one then knew in the least what the Address was to be. No one knew whether the name of Ireland was to be mentioned in it, or whether Home Rule was to be virtually conceded; but, whatever the Address was to contain, they had all sworn on the altar of a common friendship to say "No" to the advice of the Ministry.
140
The Amendment had been moved, and he would borrow a phrase coined by its Mover, by characterizing it as "hideously inopportune," and that hon. Member would thus perceive that he had done him no discourtesy in not listening to all he had said. He (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had begun by saying that in 1874 the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) also had moved an Amendment to the Address. That was the case; but how different wore all the circumstances of the present time from those days when the freedom of the Press was restricted, and when there was a much severer Coercion Code than now existed. What had since happened? The Press of Ireland was as unfettered as any in the world, and the country was at present freer from Coercion Laws than it had been at any time for the last 100 years. Therefore, it appeared to him that the occasion for bringing forward this Amendment was "hideously inopportune," and that there was no necessity that evening to interpose with this Motion at a moment of the greatest national interest to step between the House of Commons and Her Majesty and say that the Address should not be voted until certain measures had been passed. But the House should try to imagine the subjects to which its attention was called. The Borough Franchise Bill was in the nature of a Reform Bill, and, like all such measures, must fight its way—if it were ever to be passed to maturity—but however that might be, he must remind hon. Members opposite that the hon. and learned Member for Limerick had said that it would have boon carried but for the conduct of the extreme section of his own Followers. As for the Registration Bill, it had been read a second time last Session, and nothing but changes which it was necessary to introduce in Committee prevented its becoming law. Surely, under such circumstances, hon. Members would act more reasonably if they endeavoured to carry it this year instead of making use of it as an argument against the Address in reply to the Queen's Speech. Education was the next grievance, and the subject had proved a difficulty for many years; but it was "hideously inopportune" to make it also, at this moment especially, an excuse for intervening between the Speech of Her Majesty and the Address. Pri-

141
mary education was now conducted on a principle established by the late Earl of Derby, when Mr. Stanley, whose proposals had been resisted by both extreme parties—by the strong Protestants as well as the strong Catholics; yet it had now been found possible to work it without offence to cither, and its merits wore universally acknowledged. He would next consider intermediate education, which he would admit was in a backward state; but now, when, for the first time, this Conservative Government promised to bring in a Bill to meet the wishes of the Irish Members on that subject, they were not only not satisfied, but made it a ground of complaint; for they complained that the subject of University education was not taken up at the same moment; but the Government could hardly be blamed for not adventuring on a field in which so many defeats had been sustained. What was the history of this question of higher education in Ireland? In 1845 the Queen's Colleges had been founded to meet the wishes of all parties, and the University was afterwards added, with the honest intention of removing the grievance. Those institutions were quickly denounced by those for whose benefit they were intended, so keen was the competition in ingratitude. Next, in 1866, the Government of Lord Russell had endeavoured to extend them further, but the attempt had broken down. In 1867 a now Government came in, and Lord Mayo proposed a separate Roman Catholic University to meet the wishes of the Roman Catholics; but that proposal also failed, owing to the excessive demands of the Roman Catholic Bishops. Then came the Government of 1869, the strongest which had been seen for many a day, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) failed, in his turn, to settle the question. Meanwhile, the University of Dublin had thrown open its doors to all Irishmen—to the humblest Roman Catholic peasant as well as to the richest Protestant, without distinction, and things were in that condition when the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) brought in his Bill on the subject. That measure, which was understood to meet the wishes of the Roman Catholic Body, was of the most elaborate kind, consisting, as it did, of some
142
220 clauses. It contained much that was good, and in many respects was far better than the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, which was, in his opinion, as bad a measure as had ever been proposed within the walls of that House; but it had a great and fatal defect, it aimed at uniting in one University a strictly Roman Catholic College with a perfectly free Col-logo, and, for that purpose, at placing Dublin University so completely under denominational control that there could not be the smallest development of its curriculum without the sanction of 12 Bishops and Archbishops of the Roman Catholic Church. He desired to speak with all respect of those gentlemen in their religious character; but it was absurd, anomalous, incongruous, to elect persons to be Governors of a great educational institution simply because they happened to hold high ecclesiastical rank. So the question remained. He could sincerely say for himself that he should be glad if it could be settled in some reasonable way, for nothing could be worse for education in Ireland than a state of uncertainty as to the future. Such a Bill as that of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick could never be agreed to; but he invited hon. Members to make some other proposal, and assured them, as one of the Representatives of the University of Dublin, he should give their measure the most careful consideration. Then there remained Home Rule—he did not think they could usefully begin a discussion on Home Rule at midnight, more particularly as the proposal had never been satisfactorily explained. Hon. Gentlemen who sat in the last Parliament would remember that when there was only one Home Ruler, he (Mr. Plunket) had prophesied that the movement would grow into a formidable body which might be capable of injury, so that some action of Parliament would be necessary; and that at the next election they would have 60 Home Rulers returned, and he was correct to within one; and since then they had a largo section of Irish Members masquerading as Homo Rulers to the injury of their influence in that House. But, happily, other more serious evils which he had apprehended on this score had not come to pass; for, as if it were by an effort of nature, the country in its agony at the Election of 1874, produced such a powerful ma-

143
jority on the Conservative side of the House that the Government had been able to treat the Home Rulers with a patience which could not be imputed to panic, and a conciliation that could not be imputed to necessity. In the meantime—and this was better still— the great Liberal Party which might again return to power, had had time to think the matter over, and they had pledged themselves up to the eyes, so that whatever the temptation might be they could never forego those pledges. ["No, no!"] Well, if it did forego them, he committed the Liberal Party to the good opinion of Great Britain. But the Liberal Party had pledged themselves most patriotically, under no temptation, however great, to unite with this unfortunate spinster of Home Rule that could never find a mate. Still the Home Rulers had a lingering gleam of hope that if they could not conquer the Whigs in the House of Commons they could compel them at the hustings. He would not confine his remarks to the Opposition, for he regretted to say that some Gentlemen professing Conservative principles had coquetted with Home Rule; but what was the consequence? The election for Salford, he thought, would rank as one of the 15 decisive electoral contests in the world; because it showed that the English electors would not tolerate any coquetting with the Home Rule Party. Thus had Home Rule been repudiated in the constituencies, and had been borne down in argument in that House on both sides; while it had been finally utterly destroyed by the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. P. J. Smyth), who denounced it as not only injurious to the Empire, but also degrading to Irish patriotism. Home Rule might linger on a while as a common denomination sheltering under its banner whoever would accept its discredited shilling; but he (Mr. Plunket) had said in Ireland, and he would repeat it in that House, that as a practical proposal for a re-arrangement of the Parliamentary relations between England and Ireland there were not ten men—he doubted if there were five men—inside or outside the walls of Parliament, who did not believe in their hearts that Home Rule was dead —["No, no!"]—dead as Julius Caesar, and the performance recently in the Rotunda at Dublin last week was no-
144
thing else than its wake. With regard to the topic of the Irish political prisoners, it had been his great misfortune when a subordinate Member of the pre-sent Ministry to resist a proposal for the liberation of those prisoners. He had done so with pain and regret, but conscientiously, and if placed in the same position, he should do so again. What since happened? Those men had been released as a message of conciliation to Ireland. ["No, no!"] It was not right for hon. Gentlemen to say "No, no!" when they had just heard an explanation from the Government of why those men had been liberated. But a well-known journal in Dublin, in announcing the release of the prisoners, told the people at the same time that it was not a message of conciliation, but an act wrung from the Government by their fear of the consequences of an impending war—that they owed their gratitude, not to the clemency of the Queen of England, but to dread of the Czar of Russia. Such conduct made him (Mr. Plunket) cry shame upon those of his countrymen who were always coming in formâ pauperis, saying—"If you only give us this, there will be an end of our complaints—we will bear it as a message of peace to Ireland;" but when their supplication was granted, it was used not as an engine of good will towards this country, but incitement to hate and aversion. ["No, no!"] Had they no dignity? He would remind hon. Gentlemen who cried "No!" that by such conduct they were turning the key on the unlucky prisoners who were still immured; it was a cruel kindness which was being practised against them. He earnestly begged his hon. Friends, now they had got a now Leader — ["No, no!"]—well a temporary substitute, to inaugurate his régime with moderation, good sense, and dignity, and not to detain the House by the discussion of these questions from the adoption of the Address in Answer to the Gracious Speech from the Throne.
MR. SULLIVAN: Sir, the House stands indebted to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Waterford (Major O'Gorman). His Motion has broken "the cold chain of silence" that hung over the Government Benches, and has elicited from the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Plunket) a speech which, whatever its

145
other characteristics, we have all admired for its varied play of humour, eloquence, and ability. He had no need to apologize to the House for the time he was occupying. This is the Business, and this of all others is the subject, with which the time of the House should most rightly be occupied. Parliament has been assembled three weeks earlier than usual, and within these three weeks there should be good time for discussing and considering the Irish question—for fully considered and discussed we are fixedly determined it shall be. Mr. Speaker, that hon and learned Gentleman said of the men amidst whom I stand that they were "masquerading as Home Rulers." Masquerading! The phrase is not offensive, I suppose, or he would not have applied it; so I may use it too, and say that the thing which is really intolerable is to see the grandson of the great Plunket masquerading on the floor of this House as an Imperialist. We are supposed to be concerned just now with the Turkish question. One of the cruellest wrongs which the subject Christians under the Moslem yoke were made to feel was that oftentimes the children of Christian parents were seized and carried into the Turkish camp, trained up in Turkish ideas, embraced the faith and the banner of the conqueror, and appeared many a time, scimitar in hand, to wage war upon their kindred and their race. Even so has it been with us in Ireland through many a sad chapter of our country's story. Sometimes by force, sometimes by guile, sometimes by one influence, sometimes by another, the British power has been able to tear away from us children who bore great names and might have greatly served their country; and we have seen these converts, as to-night, skilfully set in the fore-front of the assault when their countrymen were to be cut down. Who is our accuser? The voice is the voice of an Irishman; the wit, the ability, the brilliant play of fancy and of genius, the rhetoric, the skill—all, all are Irish, but all are used against Ireland! Who, I repeat, is our accuser? If we stand here to-night, as we do, upon the floor of this House, to maintain in the face of the Empire and of Europe the protest of Ireland against the memorable crime that robbed her of her Constitutional liberties, whose behests are we fulfilling—who pledged us to undy-
146
ing hate and eternal war against that wrong? The hon. and learned Gentleman had the temerity to use a phrase, for over notable in the history of his family, when he spoke of men "swearing upon the altar." Who was that great Irishman, that distinguished Constitutional lawyer, who declared that if the Irish Parliament were successfully overthrown, he would bring his child—ah, why did he not say his grandchild!—and swear him upon the altar of his country to wage relentless war against that tremendous wrong? How little did he imagine in that hour that to-night the Representatives of Ireland should discover in the ranks of their Imperial adversaries the heritor of his great name, and in no small degree of his genius, false to his principles and his teaching, false to his lineage and his fame! But, Sir, I turn from the man to his arguments. He drew for us a picture of Ireland. Many years ago O'Connell was defending a sheepstealer. In his speech to the jury, he drew a glowing picture of the prisoner at the bar as a model husband and father —he was not married at all—a dutiful son, an exemplary citizen, virtuous, pious, industrious, inoffensive. At this point the prisoner in the dock could stand it no longer, and he exclaimed to those around him—"I never knew before that I bore so high a character." Well, Sir, we have heard to-night the defender of British Rule in Ireland extolling the virtues and excellencies of his client; and well may the prisoner at the bar in this case exclaim—"I never know I was so beautiful, so virtuous, so meritorious, as all that." Only believe the hon. and learned Gentleman and there is not the slightest need of changing anything—the slightest possibility of improving anything—in Ireland. Everything there is already perfect in the matter of government, law, and administration. There is not, if you believe him, a more fortunate spot on the face of the habitable globe. It is the home of happiness, peace, prosperity, of beneficent rule and abounding loyalty. ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite cheer. You evidently think so too. You know all about it. You know Ireland better than we do. You are better entitled to speak for it than we, the Irish majority, are. Are you? But pray, by what right does your Party hold those benches and rule the destinies

147
of England, but by the right of a Parliamentary majority? In virtue of a Parliamentary majority, you say you are entitled to speak to the world for England; while in virtue of a Parliamentary minority, you would claim to speak for Ireland. But, Sir, the question before the House is much wider, and greater, and more serious, than the merits of the Irish "Bills" which the Government has promised. If it were a matter of a better or a worse Grand Jury law, or a better or a worse Intermediate Education Bill, I, for one, should hesitate to concur in an interposition like the present. The question we raise is that for which it may be said Parliament has been especially convoked. We have been told in the Royal Speech of a possible danger near at hand, of precautions and preparations that may be necessary for the defence of the power and stability of the Empire. Well, we have come forward to suggest the wisest precaution and the most potential preparation which the Government could make. The matter is glozed over by avoiding phrases, but the danger that you all mean is war—a war in which England will have to fight for her very existence as a nation. If that war break out, if it be not averted, as I hope it may be, England will find herself in such desperate strait as she has not known for 400 years. Your Army, small, but brave and fearless as ever, will behave with its traditional valour; wherever it may be sent, on whatever field it may fight, the Army of this country will exhibit those splendid qualities that have justly given it a world-wide fame. I would say as much for it, even were it not composed as largely as it is of my own brave countrymen. But there is not a military man sitting in this House who does not know and feel the truth of what I say—that a recent memorable war in Europe has demonstrated that courage and prestige no longer compensate as largely as they used to do 60 years ago against overwhelming odds; and that your Army of 100,000 or 150,000 men would be utterly powerless before the hosts that now stand arrayed and disciplined on the Continent of Europe. Should this calamity befall, should this trouble for your existence arise, think you that it is upon inanimate sword and bayonet, and ship, and gun, rather than upon stalwart arms and patriotic enthusiasm, your best
148
reliance will be? Should that crisis come, right sure am I that amongst the English masses patriotic fervour will answer to your call. Throughout England and throughout Scotland it will be so; but will it be so in Ireland? In the spirit of the oath which I swore at that Table—and higher obligation still, by the duty I owe to conscience and to truth—I dare all misconception and outcry, to deliver at this momentous crisis my solemn testimony and belief that if this Empire enters upon a struggle of such magnitude while Ireland is in the attitude which Hungary occupied towards Austria previous to Sadowa, the popular enthusiasm which you will receive in England and in Scotland will not respond to you in Ireland. ["Oh, oh!"] I was prepared for your exclamations, and I do not complain, for the statement I have made is serious and naturally unwelcome; but time will vindicate the truth of my words and the integrity of my motives. Twenty or 25 years ago there stood upon the floor of this House a band of Irish Members struggling, as we struggle now, to persuade you to listen to Irish demands. Study for yourselves what was their fate; read for yourselves the lesson of that time. They were voted down, they were shouted down, they were laughed at, they were denounced or derided. You had in that day—as you always have—some gifted and eloquent Irishman in your service to got up and do your work against his countrymen; to contradict their testimony; to tell you pleasant tidings which you hailed as gospel truths, while their honest warnings of danger were shrieked against as seditious incentives. John Francis Maguire and others ventured to say in this House, as I say now, that there was danger and disaffection in Ireland. They were set upon angrily as almost traitors. They were contradicted and contemned. This House, by overwhelming voice, declared their testimony untrue, and that Ireland was peaceable, contented and loyal to the core. Alas! a year or two barely passed when events threw a terrible light on all this. At that very moment my unfortunate countrymen were being sworn in by the thousand in a secret conspiracy for armed insurrection. Barely a few years passed away when the crowded dock, the convict ship, the penal gang, the triangle,

149
and the bloody lash—nay, the scaffold itself—furnished a frightful contradiction to the pleasant testimonies which you preferred to believe; a frightful corroboration to the warnings you denounced and disregarded! What happened then? Like the story of the recent Fenian amnesty which we have heard to-night—measures prayed for in vain in the hour of your tranquillity when concession would have grace and efficacy—were conceded amidst public disquietude and almost panic. Writing, some six weeks ago to a friend in the North of England—a fair-minded, a kindly-hearted, and a high-principled Englishman—yes, I believe in the existence of such men, not in scores or hundreds but in hundreds of thousands—I complained of this, and asked how and why it was that English statesmen and politicians should thus put a premium on turbulence and revolt. Just look what has been the history of any great political measure passed for Ireland in our own generation. The argument of Catholic Emancipation was exhausted in 1819. Its justice was as patent to all men in 1822 as at any time afterwards; yet it was resisted and refused until, as the Duke of Wellington declared, civil war seemed inevitable. Was not that a mischievous lesson to Irishmen? The Tithe question you resisted until our land was reddened with blood. The Church question and the Land question—it is a story of recent years. A Land Bill was passed in 1870, after passions had been aroused, hearts broken, homes desolated by the thousand; after you had filled America with combustible elements that are at this moment a serious menace to England. In that struggle you broke the heart of Lucas and drove Gavan Duffy into exile; robbed Ireland of the services of a man whose genius and whose worth you have been glad to recognize at the Antipodes. The Land Bill, prayed for in 1850, was granted in part in 1870, after the terrible tragedy of Ballycohey had startled the Empire. In 1868 you suddenly overthrew the Irish Church, because, as you avowed, of the spread of Fenianism. In the face of the men whose warnings you had angrily resented a few years previously, you came down to this House to concede in an hour of alarm what you had refused in the time of tranquillity. Is this narration true or false? Am I, or am I
150
not, reciting facts known to you all? What do those facts show? That by some malign fatality, some calamitous coincidence, if nothing more, you scoff at men like my Colleagues and myself, who beseech you to be just in time. You resist concession in time of calm, and yield it only in the face of real or fancied peril. If it be not so, let someone got up to-night, and name for us any great national concession made to Ireland under any other circumstances. As it has been, perhaps, it is still to be. You will complain of my words; you will say I do not warn, but threaten; and you will prefer to believe those who tell you the Irish masses are contented and well affected, as enthusiastically ready as Englishmen could be to pour their blood in your defence. But I dare all risk of temporary misrepresentation and blame. I look into the future, and can await my vindication. Do not affect to mistake our position in this crisis of the Empire. We are not so many Members of a Party, or a section of this House. We are not so many advocates of this or that Bill. We are the national Representation of Ireland, here, in overwhelming majority, to demand the restoration of Parliamentary Rule and Constitutional Government. We are projecting no now proposal, like the friends of this or that great reform or amelioration. We are here to call for the restitution of what we enjoyed and possessed; but which you wrung from us by means held to vitiate and render illegal every public transaction between man and man, between nation and nation. We want our own. Possession gives you no title to it, for no time runs against a claim asserted and renewed as ours has been from generation to generation. Legally, we stand to day where we stood 70 years ago. Restore to Ireland the reign of law; it is all she asks as the price of her friendship; a price cheap indeed, for it takes nothing from you that belongs to you. The price of her friendship! You are now in view of a terrible emergency, possibly at hand, searching Europe through for Allies. Here we are to-night, empowered to offer you one worth the best you could elsewhere find—the alliance, the hearty friendship, the enthusiastic support of Ireland. I own, I have deep reason to wish this question settled, and to see a cordial feeling established between the two countries before dark clouds grow

151
darker, and while yet the reconciliation can be free and generous, and efficacious. The peace, the happiness, the tranquillity of Ireland are most dear to me; and I do not wish to see my country desolated and destroyed by being made, perhaps, a battle-field of the coming struggle. I do not want the ghastly episode of some Continental despot, making what he would call a diversion in Ireland, wasting the blood and blasting the hopes of my country in a mere stroke of tactics to serve his own ends. I shudder when I think of such a possibility; and I appeal to you—yes, unchilled by the foregone conclusion of your unwise refusal, I nevertheless raise and record my appeal to you and to the English nation to-night, to let us clasp hands in friendship on the only terms on which we can be either allies or friends. Be simply just. That you will be so yet, despite your customary refusals now, I am as convinced as I am of my own existence. It is the time which, with your customary unwisdom, you may select for such a step, that alone disquiets me. Fear not; be boldly just. Remember that one of the first acts of the liberated Irish Parliament was to vote 5,000 Irish seamen to the Imperial Navy in a dire emergency. I tell you that your present position is weakness. Austria tried your present policy towards Hungary, and changed it after Sadowa. I hope and pray you will wait for no such hour to accept the proffered hand and secure the ready aid of the brave and gallant Irish nation.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I feel that there are some observations in the speech of the hon. and learned Member who has just sat down which ought not to be allowed to pass without one word of comment. Those who have listened to that speech cannot but admire, as they always admire, the eloquence of his language and the earnestness with which he appears to speak; but I trust that the sentiments to which he has given expression are but sentiments which come from the fervour of the moment, and that they do not express any opinion deliberately formed, either by the hon. and learned Gentleman himself or by any considerable portion of his countrymen. There ought to be no mistake about this matter. There is no disposition on the part of any Member representing an English
152
or a Scottish constituency in this House —there is no disposition in any part of the United Kingdom—to deny Ireland full and fair consideration for every grievance which she may wish to bring forward, or full consideration of any measure which her Representatives desire. We know perfectly well that in different parts of the country there will be differences of opinion, and in this House there will at all times be perfect readiness to learn what the Members for Ireland desire to bring forward, to listen to every argument, to give them a full consideration, and to reply to them where they appear to demand a reply, and to give them due weight where a reply is not to be found. But it ought to be distinctly understood that there is an equal determination on the part of the Members of this House not to consent to the sort of demands which have just been made by the hon. and learned Member, especially under present circumstances. The Parliament of this country is charged with the duty of considering and legislating for the interests of every part of the United Kingdom, and Ireland certainly has had as full a share of the time, sympathy, and the attention of this Parliament as any other part of the United Kingdom, and I can promise on behalf of the House that any measure brought forward will not fail to receive careful, attentive, and respectful consideration. I am quite sure that, looking to the ability and eloquence of those who represent the Irish constituencies, that the merits of every such measure will not fail to be duly represented. But I am loth to believe that there is any foundation or substance in some of the over-fervid remarks in which the hon. and learned Member has just indulged, particularly in his observation that in a time of national emergency Ireland might be found to be a source of weakness to this country. I am ready and willing to believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman has been carried away by the enthusiasm of the moment, and has done injustice to himself and injustice to those whom he represents. If we were conscious in our hearts that there was any feeling of injustice towards that portion of our dominions we should indeed feel weak; but it is because we have the most perfect consciousness that it is the desire of every Member of Parliament and every

153
Government that has been in power in this country for a long time past to do full and complete justice, so far as they can clearly see their way to it, to every Irish interest—it is because we feel that, that we believe we are strong in that respect. It is because we know the justice of our position, and are ready and willing to listen with the most perfect respect and willingness, and to give full consideration to what you say, that we assure you that is language which should not be used, not the way to carry any point you may desire to carry; and that it is not the way in which the Parliament of the United Kingdom should conduct its deliberations. I earnestly trust we have heard to-night such language as we may not be called upon to hear again.
MR. MELDONhoped the Government would now consent to an adjournment of the debate, in view of the large number of points which remained for discussion by the Irish Members, and which would require serious consideration.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he should not object to an adjournment, it being understood that the debate would be continued to-morrow.
Question put, and agreed to.
Debate adjourned till To-morrow.
House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.

Preamble
THE PARLIAMENT, which had been Prorogued in the usual form from the 14th day of August, to the 30th day of October; thence to the 19th day of December; thence to the 17th day of January, 1878; was now commanded to assemble on that day for Despatch of Business by Proclamation, as follows:—
"BY THE QUEEN—A PROCLAMATION.
"VICTORIA R.
"Whereas our Parliament stands prorogued to Thursday, the 17th day of January next, we, by and with the advice of our Privy Council, hereby issue our Royal Proclamation, and publish and declare our Royal will and pleasure that the said Parliament shall, on the said
2
Thursday, the 17th day of January, 1878, 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 17th day of January, 1878.
"Given at our Court at Windsor, this 22nd day of December, in the year of our Lord 1877, and in the 41st 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 CHANCELLORacquainted the House,

3
"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 CHAMBERLAIN (The Marquess of Hertford); 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 HAVE thought fit to assemble you before the usual period of your meeting in order that you might become acquainted with the efforts I have made to terminate the war now devastating Eastern Europe and Armenia, and that I might have the advice and assistance of my Parliament in the present state of public affairs.
"You are aware that, after having unsuccessfully striven to avert that war, I declared my intention to observe neutrality in a contest which I lamented, but had failed to prevent, so long as the interests of my Empire, as defined by my Government, were not threatened.
"I expressed, at the same time, my earnest desire to avail myself of any opportunity which might present itself
4
for promoting a peaceful settlement of the questions at issue between the belligerent Powers.
"The successes obtained by the Russian arms, both in Europe and Asia, convinced the Porte that it should endeavour to bring to a close hostilities which were causing immense sufferings to its subjects. The Government of the Sultan accordingly addressed to the Neutral Powers, parties to the Treaties relating to the Turkish Empire, an appeal for their good offices.
"It did not, however, appear to the majority of the Powers thus addressed that they could usefully comply with the request, and they communicated this opinion to the Porte.
"The Porte then determined on making a separate appeal to my Government, and I at once agreed to make an inquiry of the Emperor of Russia whether His Imperial Majesty would entertain overtures for peace.
"The Emperor expressed, in reply, his earnest desire for peace, and stated, at the same time, his opinion as to the course which should be pursued for its attainment.
"Upon this subject communications have taken place between the Governments of Russia and Turkey through my good offices, and I earnestly trust that they may lead to a pacific solution of the points at issue and to a termination of the war. No efforts on my part will be wanting to promote that result.
"Hitherto, so far as the war has proceeded, neither of the belligerents has infringed the conditions on which my neutrality is founded, and I willingly believe that both parties are desirous

5
to respect them, so far as it may be in their power. So long as these conditions are not infringed, my attitude will continue the same. But I cannot conceal from myself that, should hostilities be unfortunately prolonged, some unexpected occurrence may render it incumbent on me to adopt measures of precaution. Such measures could not be effectually taken without adequate preparation, and I trust to the liberality of my Parliament to supply the means which may be required for that purpose.
"Papers on these affairs will be forthwith laid before you.
"My relations with all foreign Powers continue to be friendly.
"I am thankful that the terrible famine which has ravaged Southern India is nearly at an end. Strenuous and successful exertions have been made by my Local Governments to relieve the sufferings of the population, and in that duty they have been powerfully seconded by the liberal aid of my people at home and in my Colonies. I have directed that an inquiry should be made into the measures most proper to diminish the danger of such calamities for the future.
"The condition of native affairs in South Africa has of late caused me some anxiety, and has demanded the watchful attention of my Government. I have thought it expedient to reinforce my troops in that part of my Empire. I trust that a peaceable and satisfactory settlement of all differences may be shortly obtained.
"Gentlemen of the House of Commons,
"I have directed the Estimates of the year to be prepared and presented to you without delay.
6
"My Lords, and Gentlemen,
"A Bill will be laid before you upon the subject of County Government, and your attention will be again called to the consolidation of the Factory Law, and to the Summary Jurisdiction of Magistrates.
"You will be asked at an early period of the Session to take into your consideration a Bill on the subject of Cattle Disease in this country.
"The questions of Scottish Roads and Bridges, and of Endowed Schools and Hospitals in Scotland, will also be brought before you.
"Your attention will be invited to the subject of Intermediate Education in Ireland, and to the Grand Jury Law in that country.
"Among other measures for the amendment of the Law, a Bill will be laid before you to simplify and express in one Act the whole Law and Procedure relating to Indictable Offences.
"I commend these subjects to your most careful consideration, and I pray that the blessing of the Almighty may attend and guide your deliberations."
Then the Commons withdrew.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.
PRAYERS.
BOLL OF THE LORDS—Grartor King of Arms attending, delivered at the Table (in the usual manner) a List of the Lords Temporal in the Fifth Session of the Twenty-first Parliament of the United Kingdom: The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
Writs and Returns electing the Earl of Caledon a Representative Peer for Ireland in the room of the late Lord Headley, deceased, with the Certificate of the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland annexed thereto: Delivered (on oath), and Certificate read.
Lord Mowbray—The House being informed that his Lordship was attending with his writ of summons, the Lord Chancellor explained to the House his Lordship's descent: Then his Lordship was called in, and took the Oath; and then took his place on the Baron's Bench, next below the Lord de Ros.
The Earl of Saint Germans—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his Father.
SELECT VESTRIES — Bill, pro formâ, read 1a.

THE QUEEN'S SPEECH.

  ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
  The QUEEN'S SPEECH reported by The LORD CHANCELLOR.
  THE EARL OF WHARNCLIFFE,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, although I have many years had the honour of a seat in this House, I have not often—indeed, I think only once before — taken part in your Lordships' debates. It is, therefore, with diffidence, and even anxiety, that I rise to address your Lordships; for certainly it has rarely happened that one has risen on a similar occasion under more momentous conditions than those under which your Lordships have met at the present time. The country is, not exactly trembling—that would be too strong an expression—on the balance of war; but it is impossible not to recognize the possibility that we may at some period be drawn into the conflict now raging in the East. Other wars have raged within recent years. There was the Indian Mutiny—in that we were alone concerned—the struggle was between England and the rebellious subjects of the Crown, and there was no pretext for the intervention of any other Power. Other wars there have been between nations on the Continent of Europe, and between the Northern and Southern Provinces of America. In these England or English interests were not concerned in the issues. It cannot, however, be contended that in this great struggle between Russia and Turkey there is not great danger of English interests becom-
  8
  ing involved. We are standing in the face of a great danger, which, instead of diminishing, is becoming greater day by day. It is natural that the country should feel great interest in the subject, and that Her Majesty's Government should watch attentively the signs of danger — that they should note the spread of the area of war and the advance of one of the combatants upon the capital of the other. We know that there are many who do not agree in the attitude of the Government, and there have been many and angry criticisms upon the conduct of Her Majesty's Ministry. I do not propose to follow in detail the various steps taken by the Government since the commencement of the war; but I think your Lordships will agree with me that nothing could have been more satisfactory, under the circumstances, than the conduct of the Leader of the Opposition, or the manner in which the Government has dealt with the various difficulties that have arisen. Again, those Members of the opposite Parties who have a responsible position—those who are the recognized Leaders of their respective Parties — have been very cautious in their language since the outbreak of the war. But when I come to those who have no responsible position, I am obliged to say that the language used by many of them is not such as ought to characterize the Members of a fair Opposition. They assumed facts which did not exist, and then based arguments and drew adverse conclusions on their assumptions. They suggested "a split in the Cabinet," and assumed that Her Majesty's Ministers were divided into various sections, which held various and antagonistic opinions. They assumed that on the part of the Government there were dark designs that had not been expressed in the Ministerial utterances. An agitation was set on foot and political meetings were held—sometimes in buildings which had been erected for very different purposes. At these meetings the Government were censured for certain opinions which it was assumed they were entertaining—and, on the other hand, when they advised Her Majesty to summon Parliament throe weeks earlier than usual they were abused for that. This reminds one of the French tale where the Prince would not attempt to do anything to please any one, because, he said, whatever he might

  9
  do with that object he would be sure to displease somebody. Then quite recently a "Conference" had been held, and a manifesto containing a declaration of opinon had been issued, with the object of to a certain extent influencing the policy of Her Majesty's Government. But such proceedings will not bear examination for a moment. In estimating the con-duet of the Government we must be guided by the test of certain touchstones, and if your Lordships will refer to the utterances of the different Members of the Government, it will be found that they are all consistent in their statements of their policy. If your Lordships will refer to the utterances of the Home Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary for War, and the Secretary for the Colonies, it will be found that they are all agreed in the definition of the Prime Minister that the position of this country is one of "conditional neutrality." When, therefore, the country is agitated in the manner which I have described—when Her Majesty's Ministers have been thus continuously addressed by public speakers in words of remonstrance and warning—notwithstanding that they have been consistent in the declarations of their policy, the necessary result must be to weaken the influence of this country abroad. My Lords, I have taken some pains to ascertain what really is the opinion of the country; and I am convinced that there is a real feeling of distrust of Russia—that there is a great admiration of the patriotism of the Turkish people, and of the gallantry and heroism of the Turkish troops—that there is a complete dislike of the ruling class of Turkey—but that there is throughout the country the greatest reluctance to be drawn into a war, and at the same time a feeling that we should stand firm on those points which have been enumerated by Her Majesty's Government, and which are very often and very simply described as "British interests." My Lords, I admit lam one of those who think that it is only when its sole interests are distinctly and materially involved that any country can be justified in resorting to the extreme measure of war. That being so, how are we to manage so as to avoid the terrible alternative of a war with Russia? The points upon which our Government have warned Russia are three. We
  10
  have defined the three points in which it is to be considered that "British interests" are affected. We have again and again warned the Porto that it must not expect assistance from us, and ever since the war broke out Her Majesty's Government have declared their great desire for peace. We are not, therefore, likely to be called upon for a war unless in the defence of those "British interests" which have been defined by Her Majesty's Government. The "British interests" which are not to be touched without the consent of England are the Suez Canal, Constantinople, and the passage of the Straits. In the Speech from the Throne Her Majesty says—
  "Hitherto, so far as the war has proceeded, neither of the belligerents has infringed the conditions on which my neutrality is founded, and I willingly believe that both parties are desirous to respect them, so far as it may be in their power. So long as these conditions are not infringed my attitude will continue the same."
  Her Majesty, however, goes on to say—
  "But I cannot conceal from myself that, should hostilities be unfortunately prolonged, some unexpected occurrence may render it incumbent on me to adopt measures of precaution."
  I think your Lordships must fully concur in that latter sentence, and, that being so, Her Majesty's Advisers could not have taken any other course than that they have now taken—an appeal to Parliament in order that provision may be made against eventualities. When a great nation like England takes up the position we have taken—gives warnings to another country, and sees a possibility that those warnings may be disregarded—how can its Government avoid taking stops to support what they have said? If a country uses words which it is not pre-pared to back up, it will occupy a much lower position in the eyes of the world than it did before. I cannot think that at the present moment there is any danger to the Suez Canal, though no one can say that such danger may not arise if the war continue. At present the whole danger lies in respect of Constantinople and the passage of the Dardanelles. It is agreed by the highest authorities that Constantinople ought never to be in the hands of any but a neutral Power. If it were, there could only

  11
  be one course open to this country— that of keeping an increased Fleet in the Mediterranean, which would, of course, involve a very much increased charge to the taxpayers of this country. Not only would the possession of Constantinople by Russia be dangerous to us in an international sense, but I do not think it would be favourable to the development of free trade or of British commerce. There has been much discussion and difference of opinion as to the effect which the possession of Constantinople by such a Power as Russia would have on our communications with India. Very high authorities—among them, I believe, the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India—are of opinion that the importance of the occupation of Constantinople has been overrated in that respect. Well, however that may be, there is an aspect of the question which ought not to be lost sight of. The agitation now felt in India as regards the issues of the war and the attitude of England is unprecedented; and I am assured from reliable private sources that the Native Princes are looking closely to the events of the present time in order that they may be able to estimate the power of this country in respect of our great Indian Empire. Hostile Chiefs, who hope to, at some time or other, sot up independent Principalities, are looking forward to any events which may result in lowering the power and the reputation of England. I rejoice, then, that in Her Majesty's Speech the world has evidence that Her Majesty's Ministers have made up their minds to boldly face the difficulties of the situation, and to propose such measures—unpalatable though for the moment they may be — as may be necessary to sustain the interests, the welfare, and the prosperity of the British Empire. I still hope that there will be no occasion for action on the part of England. Austria, it is understood, has declared her adherence to the Treaty of Paris; and the previous character of the Czar entitles him to as much trust in his declarations as the extraordinary difficulties of his position will allow, and that he will not go back from his pledged word as to the conditions in which English interests are declared to be involved. Therefore I trust there will be no necessity for our intervention. My Lords, Her Majesty in Her Gracious Speech then refers to the
  12
  condition of Native affairs in South Africa —I trust that the hope expressed by Her Majesty of the peaceable and satisfactory settlement of this question may be realized:—And on this point may I be allowed to say that it has always struck mo that it will be necessary in regard to that country to do as we did in the olden days in regard to other colonies—namely, to organize local forces for the protection of the States. My Lords, Her Majesty also refers in Her Gracious Speech to the terrible Famine which has ravaged Southern India. I rejoice that that great calamity is nearly at an end; and I sincerely trust that the Commission that is to be appointed will be able to discover, in the investigation of the causes of the present Famine, the means of preventing these deplorable calamities in future. The subject is a very difficult one, and it is to be regretted that one of the greatest orators in this country should have recently propounded a scheme so haphazard and incomplete that it only needed a stroke of the pen from that distinguished Indian official, Sir James Fitz Stephen, to accomplish its entire refutation, and to show how unsound were the premisses of those who supported the plan. My Lords, I am glad to see that amid these great and difficult questions, Her Majesty's Government are not unmindful of measures of domestic legislation. We are promised by Her Majesty's Government the introduction of measures for the improvement of our local administration, for the consolidation of Acts affecting the condition of our operative classes, and of the Law relating to Summary Jurisdiction; and upon the very important subject of the Cattle Disease, which has so seriously affected the food question of this Kingdom. For Scotland we are told there will be introduced measures for remedying a grievance of which the Scotch have long complained in respect of their Roads and Bridges, and with reference to the Endowed Schools and Hospitals of that country. And attention will be invited to the subjects of Intermediate Education and the Grand Jury Law of Ireland. Finally, we are promised a very important measure of legal reform—the reduction into one Act of the whole law and procedure relating to Indictable Offences. In conclusion, my Lords, I have to thank your Lordships for the

  13
  patience with which you have heard mo. I cannot say that I do not look upon the probability of war with dread, seeing the present state of our manufacturing interests and the condition of the labouring population, large numbers of whom are either out of employment or receiving reduced wages; but I dread still more the consequences of looking on calmly whilst the interests of the nation are in danger. Should that danger come, I hope we shall present an united front and profit by the words of warning addressed by Her Majesty's Government to the country. The evils that have been referred to may not exist in the immediate present—they do not exist; but they will, if left alone, increase year by year, and by-and-bye become a serious danger to the country. My Lords, 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.
  "We humbly thank Your Majesty for taking this early opportunity of acquainting us with the efforts made by Your Majesty to terminate the war now devastating Eastern Europe and Armenia.
  "We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that, after having unsuccessfully striven to avert that war, Your Majesty, whilst declaring Your Majesty's intention to observe neutrality so long as the interests of the Empire, as defined by Your Majesty's Government, were not threatened, yet expressed an earnest desire to profit by any opportunity that might present itself for promoting a peaceful settlement of the questions at issue between the belligerent Powers.
  "We thank Your Majesty for informing us that, the successes obtained by the Russian arms having convinced the Porte of the desirability of bringing hostilities to a close, the Government of the Sultan addressed to the Neutral Powers, parties to the Treaties relating to the Turkish Empire, an appeal for their good offices.
  "We humbly 'thank Your Majesty for informing us that as it did not appear to the majority of the Powers that they could usefully
  14
  comply with this request, Your Majesty agreed, in response to a separate appeal from the Porte, to inquire of the Emperor of Russia whether His Imperial Majesty would entertain overtures for peace.
  "We thank Your Majesty for informing us that the Emperor expressed, in reply, his earnest desire for peace, and stated his opinion as to the course to be pursued for its attainment.
  "We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that, through Your Majesty's good offices, communications have taken place between the Governments of Russia and Turkey, which Your Majesty earnestly trusts may lead to a pacific solution of the points at issue, and that no efforts on Your Majesty's part will be wanting to promote that end.
  "We thank Your Majesty for informing us that hitherto neither belligerent has infringed the conditions on which Your Majesty's neutrality is founded, and that Your Majesty willingly believes that both parties are desirous to respect them, so far as it may be in their power. That so long as these conditions are not infringed Your Majesty's attitude will continue the same, but that Your Majesty cannot be blind to the fact that, should hostilities be unfortunately prolonged, some unexpected occurrence may render it incumbent upon Your Majesty to adopt measures of precaution. That such measures could not be effectually taken without adequate preparation, and that Your Majesty trusts to the liberality of Parliament to supply the means which may be required for that purpose.
  "We humbly thank Your Majesty for directing that papers on these affairs shall be laid before us, and for informing us that Your Majesty's relations with all foreign Powers continue to be friendly.
  "We rejoice with Your Majesty that the famine which has ravaged Southern India is nearly at an end, and we thank Your Majesty for informing us of the strenuous and successful exertions made by the Local Governments, powerfully seconded by the liberal aid of Your Majesty's subjects at home and in the Colonies, to relieve the sufferings of the population; and also for an announcement that an inquiry will be made as to the best measures for dealing with such calamities in the future.
  "We thank Your Majesty for informing us that in consequence of the condition of native affairs in South Africa, Your Majesty has thought it expedient to reinforce the troops in that part of the Empire, and we join with Your

  15
  Majesty in trusting that a peaceful and satisfactory settlement of all differences may be shortly obtained.
  "We humbly assure Your Majesty that our careful consideration shall be given to the measures which may be submitted to us, and we earnestly trust that the blessing of the Almighty may attend and guide our deliberations."
  THE EARL OF LOUDOUN: My Lords, in rising to second the Address so ably moved by my noble Friend (the Earl of Wharncliffe), I must claim that forbearance which is always extended to one who addresses your Lordships for the first time. And at such a time as this, when the eyes of Europe are on your Lordships' House, it is a very hard task which I have to perform. The reference to the Eastern Question contained in Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech, recalls the memories of the Crimean War, by which we were called upon to rise in protection of British interests. Many of your Lordships stood forward then in support of those interests, and I am sure you would be prepared to do so again should the necessity arise. The noble Earl who moved the Address has spoken at some length on the Eastern Question, and I think I cannot do better than conclude my remarks on the subject by quoting the words used in 1856 by the noble Earl the present Prime Minister, who is sitting in front of me, who was then in Opposition, and was opposed to the continuance of the war for the sake of adding lustre to our arms; but said that the spirit of the nation was such that—
  "There was no sum which Parliament would not cheerfully vote, or her people cheerfully raise, to vindicate her honour and maintain the independence and interests of her kingdom."—{Life of the Prince Consort, vol. 3, p. 435.]
  With regard to the Indian Famine, it is gratifying to think that such a calamity has been alleviated by open hearts and hands in England, and by able administration in India itself. The question of irrigation in India is most important, and it is to be hoped that it will receive due consideration. There was an important meeting in Birmingham last night, reported in The Standard to-day, at which Sir Arthur Cotton, who has been connected with engineering in India for more than half a century, spoke of the great works of irrigation
  16
  which had boon carried out by the Government, who had spent £20,000,000 on it. But he added that much of course remained to be done, and that it was often a very good investment.
  An alteration in the constitution of County Boards is much needed in many parts of the country, and it is to be hoped that the plan of the Government will satisfy the ratepayers. Factory Law Consolidation will, I hope, tend to develop industry and promote the interests of those concerned in one of the great sinews of the country. I trust that the Bills to be laid before your Lordships in regard to Cattle Disease may enforce such precautions that we shall not have another outburst of that calamity for many years to come; and, as to the Roads and Bridges Bill, I hope that will tend to the improvement of the roads —if roads in Scotland can be improved. As to the Endowment of Schools and Hospitals, I hope that legislation on that subject will be effective, and that it will be of such a character as will relieve people of the fear that in making bequests the advantages may not be enjoyed by their successors and by the class of persons for whom they were intended, thus doing away with the founders' intentions.
  The necessity of Intermediate Education in Ireland is more apparent every day, but will, I fear, prove rather a difficult question, owing to the fact that many parts of the country are very thinly populated, and also considering the various conditions of the people; but any legislation which may tend to promote better instruction would be a distinct gain.
  My Lords, I have to thank you for the kindness with which you have listened to the few remarks I have made, and I beg to second the Address. [See p. 13.]
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords—If on the first night of the Session it is regarded as the duty of the Opposition to criticize the whole policy and conduct of the Government on every possible subject, I am afraid I shall not perform that duty successfully to-night. I know that the minds of your Lordships are entirely absorbed in one great Question, and that on that Question you must much desire to hear a statement from the opposite Bench at the earliest possible opportunity; and I only rise now because I believe my doing so may

  17
  be the means of eliciting that statement before the debate proceeds much further. I venture to promise your Lordships that I shall not interpose very long between the speeches you have just heard and the Ministerial statement. My Lords, I last year remarked that it was a matter of congratulation for your Lordships' House that Her Majesty's Government, from whatever side they may be chosen, is able year after year to select young Peers who are able to perform that most difficult task of moving and seconding the Address with great credit to themselves and with great promise for the future. When about a fortnight ago I saw it stated that my noble Relative (the Earl of Wharncliffe) had been selected to move the Address on this occasion, it occurred to me that, while no doubt the Government could not have exhausted the number of youthful Peers on their side, who would have addressed the House with discretion and ability, yet that upon so critical an occasion they had thought it desirable to secure the services of a noble Lord of more mature ago, who is not without experience in your Lordships' House, and whom I have heard addressing your Lordships before now with great effect, and who, without going into details, might give your Lordships a satisfactory outline of the policy of the Government in respect of the Eastern Question. The noble Earl (the Earl of Warncliffe) having professed to speak without a knowledge of the intentions of Her Majesty's Government, it perhaps took away some of the interest of his observations. But I am glad that on some, at least, of the points to which he referred, he was speaking his own individual opinions and not those of Her Majesty's Government. I am not, my Lords, going into a general criticism of measures promised in or omitted from the Queen's Speech. Were I to do so no doubt the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) would criticize my remarks very severely. Last year, on the opening night, I complained that in the Speech from the Throne there was no mention of a Burials Bill. I found, however, that I had been rather premature, for Her Majesty's Government did bring in a Burials Bill. I shall only say that I trust that the fact of there being no mention of it in the Speech of this year, is no proof that
  18
  the Government will not bring in a Burials Bill this year, and that their attempt at legislation in that direction will be in accordance with the opinions of the majority of your Lordships' House. I saw that the other day my noble Friend the President of the Council, in his usual genial way, made some complaint of the work of this House last Session, and of the way in which the Business of Parliament had been dealt with. Now, I think he hardly ought to have been the person to complain of that, seeing that, with the exception of that unfortunate Burials Bill, hardly any legislation was offered to us. The noble Duke in this respect reminds me of the offender who was convicted of the murder of his father and mother, and who, when the Judge was about to pass sentence upon him, exclaimed—"Have pity on me, my Lord; I am an unfortunate orphan." I hope that some of the Bills that are mentioned in the Speech will be introduced in your Lordships' House. As to the Famine in India, the feeling shown in this country certainly is matter of congratulation; and as to the very important subject of the disturbances at the Cape, I am glad that Her Majesty's Government are able to take so hopeful a view of the prospects in that quarter.
  Having now said a few words as to the last part of the Queen's Speech, I wish to address myself for a few moments to the beginning. The noble Earl who moved the Addresss was good enough to state that he did not consider that the Leaders of Her Majesty's Opposition had in any way embarrassed Her Majesty's Government in their action respecting this war. In bearing that testimony he used nearly the same words as Mr. Hardy, and I am glad to accept the compliment as I believe it to be true.
  THE EARL OF WHARNCLIFFE: I never read Mr. Hardy's speech.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I did not accuse the noble Earl of plagiarism, and am glad to find that his declaration was spontaneous. As to what the noble Earl said of the statements of other Members of the Opposition, it is not necessary that I should defend those Gentlemen—they are able enough to defend themselves; but I may say that I do not think the accusations made against them apply now. The accusation made against them last year was that they had en-

  19
  couraged Russia in the same way that Burke and Chatham had encouraged the North American Colonies to revolt against this country. In another part of his speech the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War pointed out what is perfectly true— that Her Majesty Government, at the outset of the negotiations, and therefore a considerable time before the war, had announced to all the Powers that they would give no assistance to Turkey, an announcement which, coming from a Government, must have been much more re-assuring to a would-be belligerent than any language held even by the most distinguished men in Opposition. I do not propose to go over the history of the last 36 months in any detail—it is too well known to your Lordships—the six months' diplomatic inaction before the Andrassy Note, the mode of dealing with that Note, and subsequently the mode in which the Berlin Memorandum was rejected. I do not wish to repeat my conviction, so often expressed, that it was to that unfortunate mode of dealing with the Berlin Memorandum that most of the subsequent misfortunes are owing. Then came the proposal of a Conference—and I will not weary you with what has so often been said of the circumstances which made the success of that Conference impossible. When we complained of those circumstances at the beginning of last year as having produced the inevitable failure of the Conference, we were told—"You are quite mistaken in thinking that the Conference has been a failure. It has not accomplished all that we desired, but it has had one happy result—namely, the good understanding that has been arrived at between the Great Powers of Europe and the knowledge of each other's views—which is full of promise for the future." Then came the London Protocol, with its odd little excrescences; and soon afterwards that declaration of war which we anticipated at the opening of the Session as the probable result of the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and which I described as pregnant with inconvenience and danger. There was considerable alarm in the country and in Parliament lest we ourselves should be dragged into this war; but towards the end of the Session there was a great debate in the
  20
  House of Commons, and especially a speech of Mr. Cross, which was really the summary of a despatch of the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby), and which, as Mr. Cross has since said, embodied the views of a united Cabinet, greatly calmed the feeling of excitement on the part of the public. A speech delivered by the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury), and one made in the month of August by Sir Stafford Northcote, tended in the same direction—though I cannot agree with the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Wharn-cliffe) that all Her Majesty's Ministers spoke exactly in the same tone. Up to nearly the end of the Session the Russians had seemed to be carrying everything before them, both in Asia and in Europe. What has happened during the Recess? As regards the war, its tide appeared to change. The Russians seemed paralyzed both in Europe and Asia. The Turks, on the contrary, not only maintained the character for physical courage for which they are known, but more energy was shown by the Government, and more skill by their officers, than had been attributed to them. It was only within the last two months that the fortune of war changed again, and the Russians have been as victorious as they were in the first instance expected to be; while Turkey, in its present state, is without effectual means of resistance. If we look back at what happened during the same time in this country, we find that uneasiness was gradually produced as time went on, chiefly owing to the language used—in different degrees but with the same tendency—by the Conservative Press, and uncontradicted by any organ supporting the Government. The 9th of November, which, as somebody has remarked, is an important day for the Turk, was anxiously expected. It was known that the First Lord of the Treasury would speak, and that it was an occasion on which he did not always observe that remarkable reticence of which he is often so judicious a master. Well, that great civic dinner had anything but a re-assuring effect upon those who were fearful that we might be dragged into a war which we had failed to prevent, and that we might be found fighting in favour of the Turk in order to safeguard British interests, some of which were of no importance and others

  21
  not likely to be assailed. It was a dinner given by a Conservative Lord Mayor in presence of an almost entirely Conservative audience to Her Majesty's Ministers, all of whom, I believe without exception, made it a point to attend. The whole Corps Diplomatique was invited to attend, to do honour to Her Majesty's Government; not only Count Schouvaloff was absent, but not one Ambassador of the Great Powers accepted the invitation. The Representatives of Belgium, Holland, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Denmark were nowhere to be seen. But there was one exception. The Turkish Ambassador— a Christian diplomatist, who, during a long residence in this capital, has made himself very popular—came. He was received with enthusiasm. He made a speech which I thought able and well adapted to his audience, and which the Prime Minister characterized as modest and interesting. I suppose the modesty consisted in this—that he attributed exclusively to the example of the British nation the great Constitutional liberties which the Turks have enjoyed ever since the massacre of the Janissaries. He reminded his audience with pride that the father of the present Sultan had inaugurated his reign by a Proclamation guaranteeing the life, property, and honour of all his subjects, without distinction of race or creed. He showed how those principles were afterwards developed by numerous and important political and administrative reforms, and finally how the great work had been crowned by the glorious Constitution accorded by the present Sultan. All this, including the last observation, was received with cheers. I wonder whether the Secretaries of State for Foreign Affairs and for India, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer cheered, and whether they mentally retracted some things not altogether complimentary they had said about this Constitution. The noble Earl the First Lord of the Treasury followed, and spoke with his usual felicity on general subjects and on the Eastern Question. He, as might be expected, said nothing in contradiction to what had been said by his Colleagues; but, whether it was owing to his enthusiasm for the Turks, or to an allusion to the Emperor of Russia having been misinterpreted by his audience as a sneer, or to his lan-
  22
  guage about neutrality, which he chiefly defended on the ground that it was advantageous to the Turks, and that it might be forsaken—whatever might be his intention, the effect of what he said undoubtedly led those who were exciting a feeling for war in the country to think that he was not on the side of peace, and to produce the same belief on those who maintained the duty of neutrality. These opinions were not checked, until luckily the noble Lord (Lord Campbell), whom I see behind me, headed a deputation which has become historical to the Foreign Office. In answer to the statements of this deputation the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) made a speech which I believe appeared to the country to be the embodiment of good sense, and to be a true example of that moral courage which, disdaining sensational topics, explains to others less well-informed how things really are. The country, therefore, had a right to believe that the policy of neutrality and abstention from helping the Turks was unchanged. In the meanwhile, Parliament had been further prorogued to the 17th of January —to this day—and the country was surprised some days—I think a week— before Christmas by a communiqué to all the newspapers that this meeting was to be for the transaction of Public Business. No explanation was given of the object of the meeting; but the supporters in the Press of Her Majesty's Government announced that it was in itself in the nature of a warning to Russia—in short, 0110 of those numerous little demonstrations of "benevolent neutrality" which have added so little to our dignity or strength, and which have had no practical result, excepting, possibly, to irritate Russia, and certainly to encourage the Turks. But not many days ago the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Carnarvon) made a speech which produced a great effect. It was on the lines of that which the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) had made to the deputation to which I have alluded—it could only be taken as the opinion of the Cabinet, though probably expressed in stronger language than would have been held by some of his Colleagues. The noble Earl gave no reason for the unexpected stop of summoning Parliament thus early— nor from this speech could it have been guessed that the Government

  23
  proposed at the eleventh, or rather the twelfth, hour, to ask Parliament to help them to prepare for precautions against a contingency unexpected by them. But to-day we have the reasons given by Her Majesty's Government, and which they have placed in Her Majesty's mouth, for assembling Parliament on this day. They are two—
  "I have thought fit to assemble you before the ordinary time of your meeting in order that you might become acquainted with the efforts I have made to terminate the War now devastating Eastern Europe and Armenia, and that I might have the advice and assistance of my Parliament in the present state of public affairs."
  The second is a good and laudable reason for assembling Parliament; but, as regards the first, judged by the light of the subsequent passages in the Speech, and without further explanation which I have no doubt whatever Ministers following me will give, it is inconsistent with fact. It seems impossible that on the 18th of December the Cabinet should have decided to assemble Parliament in order to inform them of their efforts to terminate the war, when it would appear from the Speech that the only transaction had been a general appeal from Turkey, upon which we did not act; and as to the separate appeal which came from Turkey, on which we did act, it only came some 10 days after the resolution to assemble Parliament had been taken. The explanations which will be given will no doubt dissipate what now looks as if, in so serious a document as a Speech from the Throne—which was possibly under the consideration of the Cabinet for more than one sitting—it was nothing but an afterthought. With regard to the general Circular of the Porte, it is said that it was rejected by a majority of the Powers. I may ask whether England was one of that majority, or whether the phrase is a euphonious way of expressing that Her Majesty's Government, whom even some of their own Members have described as always leading Europe in the negotiations on the Eastern Question, were in a minority of one. However that may be, it is satisfactory to learn that Her Majesty's Government are able to speak with some hope of an approaching peace. Whether that peace has been promoted or delayed by the efforts of Her Majesty's Government we shall be
  24
  better able to judge when we know something of the facts. But the important point which is approached with so much care and caution in the Speech is the demand upon Parliament for assistance to prepare against unexpected occurrences. We are told that the interests of the Queen's Empire have been defined by Her Majesty's Government—I presume in the despatch of the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) to Prince Gortchakoff—and that as long as those interests are not threatened this country will adhere to the neutrality which it has proclaimed. Now, in answer to these definitions of our neutrality, assurances were given by Prince Gortchakoff which were received by Her Majesty's Government, so far as I am aware, without one word of dissatisfaction. Now, either these assurances were considered satisfactory or they were not. If satisfactory, in what respect have they lately been invalidated? If unsatisfactory, or deemed not to be worthy of credit, why did you not then ask Parliament to enable you to take precautions, instead of deferring to this moment—when the whole affair is virtually at an end—unless, indeed, by this new demonstration you encourage Turkey to prolong a struggle which will more completely destroy her, and which will afford grounds to Russia to increase her demands. But if there are altered circumstances, how is it that we are informed of them on this particular day? If on the 18th of December they appeared urgent, why did you delay asking for the necessary means for a whole month? If they were not urgent, why could you not let things take their course, and by the further Prorogation to the end of this month avoid all the unnecessary alarm that has been excited, the further depression that trade has suffered, and the damage which has been inflicted upon the revenue. The noble Earl who moved the Address stated—I think accurately—what he believed to be the general conclusions of the country on this matter; whether they are wise or unwise I do not say. He observed that there was great jealousy of Russia—which I quite admit; that there was great discontent with the Turkish Government—which I quite admit; that there was great admiration of the qualities of the Turkish soldier—which I quite admit; and he coupled with these

  25
  three things a strong desire for neutrality and to avoid war. It is perfectly-clear that the demand which you now make runs counter to this desire, and will excite a great deal of feeling in the country. But I would put the matter on broader ground than that. Is it advisable, if even you are able—as you undoubtedly can by the majorities you have in both Houses of Parliament—to obtain the means for a great increase of your material strength? How far will such increase of your material strength be neutralized by the moral loss you will sustain from the opposition you will provoke and the excitement you will produce, not merely among one Party, but also among those who are perfectly uninfluenced by Party considerations in this matter? I may be asked whether I am indifferent to British interests. I believe there is no man in this House who is in the slightest degree indifferent to British interests. It is impossible that any of us, and more especially those of us who are statesmen, should be too watchful of British interests; but it is possible to talk a little too much about them. There are two things which may be safely said of British interests. One is that, like the possessions of the Queen and like the commerce of this country, they extend nearly over the whole world. The other is that in very few cases indeed are those interests isolated, and several form the interests of some other country. The very multiplicity of these interests makes it possible to put them in different categories. The noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) stated, with absolute truth, that the greatest interest of this country is peace. It is a mere truism to say so. No one can gainsay the declaration, considering that we are the greatest commercial and industrial country of the world. But is the interest of peace confined to ourselves? Is it not desirable for Germany, for Prance, for Austria, and for Italy? Is it not a necessity for Turkey; and of the greatest importance to conquering, but impoverished and bleeding Russia? Therefore the interest of peace is one of which we cannot claim a monopoly, but which belongs to the whole world. Our material interests, from their very multiplicity, must be considered in different classes or categories. There are some which deserve the watchful care of our Government, which ought to be fos-
  26
  tered by diplomatic persuasion and even pressure, but for the maintenance of which—keeping in view their relative importance—it would be madness to go to war. There are others which we share with other countries, which may properly be maintained even at the risk of war, if we receive the moral and material support of countries as much or more affected by them as ourselves; but which, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer put it so well last year, are common interests, for the maintenance of which we are not to be called upon to bear the exclusive burden. There are, again, vital interests, for which, with Allies or without Allies, at all risks and at all hazards, a Government would fail in its duty if it did not call upon all the great though latent powers of this country and struggle to the bitter end. And that country would be ill-advised, however strong in military resources, that would "with a light heart" think they could with impunity engage in a contest with this country when united and convinced that they are justified by a sound policy, by justice, and by necessity. Now, my Lords, there is one point which strikes me as singular, though it is possibe that a satisfactory explanation can be given of it. We have been constantly told— circumstances seem to indicate it—and I, for one, believe it—that since the beginning of this war there has been an understanding between Russia and Germany and Austria, as to the limits beyond which the Russians would not try to carry their demands. If this be the case, it seems hardly possible that our diplomacy has been so helpless that we have not been able to obtain confidential communications from one or both of those Powers what those terms are. We are told in the Speech that Her Majesty's Government's relations with all Foreign Powers continue to be friendly—which I am glad to hear; but it would, indeed, be a state of isolation if we could obtain no knowledge of the agreement which has been entered into, and which, considering the circumstances, military power, and geographical position of the three Empires, must so greatly influence the decision which will be arrived at. I should like Her Majesty's Government to tell us whether they have this knowledge or not—though I do not ask them to tell us what that knowledge is;

  27
  but it clearly makes all the difference whether they possess it or do not, and whether the demands of Russia are such as really affect British interests or are not. If they are not, the Government certainly ought not to have met Parliament with a flourish of this sort, that they were bound to summon Parliament to obtain additional assistance. There is one thing which I am glad to note—namely, that the language of the Speech as to the necessity of preparation for precautions against unexpected occurrences only applies in the case of the prolongation of hostilities. Therefore, I draw this conclusion—that it is possible that if hostilities are not prolonged there will be no necessity for any such demand. The Papers promised will show whether peace has been promoted or delayed by the action of the Government. The cessation of those hostilities depends upon the perception of the Turks that they are unable to defend themselves, and that they cannot expect succour from elsewhere; and, on the other hand, on the conviction of the Emperor of Russia that his reputation, which now stands high, must depend before the world and in history on the fairness and moderation of the terms which he exacts beyond those safeguards to the Christian subjects of the Porte which by all his declarations he is bound to obtain. I am glad to hear, and I am happy to believe, that in giving effect to Her Majesty's Speech, we do not bind any side of the House to any particular policy laid down in the Speech.
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just addressed you as a Leader of a Constitutional Party has not ventured to find fault with the Government because they advised the Sovereign to call Parliament together at this period. The course he has taken is what might have been expected from one occupying the position of the noble Earl. But, at the same time, the noble Earl has used every means his skilful rhetoric could dictate to impress upon your Lordships that the assembling of Parliament was unnecessary and might have been very prejudicial. My Lords, I think your Lordships will agree, if you take a calm view of the circumstances which were existing and had occurred before the Government determined so to advise the Sovereign, the summoning of Parliament
  28
  was not an unreasonable act, but one, indeed, quite justified. The noble Earl has referred to the state of affairs in the theatre of war at the time when Parliament was prorogued. It is unnecessary for me to call your Lordships' attention particularly to that point. Your Lordships will recollect that when Parliament was prorogued Her Majesty, in Her Gracious Speech, while regretting the existence of that war, promised Her Parliament that no efforts which Her Majesty could use would be wanting on Her part, if opportunity offered, of using Her influence for terminating that war. The Government left Parliament with that engagement. The circumstances that then existed were most unpromising for any attempt by negotiation or amicable interference to terminate the contest. But as time advanced—at a later period in the autumn—particularly after the fall of Plevna—a very great change occurred in those circumstances. The course of the war was favourable to Russia in Asia as well as in Europe. That equality which for a time seemed to exist between the rival combatants had entirely disappeared, and it appeared to the Government, watching these affairs with an interest which the House, I am sure, will give them due credit for, that events were ripening to a degree that afforded a probability, as time advanced, of terminating, by the friendly influence of the neutral Powers, that terrible contest.
  My Lords, the noble Earl has referred to the circumstances under which we felt it to be our duty to advise Her Majesty to call Parliament together for the transaction of Public Business three weeks or a month earlier than usual. It was on the 12th of December that the rumours had reached us from the Porte, which ultimately took the form of an appeal to the signataries of the Treaty of Paris, to assist the Porto in arriving at peace. I understood the noble Earl to say that it was impossible from the dates that the meeting of Parliament on the advice of Her Majesty's Government could have been influenced by the diplomatic movements at Constantinople; but if he recollects he will find that on the 12th of December the first effort was made by the Porte with that object, and Parliament was summoned for Business on the

  29
  22nd. Therefore, it must appear to your Lordships that it was mainly on the great change which had occurred in the diplomatic position of affairs that we were induced to believe that Parliament should be called together. I think the noble Earl made some distinction between the first appeal by the Porte to the signataries of the Treaty of Paris, which were unsuccessful, and the appeal of the Government of Turkey—which was made to a certain degree on our suggestion—I believe it was simultaneously made by the Government of Turkey-—to Her Majesty's Government to interfere alone individually in consequence of the previous failure. But of course we were not ignorant of what had been going on in Constantinople; we were not ignorant of the change of temper there, and we had the opportunity of considering, long before the absolute diplomatic act occurred, what was the course we ought to recommend. The noble Earl wishes to know whether we refused the first appeal to the Porte, and whether we were in the majority or minority of the signataries who on that occasion expressed their opinion. Well, my Lords, the Papers which have been laid on the Table will give the noble Earl all the information he desires on that point; but, speaking generally, with reference to the step taken by Her Majesty's Government simultaneously with the second application of the Porte, I think I can recollect that every signitary to the Treaty of Paris had expressed assent, and, I believe, on the direct appeal and application of Her Majesty's Government. Therefore the noble Earl must know by our forwarding that appeal and knowing the temper in which it was accepted, we showed ourselves hopeful that it would be successful. We should have been very happy if it had been agreed by all the other Powers to act in concert to effect that object. The noble Earl therefore cannot be surprised that, when the first opportunity had failed, and we thought there was still a chance of a more favourable result, we should endeavour to act in perfect conformity with what we had done before, and in conformity with the language of the Queen's Speech on the Prorogation of Parliament. We accordingly did intimate to the Emperor of Russia that Turkey was anxious for peace, and thus opened communications
  30
  between the two Powers on that point. I think the noble Earl must agree that this was a natural, a Constitutional, and a beneficial act. The noble Earl asked —"Why, if you had made up your minds that Parliament should be called together to consider urgent affairs, did you not call it sooner? You waited a month." It was not exactly a month, but I will not quarrel about a few days' error in the calculation of the noble Earl. But the noble Earl must know that you cannot call Parliament together at the will of a Minister at 24 hours' notice. You must call it together when there will be a fair chance of an adequate attendance in both Houses. At that period of the year Members are much scattered in different countries, and have many peculiar engagements which it is necessary to fulfil. The whole economy and life of the country are disturbed by the summoning of Parliament at an unusual period; and, besides, Christmas —when hallowed interests and associations must be attended to—formed part of the month. I think, therefore, if the noble Earl had been himself acting under similar circumstances, he would have considered what would be the most convenient period for Parliament to meet, and would have agreed with us and taken the same course. If he felt it to be wise and expedient to assemble Parliament, he would also feel it wise and expedient that Parliament should be assembled under circumstances which afford the least inconvenience to its Members, and which give fair assurance that both Houses shall be adequately represented when matters of State import and urgency are thus to be brought forward.
  Well, my Lords, then the noble Earl said he challenged again the consistency of the policy of the Government; and really, what with reading extracts from newspapers, or referring to newspapers as authorities—
  EARL GRANVILLE: I did not read extracts.
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: I beg the noble Earl's pardon—some of his expressions seemed to be borrowed from those lucubrations to which he referred, but by constantly harping on newspapers he has certainly made out a very strong case. If all the extreme Liberal organs which—because upon

  31
  this question they do not agree with the noble Earl—are dubbed conveniently Conservative journals, and other authorities of that kind, are to be marshalled as authentic and documentary evidence that the English Government has adopted a particular policy, he can have no difficulty in proving his case, or, indeed, any case.
  My Lords, I did not expect to hear again to-night of the Andrassy Note or the Berlin Memorandum. I thought that that part of the controversy had terminated, as I showed it ought, in the last Session of Parliament. The policy of the Government might have been erroneous, might have been infirm; but at any rate I think I may say it was not a vacillating policy. Whatever our policy may have been, it was open to the challenge of the noble Earl and his Friends. If we did wrong in accepting the Andrassy Note, or in rejecting the Berlin Memorandum, why did not the noble Earl and his Friends in the other House of Parliament challenge our policy, and take the opinion of Parliament upon the question? We have a right to infer that so far as our policy is concerned up to the end of last Session, that policy was accepted and sanctioned by the noble Earl and his Friends. I say again, that our policy may be erroneous or may be feeble. Those are fair issues for Parliamentary discussion. Bring forward your Motions; argue upon those issues, and we will fairly meet you, and let the Houses of Parliament and the country decide upon the question. But you have no right to assume that ours is a vacillating policy unless you can produce facts to establish such a statement. You cannot—you have no right—to make such an accusation depend merely on surmise and innuendo and anonymous communications. Why, the noble Earl knows very well that there is not the slightest evidence that there has ever been any difference between my opinions and those of my Colleagues whom he has quoted with approbation and sympathy. I say that from the very first there never has been any hesitation by Her Majesty's Government as to the course of policy which they would pursue with regard to these great occurrences taking place in Eastern Europe. Our policy was not a hasty policy. It was not dependent merely on the Russians crossing
  32
  the Pruth, or because some occurrences suddenly brought about a state of affairs which might not have been anticipated. Long before the war commenced—long before my noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury) attended the Conference at Constantinople, we had foreseen the possibility of the great struggle occurring. We had to consider what was the duty of English statesmen and what was the character of those British interests which might be affected by such a war, and what was the course we ought to pursue. We came, after long deliberation, to the conclusion that it was for the interests of this country to observe in that war a neutrality. In arriving at that conclusion it was not merely the value of the fortress of Kars or of the port of Batoum that we alone considered. We had to take a large view of the then existing circumstances —we had to consider the policy and the condition of many other countries; and we arrived at the unanimous decision— not a hasty one, but a unanimous decision—that it was our duty to observe a policy of neutrality in case of war between Russia and the Ottoman Empire. Well, I will say that from that policy we have never swerved. And I want to know what is the evidence that the noble Earl can bring forward that can fix upon any Members of Her Majesty's Government that we ever hesitated in observing that policy? Now, your Lordships will agree that if our policy was vacillating—if it was ambiguous, if it was deserving of suspicion, the noble Earl and his Friends had their legitimate and Constitutional opportunity of bringing these circumstances under the consideration of Parliament. They did not do so, and therefore we have a right to assume, if it were only for the convenience of debate and to promote the expeditious conduct of Public Business, that, having such an opportunity and not only losing it, but forfeiting it —willingly forfeiting it—the noble Earl and his Friends could not impute any misconduct on that account—at least until after the Prorogation of Parliament. Well, what happened? Nearly the last day—nearly the last hour before the Prorogation—though I do not like extracts, I will read to your Lordships a short extract of what I said on that occasion. It was on the Motion, afterwards withdrawn, of a noble Earl (the

  33
  Earl of Feversham) upon the subject of the war. It was the opinion of the noble Earl that we should take some active interference in the war. I find that I used these words—the extract is from the authentic source, and it is literally correct. I said that—
  "With regard to our policy I will only say that having been clearly expressed it has bee consistently maintained. Without entering into an unnecessary discussion I may remind your Lordships that when this cruel and destructive war began Her Majesty's Government announced that they would adopt a policy of strict, but conditional, neutrality. The condition was that the interests of the country should not be imperilled."
  And subsequently I said—
  "A communication was made to the Russian Government which more precisely defined what, in our opinion, 'British interests' were held to consist of; and to this communication Her Majesty's Government received a reply which I think I am authorized in describing as conciliatory and friendly. The Government have no reason to doubt that Russia will in an honourable manner observe the conditions which were the subject of that correspondence; but, however that may be, in any case the maintenance of those conditions is the policy of Her Majesty's Government."—[3 Hansard, ccxxxvi. 668.]
  Now, I want to know what right has the noble Earl to assume that I have used expressions on the subject of the policy of the Government which are contrary to that statement, which was made while he was sitting facing me.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I used no such expressions as the noble Earl has attributed to me.
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: No —you did not use words precisely to that effect, but you used a great many words which, when added up, amounted to a sum which conveyed to the House a meaning almost exactly the same.
  My Lords, the noble Earl went out of his way to make a further allusion to another statement with respect to our policy which I made in the course of the year. Now, I must say I am free from the imputation during the last six months of appealing to my countrymen in any extraordinary manner. I conceive that one of the greatest charms of life is not to make speeches and write letters. I did not write a single letter on public affairs during the last six months, and I only made one speech upon politics, and that upon an occasion which by the custom of the country may be called a Con-
  34
  stitutional occasion. I did not press myself forward. It was an assembly I was bound by the courtesy of public life to attend, and, attending, I was bound to express the opinion of Her Majesty's Government on public affairs. What did I then say? The noble Earl says that speech raised agitation in the country. I distinctly remember—not having that speech here—that on that occasion I spoke in the presence of all my Colleagues, and that I said that the policy of Her Majesty's Government remained as it had been from the first, that it was completely unchanged, that it was a policy of conditional neutrality; from that policy we had never swerved, and that nothing could induce us, so far as we could see, to swerve. All my Colleagues were present and have entirely agreed to that declaration. That was the only time I opened my lips during the last six months on the state of public affairs until I address your Lordships to-night. I am taunted with the fact that the Russian Ambassador did not attend at the Guildhall, and that other Ambassadors also lost their dinners —almost the cookery of the civic festival was criticized. I believe some persons have made that one of the grounds of the charges against the conduct and policy of Her Majesty's Government. Now, my Lords, let me say one word upon a point on which the noble Earl has dwelt much, and that is "conditional neutrality"—a neutrality conditional upon British interests being regarded and maintained. The noble Earl says, quoting a very felicitous remark of my noble Friend the Secretary of State (the Earl of Derby), whose absence we deplore on this occasion, that the greatest of British interests is peace. Well, that was a felicitous expression, but it was an expression of rhetoric; but the noble Earl takes it to be a statistical fact, as if he found it in a Blue Book. The noble Earl thereon says that if peace is a British interest, it is also a European interest—it is an Austrian interest, it is an Italian interest, it is a French interest—in short, it is a universal interest. But the noble Earl rode off upon a mere trick of rhetoric, because we know very well when we talk of "British interests" we mean material British interests—interests of that character which are sources of the wealth or securities for the strength of the

  35
  country. We do not want to be informed that the cardinal virtues are British interests. We possess and endeavour to exercise them, but they have not that peculiar character which the British interests that we refer to possess. Then we are told that it is a contracted and selfish view of affairs to suppose our interests peculiar to this country, or, if they are peculiar, that we ought to be silent on the subject, and put them away in a corner. All I can say is, that if our conduct in this subject in defining what this country is interested in brings the imputation of selfishness, selfishness cannot be justly imputed to England alone. I do not know that there is any other country that has not very frankly declared that it has acted, and is acting, on the same principle. I do not know whether it will be on the Table to-night; but it will be seen in a few days by the noble Earl that, in a document which I am authorized to quote, there is a definition by an eminent statesman of what the position of Austria is at this moment. I read yesterday with great interest Count Andrassy's description of the situation of Austria. He says—
  "The situation of Austria is a position of conditional neutrality, and our business is to watch over Austrian interests."
  It does not follow, however, that these expressions, which, according to the noble Earl, we first introduced into diplomatic language, have been very unsuccessful, for they have been adopted in a marked manner by a Power which is deeply concerned in these transactions. Germany, also, in her language, has used expressions which are no more free from selfishness than the expressions used by the English Government. When Prince Bismarck says that not the blood of a single Pomeranian peasant shall be shed in this war, do the noble Earl and his Friends sympathize with the expression? You may admire it; but you cannot say it is one entirely free from a sentiment of selfishness. What is the case with regard to France? France deplores what is taking place in the East—France feels that it would be agreeable to her to exercise herself an influence in the settlement of these vast questions; but she says that such is her position at present that she really can think only of herself, and cannot interfere. Well, these are all cases in
  36
  which, I think, the noble Earl will find that selfishness which he imputes to the language of Her Majesty's Government.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I beg pardon for interrupting the noble Earl; but I have never used any word or words imputing selfishness.
  THE EARL OF BEACONSEIELD: No; you only deplored the contracted sense in which we conceived and expressed our policy and the object which we wish to secure. But your Lordships can judge what was the value of the noble Earl's observations if they did not involve this charge of selfishness.
  My Lords, the noble Earl has made some remarks upon the grant which he contemplates from Her Majesty's Speech we are going to ask Parliament to supply Her Majesty with. Parliament being called together at a moment somewhat unexpected, and obviously in order to appeal to it for its support, the noble Earl seemed to argue that we were bound to describe the character of the military operations which might occur to justify this urgent appeal. Well, my Lords, I must decline to enter into any controversies of that kind. I think it is enough for us to say that Her Majesty's Government, pursuing the same policy which they have pursued from the first, and having brought about the commencement of negotiations which, I trust, may be successful in their result, but which may not be successful—that they have, in these circumstances, a ground upon which they can fairly appeal to Parliament and say—"Our policy is before you; it has been before you; we have not swerved from it in the slightest degree; but it is still our unshaken opinion that there are British interests which concern deeply the welfare of this country—interests which are sources of its wealth and securities for its strength, and which may be endangered if this contest goes on; and if you approve our policy, if you approve of a policy of neutrality which shall be conditional upon guarding those interests, we appeal to you with confidence that you will at least give us the means by which that guardianship may be upheld." I hope that in what I am about to refer to I do not misrepresent the noble Earl, who is always accusing me of misrepresenting him, when I say that the noble Earl

  37
  deplored the state of isolation in which Her Majesty's Government has, by their management of affairs, placed this country. Well, that, my Lords, is a very serious charge, and no doubt if it were a true one it would be more than a serious charge for us; it would be a great injury to the country. But I think that on such a subject we are bound to examine and scrutinize with great impartiality before we adopt a conclusion so adverse not only to the abilities and the influence of Her Majesty's Government, but which, if true, would be injurious to Her Majesty's realm. I do not see, I confess, at the best that the noble Earl—or those who share with the noble Earl his opinions on the subject of isolation—I do not see that he has on this subject of isolation in any way stated facts to establish his opinion. The noble Earl, when he touched upon this subject, went back again to that unfortunate Berlin Memorandum. It appears that the rejection of the Berlin Memorandum was the commencement and the operative cause of our isolation. Now, in the first place, never wishing to have to mention the Berlin Memorandum again, I will say that that Memorandum was a document which ceased to exist because England refused to sanction it. That does not look like isolation or want of influence. Well, then, if there be any act which can prove national concert—if there be any arrangement in the world which can demonstrate national concert clearly and completely—surely it is a Conference. And what happens? Why, the very Power which you say has become isolated in consequence of its refusing to sanction the Berlin Memorandum is the Power that not only joins a Conference of the Great Powers, but proposes that Conference Is that a want of influence? Is that isolation? Well, if you really take a general view of what has occurred in all these transactions, the only Power that has done anything—and it has done much—has been England—England, which you say is so isolated; England, whose conduct defeated the Berlin Memorandum; England, whose suggestion called into existence the Conference. I should like to know whose influence it was that obtained the armistice for Servia? It was isolated England. It was this country in a state of isolation which effected that which could not
  38
  be otherwise effected. And let me also ask you this—which is the Power which at this moment has secured the commencement of a hope for peace to Europe? Why, mighty Germany and anxious Austria, and France husbanding her resources, and the other Great Powers, have all declined, when the Porte appealed to them, to interfere in a task then beset with difficulties, and which might be considered, judging from their language, as hopeless. Yet isolated England did interfere, and the moment she interfered we had the commencement of these negotiations. No doubt the negotiations are most difficult—probably more difficult negotiations never were commenced; but they are real negotiations, which I have expressed my more than hope may lead, after, no doubt, surmounting many obstacles, to a suspension of this terrible conflict. But whether they are successful or not, what is the Power that has originated them? What Power had fanned the flame of hope, even when it was expiring, and at this moment has brought about a state of affairs which engages the thoughts of all the European Cabinets? Why, it was the Power which you say is isolated. The fact is there are two Powers which have withdrawn from the European concert. Those Powers are Russia and Turkey. Turkey was recognized as belonging to the European concert. Turkey, by her rash and reckless conduct, repudiated her position and lost it. Then Russia, which, in my opinion, was bound in every way by the most solemn Treaties to take no action without first conferring with the signataries of the Treaty of Paris, came forward, and she also quitted the European concert. England never quitted the European concert. It is not England that is isolated—no, my Lords, that is not our position; and in the attack which the noble Earl has made he has represented and re-echoed the attacks which have been made elsewhere —partly, no doubt, from ignorance, partly, no doubt, from thoughtlessness; but in a great degree by means of mechanical agitation. The noble Earl who represents this opinion has, in my mind, completely failed in the charge which he wishes to establish against Her Majesty's Government. I will, however, make this remark, as the subject of isolation has been brought forward. There

  39
  are two kinds of isolation. There is an isolation that comes from decay, that comes from infirmity, that is a sign of impending insignificance—and all those symptoms which denote a falling or an expiring State. But there is also an isolation for a State which may arise from qualities very different—from self-confidence, from extreme energy, from abounding resources, and, above all, from the inspiration of a great cause. This country has before this been isolated. In the early years of this century it was isolated; but how and why was it isolated? It was isolated at the commencement of this century because among the craven communities of Europe it alone asserted and vindicated the cause of national independence. It was a great cause which your forefathers then maintained; and however depressed trade may be, whatever may be the circumstances brought forward to enervate the national mind—whatever may be the considerations introduced to prevent you from acting as your forefathers then acted—it may be your duty to follow in their footsteps. If that cause were again at stake, if there were a Power that threatened the peace of the world with a predominance fatal to public liberty and national independence, I feel confident that your Lordships would not be afraid of the charge of being isolated if you stood alone in maintaining such a cause and in fighting for such precious interests. My Lords, I rose after the noble Earl (Earl Granville) to vindicate the Government of which I am a Member from the charges which I think are unfounded. I do not think that the noble Earl has proved that in calling Parliament together we took a step which was unwise or unnecessary. I do not think the noble Earl has proved that the policy of the Government with regard to affairs in Eastern Europe has over been inconsistent from that which we have declared again and again. It has never swerved from our original conception and determination as to the course we ought to pursue. Nor do I think that the noble Earl has been successful in his sneers against British interests. I believe that this country thoroughly understands what are British interests, and that it will support the Government of the day if they find it
  40
  necessary to take measures to secure those interests. I do not think the noble Earl has at all successfully established his position that this country is in a state of isolation. It is in a state of which it has no need to be ashamed. I believe that in the councils of Europe the influence of this country is felt, and greatly felt. May God grant that in the negotiations which are now proceeding that influence may increase! If it does increase, I will say on the part of the Government—and divided in our councils though they are said to be—I feel that lam expressing their unanimous opinion, their unanimous sentiment—that that influence will be exercised for the greatest interests of humanity. It will be exercised for the termination of these hostilities; it will be exercised in every way for the procuring of a peace which will be stable and enduring. But if we are called upon to vindicate our rights and to defend the interests of this country; if our present hopes and prospects are baffled; if there be circumstances which demand that we should appeal to Parliament again and again for means to vindicate the honour of the realm and to preserve and maintain the interests of the Empire, I am sure that Her Majesty's Government will never hesitate to take that course.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: My Lords, I listened with great delight to the ringing cheers with which noble Lords opposite greeted the conclusion of the speech of the Prime Minister—not only because that brilliant display of imagination—that corruscation of fireworks— deserved some tribute from them, but for another reason. Your Lordships' House is generally represented as being rather a "still pool," unruffled by the winds of passion, and through which even the strong currents of political feeling are seldom seen to run. But, my Lords, for my own part I have always held that if there were a question raised concerning the interests and honour of England, we would see that the House of Lords is an Assembly which can be deeply moved. My Lords, we admit on this side of the House that we are met together upon an occasion which concerns deeply, and which may concern more deeply, the honour and interests of England. We do not blame the Government—we are rather grateful to them—for having assembled Parlia-

  41
  ment in this great crisis in our national history and in the history of Europe, and for having put into the mouth of the Queen words to the effect that she desired to have its counsel and advice at the present great juncture. I confess I listened to the speech of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Beaconsfield) with great disappointment. It was very able—it was very brilliant—but I think I am not wrong in saying it was nothing to the purpose. It scorned to have boon intended by him as a reply to some anticipated bitter, narrow-minded, personal attack upon the Government from my noble Friend behind me (Earl Granville), and he could not change the programme of his speech to suit the observations which were really made. My noble Friend behind mo, with that suavity of manner and acuteness of intellect which characterize him, said a few things, but surely in no offensive manner, surely not in any aggrieved Party spirit, indicating that he and his Friends had not perfect confidence in the consistency of the Government. And what did the noble Earl do? He spent half an hour in answering accusations which were never made. He talked with contempt of the Press; but it was to the Press he was looking when he made that speech; and it was from the Press that he had gathered the charges he answered, and not from the speech of the noble Earl (Earl Granville), which had been delivered, in fact, for the purpose of affording the Government an opportunity of making those statements upon great questions of public policy which your Lordships have a right to expect when we are called together at a great crisis in the history of Europe. We expected to hear from the Prime Minister some definite declaration of what he proposed to do. But the Prime Minister has only filled our ears with the east wind. He has answered imaginary attacks, and told us nothing. The noble Earl's principal answer was directed to the accusation of disunion in the Cabinet. Now, I have had some experience of stories of disunion in Cabinets, and know what they are worth generally. I never believe them. But the stories of disunion in the present Cabinet are not of the usual kind. They are founded—and not unfairly founded— upon the words of Ministers themselves and the language of their own supporters
  42
  in the journals which are in their interest. [A noble LORD: What journals?] Oh! it is all very well to talk with such supreme contempt of the Public Press. Have we no relations with the Public Press? Are the Editors of newspapers never to be found in the antechambers of Ministers? How comes it that the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) never opens his mouth upon the Eastern Question but he is violently abused by the Conservative Press which is understood to represent the sentiments of other Members of the Government? I wonder how the noble Marquess likes the way in which he was treated by the Conservative Press when he was absent at Constantinople. ["Name!"] Name? I name all the Ministerial journals — every one of them. Foremost among them is The Daily Telegraph; then come The Morning Post, The Standard, and others. Will noble Lords deny that The Morning Post is a Conservative paper, or that The Standard is a Conservative paper? There are others which, although not supporters of the Government on its general policy, support it on the Eastern Question. And I say this—that not a word falls from the noble Marquess but which is vehemently attacked by the Conservative Press. I am almost ashamed of having boon led into these observations, but I have been led into them by the extraordinary speech which the noble Earl at the head of the Government has just delivered. If there have been rumours of disunion in the Cabinet, the Government themselves are responsible for them. Even their recent speeches lead to this. I will remind your Lordships of two Ministerial speeches which have recently been delivered. The first is that of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War at Edinburgh, who talked about drums and fifes and all sorts of things in a most warlike tone; the other was by the noble Lord the Postmaster General (Lord John Manners), who made warlike allusions to "the laurel of unquestioned victory being intertwined with the lily of lasting peace." When your Lordships come to contrast these speeches with the speeches of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (the Earl of Derby), and the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Carnarvon), surely it will not be denied that

  43
  a very material difference of tone is observable. But, my Lords, even had the noble Earl not spoken to-night I should have been compelled to offer some words, if not of protest, at least of explanation to the House before assenting to the Address in answer to the Speech from the Throne. I do not intend to enter into the merits of the Eastern Question. But the Queen's Speech dwells so much upon the despatch of May 6, by the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby), defining what the Government mean by "British interests," that really the two documents have to be taken together—we cannot understand the Speech without referring to the despatch. But that despatch has never been criticized in this House. Now, the Government are fairly entitled to say that the despatch having been laid on the Table of the House during last Session, and no opposition having been expressed to it, we are committed to a general approval of its terms. If it is understood that the approval is general and nothing more, I have no objection to that interpretation of our conduct. But if we are called together to be consulted by the Crown, it is well that we should be perfectly open and candid. I will now say something, therefore, about the Government definition of "British interests." It is very easy to invent vague terms of this kind, in which all men concur, though in reality they may be divided by the most essential differences of opinion. I do not say that this is the case here, but I will say there is considerable danger of it. There are four things in this definition of "British interests," of which we have heard so much from the noble Earl opposite, in which, with some explanation, we may all cordially concur. Among the points in this despatch which are declared to touch British interests and honour, there is no mention made of "the integrity and independence of the Turkish Empire." The absence of those terms is one of the most important features in this despatch, and in the sentiment which it implies I do most cordially concur. There is not one word of a determination to uphold the integrity and independence of the Turkish Empire; and I rejoice at it—because if the Government have made up their minds to support the integrity of the Turkish Empire as it
  44
  is conceived and provided for in the Treaties of 1856, they must have inserted it in that despatch. The absence of such a statement is, therefore, a most significant and a most satisfactory feature in respect of the policy of the Government. I now turn to the Suez Canal. That question was treated slightly by my noble Friend who moved the Address (the Earl of Warncliffe), because he said the Canal was in no clangor. I do not mean to dwell upon this subject, but I wish to say that no one is more heartily with the Government than I am in declaring broadly that England never will permit, at any cost, that any Power in Europe shall interfere with her direct access to India. I have no sympathy with the language of those who talk with bated breath about our conquests in India. We are not ashamed of our conquests in India. We do not require that any excuses should be made for the men who made those conquests. We are proud of the men who conquered India for us, and we are proud of the great military and civil services by which that Empire has been so successfully governed. There is no sacrifice which this country will not make for the maintenance of our dominion in India, because it concerns our national pride and our honour—and also, I think I may say, because of the conviction which we may justly entertain—which I hold in the strongest manner—that the conquest of inferior by superior races is not an evil to the world—on the contrary, it is one of the great causes and sources of the progress of the human race—a cause and a source of progress which has been conspicuous in times past, and which will continue until the whole world is governed by civilized nations. I next come to an important point upon which your Lordships have derived no information from the noble Earl opposite. I refer to the question of the Straits. The noble Earl talked of calling Parliament together to take counsel of it, but he has given us no advice. Of course the noble Earl as the Prime Minister of the Government must observe a certain reserve, but we have been called together to vote perhaps large sums to increase our Naval and Military Forces. I think the Prime Minister might have given us some indication of his opinion with respect to this point—but all the information we have

  45
  in regard to the question of the Dardanelles is contained in the despatch of the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby), who states that—
  "The existing arrangements made under European sanction which regulate the navigation of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles appear to us wise and salutary, and there would be in their judgment serious objection to the alteration in any material particular."
  I am bound to say I do not concur in the literal interpretation of that paragraph. If it is meant that the question of the Straits is a European Question, and that we will not submit to any settlement in which our opinion is not consulted, then I concur; but if it means that the present rule which has boon established with regard to ships of war is one that should not be altered, I do not concur. The present rule in respect to the passage of ships of war through the Dardanelles is not a rule in favour of Europe, but in favour of Turkey. It is a rule established in the interest of the independence of Turkey and not for the interest of Europe generally —and what I want to point out is this— that the moment Turkey ceases to be an independent Power the value of that rule, whatever it may be, to the rest of Europe ceases—or if Turkey should be so weakened by the war as to became practically a vassal State, and under the dominion of Russia, then I am not pre-pared to affirm that the present rule is one which it is for our interests to maintain. On the contrary, I shall be prepared to maintain that a material alteration will be required. But surely it cannot be that it is on account of this Dardanelles Question that we are going to increase the Estimates? Russia has frankly admitted that this is a European Question, and that no permanent settlement could be made without the question being submitted to Europe. I now come to the third point—Constantinople. With regard to that city, Lord Derby's words in the despatch of May are these—
  "That the vast importance of Constantinople, whether in a military, political, or commercial point of view, is too well understood to require explanation; it is therefore simply necessary to point out that Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to witness with indifference the passing into other hands than those of its present possessors a capital holding so commanding a position."
  46
  What do these words moan? Do they mean that however much the Turks may resist the arms of Russia, Russia is to be precluded taking possession of Constantinople as a military and temporary measure, or do they mean that the ultimate possession of Constantinople is a European Question? If the latter, I heartily concur; if the former, a grave question arises in respect of the policy of the British Government. It is most inexpedient that the question whether we should enter into a war, solitary and isolated, should be placed in the hands of Turkish Pashas — nothing can be more injurious to the honour and interest of England; but that will infallibly be the result if we make the military occupation of Constantinople a question of peace or war. When we talk of Constantinople "remaining in the hands of its present possessors," we had better recognize the fact that no part of European Turkey will long remain in the hands of its present possessors, if by that description we mean the present governing Power. The noble Mover of the Address gave us an abstract of the state of feeling of the people of this country on the Eastern Question—an abstract which, though inadequate and imperfect, was by no moans unfair. In that abstract he admitted the general detestation of the ruling classes of Turkey. But it is these classes that constitute the Turkish Government; and is it for our interests and honour that we should say that Constantinople or any territory should remain in their hands? On the contrary, it is directly in the teeth of them. Therefore, I must make a grave exception in regard to both Constantinople and the Dardanelles in agreeing to the Address in reply to the Speech.
  My noble Friend (Earl Granville) did not find fault with the Government for calling Parliament together—the responsibility for that must rest upon the Government; but it cannot but be feared that, at the moment when negotiations have begun, the summoning of Parliament may have the effect of exciting the Turks to offer increased resistance, in the hope that they may obtain aid from England. That most able and most venerable man (Viscount Stratford de Redcliffe), whose knowledge of the Turk is founded on personal observation extending over a period of more than 60

  47
  years, in his letter in The Times of this morning, says that oven the general desire for peace is likely to have a most unfavourable effect upon the Turkish Government, ready as they are to catch at any, even the most slender hope of obtaining assistance or encouragement from without. Depend upon it, the summoning of Parliament— unless the Government have a very definite programme, and know very well what they are about—and the excited speech from the head of the Government which we have heard tonight—talking about "national independence"—will have put a spoke in the way of peace. Depend upon it, the Prime Minister's language will be so interpreted; and you have made it extremely probable that the Grand Duke Nicholas will find the Turkish Pashas much more difficult to deal with on account of the observations made by the noble Earl tonight. It is a great misfortune to Europe and the world that this matter has been taken into the sole hands of Russia—that she has been almost compelled to take up the sword alone in the cause of the subject populations of Turkey. I agree with an opinion expressed at the time of the Crimean War—that whilst in Asia Russia is decidedly a civilizing Power, in Europe we have nothing to expect from her in the way of civilization. We can expect nothing from Russia with one exception—we owe to Russia nothing but her sword; and whose fault was it that that sword was drawn? I maintain—as I did last year —that the war might have been prevented by firmness on the part of Hoi-Majesty's Government; but, by deliberately sacrificing the European concert, you made this war a necessity to Russia. The noble Earl (the Earl of Beaconsfield) has spoken much in answer to some fancied accusations of the noble Earl (Earl Granville) behind me. He has answered very keenly on the question of isolation. It is true my noble Friend did put some pertinent questions which the noble Earl has taken care not to answer. My noble Friend asked what you know as to the agreement between the three Imperial Powers. Do you know anything? I strongly suspect you do not. As to the Government preventing or breaking up the European concert, you ask us how we prove it. It has been proved over and
  48
  over again. But what is the use of our proving what we can take out of your own mouths? Do not you know the terms of the despatch in which the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) refused the Berlin Memorandum? I apologize to the noble Earl for mentioning that document again; but when you tell us in loud and triumphant tones you are not isolated, it is necessary to recall the facts. The noble Earl (the Earl of Derby), in that despatch, said—
  "I have to point out to your Excellency that Her Majesty's Government have, since the out-break of the insurrection in Bosnia and the Horzegovina, deprecated the diplomatic intervention of other Powers in the affairs of the Ottoman Empire."
  But this diplomatic interference was the sole object of the European concert. You deny vacillation; but, again, in this matter you went round like a whirlwind. You instructed the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), and he did interfere most vehemently in Turkey's affairs. You did it, too, with throats of violence. It is very true that the violence was not to come from you; but you traded on threats of the coercion of Russia, and you warned Turkey that she must expect no assistance from you. I say the result of the conduct of the Government from beginning to end has been the absolute isolation of England. You have not a single Ally at this moment in Europe that you can rely on for seconding your policy, so far as we know. I shall be delighted if the Papers placed on the Table to-night show that we are in hearty accord with the other Powers; but I should accept it as a new and most unexpected revelation. A great deal has been said about the motives of Russia. I apprehend the motives of Russia are very much like the motives of other people—very mixed motives; but if the motives of Russia are purely selfish, they, at least, cannot be worse than the motives which you have yourselves avowed. What have we hoard to-night? An elaborate defence of selfish motives from the noble Earl at the head of the Government. He not only said it was British interests we cared for, but he went further, and put the doctrine in a still grosser form; he spoke of material interests, money interests, the interests of commerce and wealth; but as to moral interests, we had nothing to do with them. I appeal to noble Lords opposite to say

  49
  what they would think and feel if Russia wore to avow such sentiments? Let us suppose that there should be a great public dinner at St. Petersburg, given by the Lord Mayor—if there is one—and Prince Gortchakoff to have attended and declared that Russia would look after Russian interests and no other—meaning her material interests; what would be said here by the Press of this country and by the Members of the Government? I will not describe what would be said; but all that, in such a case, would be said of Russia ought to be said of you—and you deserve it, for a baser doctrine I have never heard maintained in Parliament than has been laid down by the Prime Minister—that we ought to look only to our own selfish and material interests, and to nothing else—as if there were no moral interests concerned, or as if we had nothing to do with it. The noble Earl the Mover of the Address implied that there was a suspicion of Russia—
  THE EARL OF WHARNCLIFFE: I said there was some suspicion as to the disinterestedness of the Russian motives.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: The noble Earl implied suspicion of Russia. It is no use concealing it—everyone has it more or less. The main motive of Russia in undertaking the war was the impulse of the movement on the part of the population which even the Government of Russia could not suppress—the motive of sympathy with their co-religionists in the East of Europe. That was a very natural movement—taking mankind as they are—a most powerful motive. Why go out of your way to discover others? The desire to deliver their co-religionists who were suffering under the most debasing tyranny was one of the most powerful sentiments, and that was the main motive of Russia to this war. Placed as Russia was, they could not, like Her Majesty's Ministers, put off the consideration of the condition of the subject populations of Turkey for an indefinite period, waiting for the hopeless reform of that most execrable Government. I say that Russia, under the circumstances, was justified in her action, and if at this moment there be a prospect of freedom to the populations of the Provinces of Turkey, it will be due to that feeling on the part of Russia, which— call it sentimental, humanitarian, illogical—what you will—has been never-
  50
  theless one of the most powerful motive forces in the history of the world. But, then, I hear it said that the freedom of nations ought never to be bought by foreign interference. My Lords, is this forgetfulness, or is it hypocrisy? Do we not remember our own case? Do we not remember that day when one of our harbours was filled with the ships of Holland; and a foreign deliverer landed on the shores of England? Now, with regard to what should be done in the future. If I thought my humble advice would induce Her Majesty's Government to alter their course in any respect, I should implore them to do this—to recognize facts and to act upon them. Do not lot them deceive themselves, and talk nonsense about national independence as applied to Turkey. Turkey as an independent Power is gone—is gone never to recover. And why is Turkey gone? Because she deserved to die. I am not ashamed to own humanitarian sentiments. I think the welfare of several millions of men is a British interest. As one of the survivors of the Cabinet that waged the Crimean War, I will never cease to witness in this House that we have undertaken obligations to the subject populations of Turkey which we can never repudiate. We have bound ourselves to take some charge of their interests in the extreme circumstances that have arisen with regard to the Government of Turkey. If we believe in nothing else, let us at least believe in that new gospel—the doctrine of Darwin in the survival of the fittest— in that process, beneficent in its ultimate results, but often terrible in its operation, by which nature eliminates everything which is too bad to live. We cannot prevent its destruction. Let us not attempt to prop up the phantom of the Turkish Empire; rather let us devise some scheme for the just government of its subject populations. Look at the evidence before you—look at Paper No. 17 of last Session. Solong ago as l854, Sir Fen-wick Williams, who so gallantly defended Kars, told us that he believed no country in the world had suffered so much as Armenia had suffered from the tyranny of Turkey. The country was desolate, villages were going into ruin, and cultivation was given up. A similar account was given by Consul Taylor and Consul Zohrab at a much more recent date. The Queen's Speech refers to the war

  51
  which is now devastating the East of Europe; but there are other devastating causes in operation. It was said—
  "Peace hath her victories
  No less renowned than war;"
  but of Turkey, and in Turkey, it may be said, Peace has her horrors yet more dread than war. That is the state of the great provinces of Epirus and Thessaly. I therefore trust that the Emperor of Russia will not agree to any terms, whatever the English Government may say, which do not secure for all the subject populations of Turkey a sufficient degree of autonomy or self-government to protect them against the systematic misrule of Turkey. I fully sympathize with the feelings of horror to which this war has given rise. Seldom in the history of the world has there been a war more cruel or devastating. But why has it been worse than other wars? Because of the barbarism of the Government with which Russia is fighting and the barbarism of the population under that Government. A savage Government will always succeed in making a savage people. Another reason is this—that in this war you have the knowledge and the tools of the most advanced civilization wielded by the hands of barbarians. These are the causes of the special horrors of this war. It is all very well to say that the horrors of this war are a great deal worse than the bad government of the Turks, I have hoard that said over and over again. But that remark applies to all wars that have ever been waged in the history of the world. The horrors of war are, so to speak, a congestion of horrors—they are always more horrible and striking to the imagination than the permanent miseries of bad government. But nevertheless the horrors of war are very often the only means of shaking off bad government. Alas! my Lords, that the birth of freedom should so often be a baptism of blood and fire; but so it has been always in the past, and so it will be in time to come. There is only one thing I would beg of the Government, and that is—that they will use all their influence that such a war shall never be repeated, and that can only be done by putting an end to the misgovernment of those "ruling classes" in Turkey, who have been denounced by the Mover of the Address.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, if the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) complains that the speech of my noble Friend behind me was addressed to observations which had not been made, I will retort by saying that the noble Duke's arguments and taunts wore addressed to principles which had never been laid down by my noble Friend. The noble Duke expended a good deal of elocquence in showing that it was not our business to maintain the national independence and integrity of Turkey. Not one word about the independence and integrity of Turkey crossed the lips of my noble Friend. The noble Duke commenced his speech by showing that the observations of my noble Friend were directed against matters on which the noble Earl (Earl Granville) had laid no stress, and which had not been made the subjects of attack upon the Government, and he proceeded to specify the two points of the disunion of the Cabinet and the isolation of England. Pursued, however, by a demon which compelled him to contradict his own assertions, he immediately, at great length and with great eloquence, dilated on the proof which he thought had been shown of that disunion and that isolation. On these points I will not follow the noble Duke; I will merely repeat what my noble Friend behind me has said—that the Government have not been isolated, and that we are not isolated now. I suppose my noble Friend will expect me to present him with a neat précis of the negotiations which may have passed between the Court of London and ail the other Courts, in the world. But I must entirely decline to enter upon such a task. There are in other countries institutions which I have sometimes envied, and which relieve the Government from the necessity of reticence; and if we had in this country such a thing as a secret Session the Government would have no reason to complain. But we know that every word we utter here goes to every corner of this country and to every Court of Europe, and we would rather submit to the taunts of our political opponents than say a word which could indicate matters which might be injurious to the public service. As to the disunion in the Cabinet, I was anxious to know on what grounds that charge rested, and as far as I could see there were only two — one was that

  53
  Musurus Pasha had praised the Turkish Constitution, whereas I had condemned it; and the other was our old friends the newspapers. No doubt I have seen at work, since we have been in power, some distinguished professors of the art of Opposition. I believe when we were in Opposition we were not indolent and not deficient in ingenuity; but the idea never crossed our brains—I thank my noble Friend for the suggestion, and I may use it at a future time—to impute to the Cabinet of the day that they wrote all the leading articles of the so-called Ministerial papers. It is certainly a most ingenious device—that of putting into the mouth of political opponents that which they never said and never intended to say. The beauty of the thing is you cannot disprove it. Nobody knows who wrote those articles; they may all have been written by my noble Friend at the head of the Government; but it would be perfectly impossible, unless we could produce the persons who wrote them, to prove that they were not written by Members of the Cabinet. The noble Duke has been pleased to make considerable use of my name—he has told us that there are several Ministerial papers which make it a duty to abuse me whenever I open my mouth. I submit to my noble Friends whether this discussion of newspaper articles, Ministerial or otherwise, is likely to give credit or decorum to our debates. As for me, my acquaintance with newspapers is not so great that I can say whether The Morning Post abuses mo or not; but if it likes to abuse me I hope it will continue to do so. I am sorry to hear the suggestion of the idea of what is called a "Ministerial paper" from noble Lords opposite. It is an institution which exists in France, but does not exist in this country—where the newspapers are conducted with great ability and take independent views. I believe we have the phenomenon now of two or three extremely Liberal papers which support the Government on this particular Eastern Question. But the idea of representing them as binding the Government of the day is an idea borrowed from our friends in Franco, which I am sure will not improve the character of our deliberations. It has been said that the trade of the country has been fearfully depressed because we have opened Parliament at this particular time. My
  54
  impression is that the depression which has affected the trade of the country has resulted from a combination of causes; but, at all events, Her Majesty's Government are free from the imputation that they have done anything to excite the Turks to resistance. When my noble Friend the noble Duke talks of exciting the Turks, I want him to consider what the effect would be of the discriminating and unsparing policy which he has just announced. The Turks undoubtedly have made bad use of their opportunities. I have little fault to find with the terms of condemnation used by noble Lords opposite towards that Power. I heartily and deeply sympathize with the subject races in the East; but I do differ from the noble Duke in this—I believe that this war has accumulated into nine short months more misery than would result from generations of Turkish government. True it is that war is the only ultimate cure for obstinate misgovernment; but war is righteous or unrighteous according as it is opportune or inopportune; and when there is no Power to direct it to a speedy and successful issue, and when the crimes or vices against which it is directed are not so great as to produce utter paralysis and recklessness, then the remedy is often a hundred times worse than the disease. The noble Duke is not satisfied without driving the Turks from every inch of ground in Europe.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: Not the Turks, but the Turkish Government.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Well, if you hold that end as your ultimate policy you will drive them to absolute desperation. What chance is there of the Turks accepting any peace if they are driven to despair? There is no surer incitement to a race to fight to the last than to tell them that in the resistance of despair lies their only hope of safety—and that is the message conveyed to them by the noble Duke. My Lords, it has frequently been asserted that our opinions have changed. That charge is not founded on fact. Undoubtedly we had a difficult and complicated duty to perform, and this complicated duty arose from the circumstance that England was already a party to Treaties, and that we had in past times pursued a policy of which the maintenance of the Turkish Empire was

  55
  the life and soul. That time had passed. Opinion had changed, and events had proved that the hopes formerly indulged in were not founded upon any basis of fact; and the people of this country and the Government, recognizing the circumstance, were aware that it was no longer their duty to sustain the Turkish Empire by force of arms. Long before this war broke out, and before even the Bulgarian atrocities were committed, Her Majesty's Government had warned the Turkish Empire not to look to them for support. But they were not satisfied with that. They felt that reiterated warnings were necessary before old traditions could be set aside or an ancient policy departed from. Again and again in the Blue Books you will find warnings from the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby), reiterated to the Turkish Ambassador at London, reiterated to the British Ambassador at Constantinople, that the Turks must look for no assistance from England. That warning was conveyed in the strongest terms in the Instructions with which I was furnished when I went to Constantinople, and in the presence of the Plenipotentiaries of Europe I repeated it on the solemn occasion when the negotiations were broken off. That warning was again repeated when the Turks at a moment of extraordinary rashness neutralized and repudiated and stultified the efforts which we had been making with the rest of Europe to pass over this crisis without war. You may repeat insinuations and innuendos, and you may study leading articles until you really believe them to be State papers; but if you examine every word that has been uttered by every individual Minister, I defy you to find one single word which diminishes in the slightest degree the effect of the warnings which were repeatedly given, or which deviates by a single hair's breadth from the policy laid down in the noble Earls despatch. There is no doubt that the very fact that you are compelled to rely upon such uncertain grounds of proof shows how utterly baseless is the accusation which you are always striving to bring against Her Majesty's Government, that they are seeking or have sought to involve this Empire in war in defence of Turkish interests. But, my Lords, although our opinion has been undeviating and our language distinct upon the subject of the Turks, we have not—and this is, I
  56
  take it, the point which makes us differ from our opponents—suffered the figure of the Turk to occupy the whole field of our mental view. Whatever may happen to the Turkish Empire its geographical peculiarities and conditions, and all the political results which flow from thorn will remain the same; and British interests as we have defined them in the noble Earl's despatch must, as well as the Turk, occupy a very considerable position in the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. The duties of humanity I am very far from disputing— indeed, I claim for this Government that we have made the strongest possible exertions to procure good government and peace for the Christian populations of the East—but I am not prepared to accept the new gospel which I understand is preached—that it is our business, for the sake of any populations whatever, to disregard the trusts which the people of this country and our Sovereign have reposed in our hands. The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) spoke a good deal about the motives of the Emperor of Russia. Now, I entirely concur with him in repudiating the very unwise accusations which are often made against the Russian Government and Emperor. I entirely concur with him in thinking that the Russian Government is very much like other Governments, and that when you know the motives which actuate most human beings in their position you probably know their motives also. I daresay there have been unscrupulous advisors in Russia—there have been unscrupulous advisers in all countries; but I certainly must express my opinion— and I do so in the full consciousness that it may draw upon myself some of the censure to which the noble Duke referred—that during the Conference at Constantinople the Emperor Alexander himself was actuated by a sincere, an anxious, an almost tormenting desire for peace, and that he accepted conditions which, from his point of view, I should have thought would have been the very extreme conditions that an autocrat could have accepted under the peculiar circumstances of the case, and considering the strong religious and race feelings around him. When the Conference had passed away the antipathies of race and the antagonism of creed were aroused, and they will drive all

  57
  Governments, and an autocratic Government quicker than others, with a force which no individual can resist. I have felt it my duty to say this, not only because I acquiesce in all that has been said about the motives of the Russian Government, but also in order to indicate that when we ask Parliament to give us the power of taking precautions in case our interests are threatened, we are not doing so because we despair of peace. On the contrary, we hope that the humane instincts and the high prudence of the Emperor of Russia will overcome influences by which he is undoubtedly surrounded, and that an honourable peace may put a stop to this terrible and desolating war. It is not in any spirit of despair of peace that we shall ask you, if occasion arise, to help us to take necessary precautions. I am not going to follow the noble Duke into a discussion of each individual interest, or to define more narrowly than we have done already the precise circumstances upon which those interests depend. The noble Duke knows as well as I do that I should be departing from my duty if I did so. But we feel that the best intentions and the most powerful will have not always been able to control the caprice of armies in the flush of victory. The noble Lords opposite know that in Central Asia some four years ago the Imperial will was not only powerless to prevent, but powerless to retract, a step which the Imperial Ambassador had undertaken to avoid. Look again at our own history. We know the story about Nelson preferring to put the telescope to his blind eye; and there may be—and I do not doubt that there are—Nelsons in courage, and in wilfulness, too, in the Russian Army. Into these matters, however, I do not wish to enter more closely. I do not wish to examine what are exactly the circumstances under which the interests which have been defined will be threatened; but I know that the wave of war is approaching closely to the localities with which those interests are connected, and before the Parliament of England lies this alternative—If it does not trust the present Government, let it provide itself with a Government which it does trust; but if it does trust the present Government, let it confide to it the proper means for efficiently performing the great duty which its confidence has imposed upon it.
  Address agreed to, nemine dissentiente, and ordered to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

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